I have been working on this article on and off for the past 2.5 years. It has been Peer Reviewed, achieved GA Status, and just passed an A-Class Review. I pulled its previous previous FAC nomination over sourcing concerns, so that's probably where you should dig for issues. My ultimate goal is to have this ready for Main Page status for the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq War next spring, so no rush. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Caption for first body map needs editing for grammar, as does the MRAP image
Does not, so I've removed all listed images. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:115th_Military_Police_Company_in_Fallujah.jpg should use Army tag rather than general Government one; same with File:115th_MP_Company_doing_a_vehicle_search_in_Fallujah.jpg
"allegedly crucified": This is not the kind of thing you want to allege without giving some explanation in the text of how believable it is, where the information comes from.
It's legit, US military via an ACLU FOIA request, but the link has been pulled so I just removed the whole bit. Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. To be clear, I wasn't saying it wasn't legit. We've had some very tough judgment calls over the years with how much specific advice to put in WP:WTW, specifically the WP:ALLEGED section. There's not a lot there now; I'd prefer that we add something like: "If you're alleging wrongdoing, put something in the text that gives the readers a clue what kind of weight they should assign to the allegation, and the more heinous the allegation, the more in-text justification it needs. If the necessary justification feels like too much of a distraction from the main points of the narrative, consider removing the allegation just as a matter of promoting tight and focused writing, even when our WP:Biographies of living persons policy and other policies would allow it." - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, nope on the PDFs, you missed three in the book section. The insurgent photos aren't there now so that's a non issue. Fix the PDFs and I'll support.PumpkinSkytalk
I must be blind, but I can't see them. Which ones? Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this during the Milhist A-class review. There have been a few changes since then. I have reviewed these changes and I am happy that the article meets the Featured Article criteria. I have the following minor observations:
whitespace/table of contents: you might consider reducing the whitespace between the lead and the body of the article by employing {{TOC limit}} which can be set at different levels depending upon your preference. This is not mandatory, though;
endashes: "At the end of the invasion, the pro-Saddam forces in Anbar–the Ba'ath Party, the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen Saddam, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service–remained intact". I think these endashes should be spaced or they should be unspaced emdashes (you seem to later use spaced endashes in the Withdrawal section, so it would probably be best to be consistent);
slight repetition: " Four Rangers were awarded the Silver Star for the action.[19][20] Four Rangers were killed when their checkpoint..." (both sentences start the same way. Can this be reworded slightly?)
"American media compared the attack on the mercenaries to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu..." Should this be "The American media compared the attack on the mercenaries to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu..."?
in the Human rights abuses section, this seems a little unclear: " During their yearlong stay in Hīt, they watched AQI fighters kidnap a man for talking back to them; they later dumped the man's body on his doorstep." (The second "they" is the issue. First you have used "they" to apply to the family, then you have used "they" to apply to the AQI);
contractions: in a couple of places contractions are used in the prose. In the quotes they are fine, but I think where they are not in quotes, it is probably best to avoid them (for instance in the Insurgent abuses and Reactions sections). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
additional (sorry I missed this before): the duplicate link checker reports a number of examples of potential overlink. Some of them may be okay, but others should probably be delinked. Some examples include: Shia Islam, Haditha Dam, Coalition Provisional Authority, Euphrates, Donald Rumsfeld, James T. Conway, James Mattis, United States Central Command, John Abizaid, Vietnam War, 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, 2nd Battalion 1st Marines, Iraqi Interim Government, Rocket-propelled grenade, Navy Cross, Medal of Honor, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks: The spotcheck the first go-round turned up some problems. I've asked for a spotcheck at WT:MIL#FAC update. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Article: Within several months of the invasion the province had become a sanctuary for anti-occupation fighters.[13]
Source: Server timeout
Article: By October, insurgent attacks had dropped to almost zero.[299]
Source: The Iraqis and Marines repulsed a 20-minute attack on the post in October but that's largely been it.
Article: On 5 November, the 2nd Marine Regiment launched Operation Steel Curtain against the border town of Husaybah.[196]
Source: The fighting opened a new phase in Operation Steel Curtain, an offensive that began Nov. 5 in the border town of Husaybah, about 200 miles west of Baghdad.
Article: The Marines claimed that the houses had been "declared hostile" and that training dictated "that all individuals in a hostile house are to be shot."[212]
Source: "I fired because I had been told the house was hostile and I was following my training that all individuals in a hostile house are to be shot," Mendoza told investigators.
Article: In addition to the five Iraqi men killed by the sedan, nineteen other men, women, and children were killed by Wutterich's squad as they cleared the houses.[213]
Source: In search of the bombers, Marines killed five young men yanked from a car near the explosion and then killed 19 family members in three nearby houses...Among the 19 killed in the houses were three women, seven children and a 76-year-old man confined to a wheelchair.
Article: MEF then began a series of operations in July, under the aegis of Operation Sayeed; in addition to clearing AQI from the western Euphrates, Sayeed was also an attempt to set the conditions for the Anbaris to participate in the December constitutional referendum, as well as regain control of the Iraqi borders.[199]
Source: In this interview, he discusses rebuilding the Iraqi security forces in al-Anbar Province and 11 named operationsconducted under the umbrella of Operation Sayeed. [ese operations were aimed at driving al-Qaeda from the western Euphrates River Valley, ensuring that people were allowed to vote in the October 2005 referendum elections, and restoring the control of the border to the Iraqi government...There were 11 named operations under the Sayeed umbrella.Those operations stretched from July of 2005 until just after the December ’05 elections.The purpose of those operations was to drive al-Qaeda from the western Euphrates River Valley and to eliminate that as a place where they could operate freely
Article: Shortly before the Marine offensive began, Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, chairman of the pro-insurgent Association of Muslim Scholars, said that "the Iraqi people view Fallujah as the symbol of their steadfastness, resistance and pride."[84]
Source: The leader of Iraq's hard-line Sunni clergy, Sheik Harith Dhari, retorted that an attack would prompt a Sunni boycott of elections scheduled for January... "The Iraqi people view Fallouja as the symbol of their steadfastness, resistance and pride," Dhari said.
I can't see where it says that he was the chairman of the pro-insurgent Association of Muslim Scholars.
Wait, so the last bit about Dhari is your only issue, or all the ones listed above? Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can speak for Graham and confirm, yes, just the last point is at issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about my minimalism – just the last point needs to addressed please. Graham Colm (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This bbc article has him as the leader of the association - [2] if that helps...Fayedizard (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could add this as a source after "chairman of the pro-insurgent Association of Muslim Scholars" and perhaps change "chairman" to "leader". Graham Colm (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're still waiting on this last point to be actioned. Also it's generally preferred to have citation numbers in ascending order, i.e. 84 before 132. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there's no reason to order them otherwise (major vs minor source, sources supporting different parts of a sentence, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow on "supporting different parts" ... so, if the refs are [5][1], that might mean that 5 supports the first part of the sentence and 1 supports the second part? - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. (You could use a mid-sentence ref instead, but some prefer not to do that). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this last point has hopefully been addressed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - The one issue following the spotchecking still needs to be addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Should be fixed now. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - As was pointed out above by Rupert 20 days ago, there are numerous duplicated links. Most terms should only be linked once (excluding the Lead). Please check for these, they include:
Shia, Haditha Dam, CPA, Euphrates, Donald Rumsfeld, General James T. Conway, Operation Vigilant Resolve, James Mattis, CENTCOM , John Abizaid, 2nd Battalion 1st Marines, Vietnam War, 2nd Battalion 4th Marines , Iraqi Interim Government, Muqtada al-Sadr, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, RPGs, Navy Cross, Medal of Honor, United States Naval Institute's, Proceedings, 1st Battalion 3rd Marines, 2nd Marine Regiment, Central Command , Rawah, cordon and search, Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, 2nd Battalion 7th Marines , 3rd Battalion 1st Marines, Multi-National Force – Iraq, Multi-National Force – Iraq, sheikh, 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd Battalion 4th Marines, 2nd Battalion 3rd Marines, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit , Karmah, Habbaniyah, Fasal al Gaood, Humvees, Secretary of Defense , Department of Defense, Al Asad Airbase, David Petraeus, Multi-National Force – Iraq, Sheikh Sattar, George W. Bush, Ayyub al-Masri , Rawa, Karbala Governorate, Multi-National Forces West, 1st Armored Division, Operation Steel Curtain, disproportionate use of firepower, Al Qaim, Thar Thar , Human Rights Watch, Kim Sun-il, Lake Tharthar, Ahmed Abu Risha, Haditha killings
Graham Colm (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I think. Only one left according to the tool "Lake Tharthar" and that is probably fine given that it is a piped link earlier. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query that may have been addressed previously: in the info box, the list of "belligerents" shows a US flag, above the "Multinational Forces West". The list for "strength" shows not a US flag but the MNFW logo. Then under "casualties and losses" we have the US, Republic of Iraq and, for the first time, the United Kingdom. If the multinational forces west is truly multinational, why is it listed under the US flag; whatever the flag is, why is it not consistent between categories? The MNF appears a curious beast, so I can understand the confusion; I'm just not entirely happy with the current solution. Our WP article on the MNF-Iraq describes it as being led by "the United States of America and its allies". The WP article on MNF-West at one point refers to it as a US unit. I realise we can't sort all those issues out under the guise of this FAC, but it would be good if the infobox was somehow more consistent. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short, in Anbar Province the "Multinational" consisted of a unit of Azerbaijanis who pulled security at Haditha Dam. Those three UK soldiers were part of a unit brought in during the Second Battle of Fallujah, officially to secure part of the highway outside the city, but in reality to prevent Britain from criticizing the operation. This was a one-time deal, and every search I've conducted has shown that the MNF in Anbar was overwhelmingly American. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes -- A few more style/formatting points:
In the Film/Television ref subheader, "Television" shouldn't be capitalised.
When using the cite video template, don't include the url parameter if you're linking the title.
Also in cite video, I believe you use "Motion picture" as a type, not "Cinema". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Learie Constantine was a Trinidadian cricketer, barrister, politician and a life-long opponent of racial discrimination. He began life as a cricketer, seeing the sport as a way of escaping his poor quality of life in Trinidad, where his colour meant he could not advance himself. He used his sporting career as a launching pad. He moved to England, becoming the highest paid sportsman in the country, and settled there. Following the war, he studied law, qualified as a barrister and moved back to Trinidad where he became a politician around the time of the island's independence. He spent his final years living back in England, where he remained very popular. Not your usual cricketer or sportsman, Constantine fitted more than most into his life. I've been working on this for a while, and it is currently a GA. Following the PR, Brianboulton kindly tidied my prose and removed much of the padding, and his help has been invaluable, as always. Although he is a co-nom, any errors are mine. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; only had time to read some of it but it read well (and interesting). Two things though; I don't feel "Also in 1950, he became involved ... Liberal parliamentary candidate." leaves the reader with a good idea of what happened and what the consequences where for Constantine. Also "five guineas (just over £5)": five guineas is of course £5 5s. The "just over" part, while correct, feels like we're giving a modern equivalent, but we aren't because the figure isn't adjusted for inflation or anything; it's a bit confusing. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, there was a little more previously, but I don't think that this incident has enough importance for Constantine to warrant giving too much detail beyond what is already here. And the part on Attlee and the Liberal candidate are really nothing more than a reflection on Constantine's disenchantment with the Labour government. If others think that this is too brief, I can add a little more. The second point is a little trickier as I really don't like using inflation figures as they cause no end of trouble! I think the simplest way may be to remove "just over £5" for the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Alright, I'm reading through the article, about 3/5 of the way done now. It seems to be in great shape, even as someone with only a basic understanding of Cricket I've found it accessible. Definitely well written, a few small comments though, mostly comma-related:
"He displayed little enthusiasm for learning and never reached a high academic standard,[11] but showed prowess at several sports, and was respected for his cricketing lineage." Do we need the second comma here?
"His father prohibited him from playing competitive club cricket until 1920, for fear of premature exposure to top-class opposition while too young" I'm also not sure about the comma here.
"Few black Trinidadians at this time became solicitors and he faced many social restrictions owing to his colour." I think there should be a comma after "solicitors", right?
"C. L. R. James believed that Constantine batting reached its peak once" Should be "Constantine's batting" I believe.
In the heading "Test series against England in 1933 and 1934–5" I think the MOS calls for "1934–35", not 100% sure though.
"the England captain Douglas Jardine, who had implemented the Bodyline tactics in Australia" This may be an issue of US vs. UK English, but "the England captain" sounds odd to me, is this ok?
It sounds OK to me, but it may be cricket-speak, so I've re-worded it. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Although he produced better figures in subsequent seasons he considered his first season at Nelson the most enjoyable of his life" I'd suggest a comma after "seasons", also, is there a good way round the "seasons... season" here?
"Constantine scored a century in 52 minutes against Tasmania, played five other innings over fifty, and took three five-wicket returns." Is the use of the serial comma intentional here? I also noticed it later "Nelson never finished lower than second, won the league competition seven times, and the knockout cup twice."
"Consequently, he and his family enjoyed a good standard of living for the first time in their lives." Can we remove "in their lives" here?
I actually think it may be necessary to emphasise that it was not just for the first time in England/Nelson/elsewhere but was the first time they were in a good financial situation. However, it is mainly a style choice and I can remove it if it is a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the date comma in a couple places: "In 1933, he took 96 wickets" & " In 1934, Neville Cardus described Constantine as a "genius"" I think that's usually avoided in British English.
Ok, that's all for now, will try to post more later. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review so far. All comments addressed unless answered above. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fixes and explanations look good, I made a few minor tweaks. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several sentences in the second paragraph of "Final years" start with "In [year]", might want to rephrase one or two.
Ouch! I think I got these. Any better? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"only one speech in his time in the Lords." Just checking, but is "in the Lords" a common phrase? (It sounds odd to me, but I presume it's a US vs UK thing). Mark Arsten (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's short-hand for "in the House of Lords", and is fairly common. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, good to know. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, bearing in mind that "Lord's" is England's main cricket ground, I think there is a real possibility of confusion for the unaware reader. So I've tweaked it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"at Trinity College, Dublin in 1946" Should there be a comma after Dublin here?
One last US vs UK question: "He used his influence with the Ministry of Labour to pressurise companies who refused to employ West Indians" Is pressurise (vs pressure) correct here?
Yes; pressure would work as well, but I believe pressurise is more correct over here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work guys. As I said above, this is a very well written, accessible article. Sorry it took me so long to do the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, your comments are always extremely valuable. Thanks for the review and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check. All images appear to be appropriately licensed (mainly they are out-of-copyright images under Aust. Law), and have alt text. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you to Brianb for addressing my initial queries. I have two other quibbles about consistency of terms below, but nothing of consequence. I enjoyed reading this; to my shame I had never heard of Constantine (though my cricket afficianado brother-in-law has set me straight), and am the richer for having learned about him. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"toured England with the West Indies teams in their 1923 and 1928 tours of England." Clumsy wording with toured/tours and England twice in one phrase. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Constantine played cricket for Shannon Cricket Club, first in 1916 before his father ended his competitive cricket," the sentence seems clumsy, in part because of the use of "his" twice in one phrase (reads as though the father ended the son's career), but also seems to imply, without being clear, that the father played at Shannon. If so, be explicit; if not, then why run these two facts together (the club where he started play; the timing of father's career)? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased for clarity in both instances. Brianboulton (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About half the time, there are references in text to C.L.R. James; about the other half it is just "James". Unless more than one james is referred to in the article, I would only use those initials in the first, wikilinked, instance and drop them thereafter. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the repeated James initials, except in the "Nelson" section where the name appears after a lengthy gap, and the prompt via the initials may be useful to readers. Brianboulton (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can an editor take a careful look at the way in which the West Indies team name is expressed and punctuated. I was about to make some fixes, but have decided to leave it to the article's main editors. I am used to the team being referred to as "the West Indies" rather than "West Indies". In one section there is also this: "In West Indies second innings", and I wonder whether there should be a possessive apostrophe there (cf. "In Australia's second innings"). hamiltonstone (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, that "the West Indies" is formally preferable to just "West Indies", and have made the necessary adjustments to the text. I also adjusted the possessive apostrophe that you suggested. I am only the junior editor here, but thank you for your comments and support for which I am sure the main man will be duly grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Brian said, much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
All-rounder should be hyphenated in the infobox
Ref 86 is pp.
Ref 171's date is not stated. I'm guessing because the website has had a revamp since it was cited. Perhaps use the date in the article, like you did with Ref 108. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First two done. The last one is a little strange; as you say, the date is not given in the article, but this page gives the date stated in the ref. I think it's better to keep it as it is, based on that, but I can change it if there is a big problem; however, I think you are suggesting that the date 1943 be used, as in the other ref, but this was certainly not the date the article was written. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Ref 171 uses 1943 as the date I think, but no need to change if you don't feel like doing so – it doesn't really affect my decision to support a generally enjoyable read. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I've read through Series against England and Australia, and will go further if time permits. Most of what I saw looked solid, as usual.
A link to Nelson Cricket Club would be helpful for the lead.
Early life: "he also wanted his son first to establish a professional career." Shouldn't "first" be moved to later in the sentence? It might fit best at the end.
Cricket in Trinidad: "he returned to club in 1920." "the" might be helpful in this, after "to". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC
Test series against England in 1933 and 1934–35: "was instrumental in turning English attitudes against Bodyline, an attitude Constantine considered hypocritical." Maybe it's just me, but I think having "attitudes" and "attitude" together like this makes the sentence awkward.
No need to capitalize the second word of "In The West Indies' second innings...".
Typo in "Most critics believed the West Indes underachieved in the Test series".
Tour of England in 1939: Period needed after Wisden's Cricketers of the Year.
Style and technique: "believed that Constantine's batting reached its peak...". Missing a word at the start.
Constantine v Imperial London Hotels: This may be a stupid question, but is "manageress" a word? I haven't heard of such a word here in the U.S., though I have a feeling it may be a British English word for a female manager. We just call them managers here.
Return to Trinidad: Hyphen shouldn't be in "newly-founded".
Is a word missing at the end of "was party chairman and a member of its executive."?
High Commissioner: "Howat observes that the evidence that he was a successful in the post...". "successful" → "success". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the above fixes made. I can assure you that in the UK "manageress" is an acceptable term for female managers, used particularly in relation to shops, hotels etc. Thanks for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Note: I think an edit conflict with conom may have affected some of my changes, but I'll let him have the final say. Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have clashed here! I think I got all of these, apart from manageress, as Brian says above, and I'm not too sure about the "newly-founded". I'll check with Brian on that one, but all others done. Thanks again. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just a minor wonder, we say he was knighted but there is no mention of what rank he was in either the lede, infobox, or later section. This is a very interesting article. Congrats! -- CassiantoTalk 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a short disquisition on British knighthoods, on the article's talkpage. Basically, the knighthood is the rank, and it is not usually necessary to go beyond saying that a person was knighted. Thank you for your comment and support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- minor point re. Sources, I'd have thought for consistency that the full title of Frith should be in title case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the Frith book is presented in the Sources list as it is on the book itself. It is arguable whether the long subtitle should really be considered as part of the title, but I see no harm, and it does give a useful indication of what the book is about. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, and I agree subtitles are often useful, I just happen to think title case for every title looks better -- however rechecking MOS I see that it's fairly open-ended, only requiring that one override the style of a title if it appears in all caps, rather than specifically requiring a change to title case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review Looks like all high-quality sources. Not being terribly acquainted with the subject matter, I did look closely at CricketArchive, especially since it would not load (perhaps it is down). However, I see it is relied on in YellowMonkey's lengthy set of articles. I will assume the problem loading to be a momentary glitch. No other concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because after listing as a Good Article, a Peer Review followed by an expansion after I bought a new source. I believe we now have an article that is comprehensive enough for featured article status. This is my first FAC, but I need to thank User:DavidCane for the expansion at the beginning of the article. Edgepedia (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment—the population figures (currently footnote 1) are ridiculously overprecise - the site from which you've taken them has an explanatory footnote explaining why the methodology is unavoidably flawed. ("Greater London" is based on boundaries drawn up in the 1960s, so the figures that site generates are based on the populations of those counties from which GL was carved, and rough estimates of how those populations were distributed across the post-1965 boundaries. "Between 1801 and 1851 the population of what is now Greater London roughly doubled from around 1 million to around 2 million" is about as accurate as you can realistically go. Bear in mind that even if you did have an accurate figure it would be virtually meaningless, since even today Greater London is an arbitrary boundary which includes towns and villages that would never consider themselves part of London, while excluding significant parts of the conurbation such as Cheshunt. – iridescent 22:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an amendment [5] along the lines you suggested. Edgepedia (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Images
Captions ending with incomplete sentences should not end with full stops. Correct complete sentences have to. (MOS:Image)
Generally the images look good and pretty informative, well picked.
Some of the maps use rather weak color contrasts (especially the joint line with 5 different types of lines). Could the contrast and/or brightness be increased a bit (more like the Great Central Railway)? Or maybe i just need a new pair of glasses.
Some of the images, especially some maps use rather vague "author" descriptions like "Wikimedia editors" or "see edit log". I am no image guru, but when the original author(s) is known, they should be specifically named in my opinion.
A matter of taste and linking style, but important terms in captions could be linked aswell - optional. GermanJoe (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and I will work through the images. Regarding the "author" field, I would upload an image and this would be edited by other people (I think all of the maps have been), but the author field would not be updated. However, I will update the documentation as I work through them. Edgepedia (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through and changed the map line colours to contrasting ones; I've documented the author field on these drawings as well. Thanks for fixing the caption issue when I was being dense last night. I'm not see any additional linking I can do in the captions - I believe this could be overlinking? I know that items are linked in infoboxes and text, but not sure about captions and text. Edgepedia (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a grey area, so i think, either way is ok. GermanJoe (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether explanatory notes are cited using footnotes or inline
You mean Ref 173 where I think I'm referring to a primary source. Or can you give an example?
FN32: page(s)?
This is a folded map; there are no pages
Don't italicize publishers
I'm now using consistantly
{{cite web|work = website
{{cite news|newspaper = newspaper
{{cite press release|publisher = publisher
(or did you mean a book?)
"Vintage Carriages Trust" or "Vintage Carriage Trust"? Is this a publisher or a work? Be consistent in whether it's italicized or not
Vintage Carriages Trust, see above for use of cite templates
Be consistent in whether you include publisher location for books
Done.
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Done. Found one
Publisher for Walford?
Done. On-line publisher
Further reading should be separate section not subsection.
I've removed it. The best book in my opinion is Jackson, unless you wish for more information on rolling stock, in which case one of the rolling stock books (eg Benest) will have more detail. However these are mentioned.
Comments I have to confess that I haven't read all of this very large article, but on the basis of reading about half of it, it looks pretty good. I have the following comments and suggestions:
As a general comment, if this nomination is successful that article would become the largest FA in terms of prose size, and will be about 20KB larger than the next-biggest FA! I'm responsible for developing two out of the current top-15 largest FAs, so I can't really complain about this. I'm also a bit of a London Underground-nerd, so I don't mind he detail. However, comments from editors who aren't Underground nerds on the article's length would probably be very useful, and there may be a case to be made for splitting some of the more detailed content off into sub-articles.
Yes it's big, but I don't think it's as big as you say. The list above currently lists Michael Jackson as the 10th biggest article. The article size (from the edit history) is 225,474 bytes, this article (currently) is 118,195. I can't get Dr pda's script to work, but selecting the prose in the article, copying and pasting without format into a word processor gives a word count of 15,166 words, 94,651 characters for Micheal Jackson from the start to Discography; this article from the start to References and Notes gives 12,748 words, 78,256 characters. Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK; using the 'page size' tool, this article weighs in at 70Kb of readable prose while the Michael Jackson article is 85Kb (and my whopper, Air raids on Japan, is larger still at 89kb). Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's first sentence should cover the entire scope of the article and the first paragraph should summarize the entire content of the article - please see WP:MOSBEGIN. Given the length of the article, I'd suggest adding an entirely new introductory para.
I'd suggest fleshing the first para out a bit more so it's a summary of the entire article, but that does the job. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence in the 'Establishment' section needs a reference
Just above Construction I'm seeing ...and construction could begin.[17] Do you mean somewhere else? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence which starts with "By 1850 there were seven railway termini located..." Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A Bill was announced in November 1852,[9] and in January 1853 it held its first directors' meeting and appointed John Fowler as its engineer." - read literally, this means that the Bill held a directors meeting and appointed an engineer. 'Bill' doesn't need to be capitalised.
I've rephrased this, correcting the grammar. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"After a successful lobbying operation, the company secured parliamentary approval under the name of the "North Metropolitan Railway" in the summer of 1853" - if a bill for the railway had been announced in January, why were they still seeking approval in the summer?
A bill is not approval; it is the application for approval. Once the bill has passed through both Houses and has received Royal Assent, it then becomes an Act of Parliament, and only at that point can the scheme be considered as approved. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that it's the 'was announced' bit which threw me. I'd suggest tweaking that wording as it's a bit unclear what this means. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"an Act" - also shouldn't be capitalised
Although bill shouldn't be capitalised, it's normal to capitalise Act. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All now say 'bill' except when part of a name. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the convention in the UK, OK then. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and fears that the tunnelling might accidentally break through into Hell" - surely WP:UNDUE either rules this loony viewpoint out, or means that the coverage should make it clear that it was considered nuts.
I've removed this. History is not kind to losers, I assume the quote is taken out of context. EdgepediaEdgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What was a "traditionally excavated tunnel"?
Lost this and the "conventionally constructed" later. Jackson gives few details how they were dug. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It had stations at:" - there's no need for the stations to then be in dot points, and this isn't consistent with the rest of the article
The last sentence in the 'Baker Street to Harrow' section needs a reference
I'm looking at and a school for 200 children.[98][note 24] Should I be looking somewhere else? EdgepediaEdgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant the last sentence of this section's first para (which begins with "There were intermediate stations at St John's Wood Road and Marlborough Road...") Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of steam underground led to smoke-filled stations and carriages that were unpopular with passengers" - this should probably be noted much earlier in the article
There is a whole chapter on this Jackson. Working on a very short summary Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's wasn't an entire chapter, but hopefully made things clearer with this edit. Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the track through the tunnels from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained single track in each direction" - this reads slightly awkwardly
Changed to However, underground line from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained double track, causing a bottleneck.Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "press notice"?
Changed to press release. It is still used, but its not in my dictionary. EdgepediaEdgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains a bit of over-linking (for instance, City Widened Lines and World War I are linked several times)
Delinked these two and found some more. Is there a script to find them? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, though my knowledge of automated tools is rather lacking. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Other important traffics" - 'traffics' is awkward. How about 'other important cargo' or similar?
More material on the Met's finances would be interesting; it seems amazing that this company was able to build a massive underground railway system across London (especially a pioneering system which involved lots of projects which didn't really work out), especially in the context of the relatively slow pace of the Underground system's expansion since World War II. If the data are available, a graph of the Met's financial performance over time would be great. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more info in Jackson. I will add this last Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Nick-D. I believe I have attempted to admend the article or answered all your questions. Please let me know if I have misunderstood, something is not clear or you spot something else. Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments have now been addressed; great work with this highly detailed article. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Away Please note I will be away with no access to the internet from Saturday 11 August to Friday 17 August. Edgepedia (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - looking good. I will jot queries below...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following Monday, 3 July 1871, Mansion House opened and the District and began running its own trains - grammar...? Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the superfluous 'and' Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I've also edited text near here following the discussion linked above. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extension to a terminus at Aldgate exposed several hundred cartloads of bullock horns before the station opened on 18 November 1876, initially for a shuttle service to Bishopsgate before all Met and District trains worked through from 4 December - what, were they buried....or what?
The sentence in Jackson is A thick stratum of bullocks' horns was encountered at one point, 20ft below the surface, a ready sale being found for the several hundred cartloads removed. I'll rephrase the sentence. Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence has been rephrased [7]. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise looking fine from prose and comprehensiveness. a nice read Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"It reached Hammersmith in 1864, Richmond in 1877 and completed the Inner Circle in 1884, but the most important route became the line north into the Middlesex countryside where it stimulated the development of new suburbs." Just a trivial thing, but you might consider: "It reached Hammersmith in 1864, Richmond in 1877, and completed the Inner Circle in 1884; but the most important route became the line north into the Middlesex countryside, where it stimulated the development of new suburbs." Last comma you really need. I'd prefer "more than" to "over" in the second para.
"the London area the Met"—Consider a comma.
I've been won over to the serial comma by User:Noetica; but it is optional. Here, though: "Piccadilly and Jubilee lines and by Chiltern Railways", a comma after "lines" is required by logic. The serial comma would go after "Piccadilly" if you wanted to go that way consistently.
I've added three commas to the lead and agree that 'more than' is better than 'over' Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty well-written, but I've examined only the lead properly. I remember complaining about tiny text on the schematics, and the problem is still there. "1873, for example ... why can't the text be boosted by, say, 50%, and/or the image made 550px centred. "City Widened" is just too small overall. Tony(talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have my default image size set to 300px; it looks like I've left the image sizes as the default thumb. I'll take a look at this. Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. I've been unable to locate your earlier comments but I believe a large part of the problem is the small default thumb size for images that was making the maps illegible so I've fixed these at 300px. I've enlarged the text on the 1873 map as suggested. It looks like I need to nudge a couple of labels and this should be done. (Done) Would be interested in your comments. Edgepedia (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments; I've just returned and plan to have a response for you in the next couple of days. Edgepedia (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have responded to all comments. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Johnbod Phew! Very thorough job. Comparing the sources to the bibliography/further reading in Wolmar's The Subterranean Railway the coverage seems pretty good, though stronger on the anoraks than the academics. Reads well. My only cavil is the absence of Metroland (novel) by Julian Barnes and then Metroland (1997 film) of it. The novel has evocative passages on the line that could be quoted to advantage - Betjeman too. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments Johnbod. I think I didn't include the book and film because Jackson (1986) didn't mention them and the articles on the book and film have no references. However, I now see the book won the Somerset Maugham Award in 1981. I will consider adding a sentence to the Legacy section in the next 24 hours. I see if I can find the book in the library when I visit later this week; the amazon pre-view has nothing about Metro-land we could use. Edgepedia (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? I'll check the library for a copy of the book later this week. Edgepedia (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barnes's novel is set in the late 1960s, by which time the Metropolitan Railway hadn't existed for over 30 years. (The book is autobiographical, and Barnes was born 13 years after the MR was absorbed by London Transport.) It's no more appropriate in this article than a mention of Sex and the City on New Amsterdam. I'd strongly oppose any references to it; if it's included, than any other book set in Harrow, Pinner or Aylesbury that mentions the Tube has an equally legitimate reason to be included, and we're well on the way to a sprawling "in popular culture" section.
There are issues with drawing too heavily on Betjeman. Metro-land is very much a tour-guide to the north-west London suburbs in the early 1970s with the railways as a unifying theme, rather than a documentary about railways; it doesn't discriminate between the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan Line (except regarding the Verney Junction and Brill branches, which closed post-nationalisation so can safely be assumed as referring to the MR rather than the ML), or between the competing railway networks that served the area. (Betjeman's most famous railway reference—the section from Middlesex that begins Gaily into Ruislip Gardens runs the red electric train—is actually about the Met's bitter competitor, UERL.) – iridescent 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's added is fine. I take your point about the dates etc, but a few lines on the afterlife of Metroland as a concept and reality is surely in scope? We have nothing like that down on the District Line sadly. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, I think what Johnbod is saying is that the concept of Metro-land lived on after the Metropolitan Railway had ceased to exist, and the meaning of the term may have changed. Julian Barnes' book and film has a sub-section in the Metro-land article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only issue dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes
I can't see a citation to the Stephen Halliday (2001) ref.
I've removed the book from the list. Edgepedia (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edge, I think this is your first FAC? In that case we'll need a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes this is my first FAC. User:DavidCane (author of several FAs) expanded the first two or three sub-sections some time ago. If it's my work you wish to check please look at the article after the Paddington to the City, 1853–63 section. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the 11 refs to "Wolmar, 2004" & made a couple of changes as a result - [8]. As our article notes: "Farringdon is a historic area of the City of London, represented today by the Wards of Farringdon Within and Farringdon Without. Farringdon is also used informally to refer to the area around Farringdon Station in the London Borough of Islington, some distance north of the historic locality" ie the Farringdon Road, where Wolmar locates the land, goes to not through Farringdon - or certainly did then. The other passage seems mainly concerned with undermining rather than vibration. At note 27 the Wolmar page cited does not give the total figure of £1.3M, but only mentions an extra £300,000. However the initial estimate of £1m - mentioned in the article earlier & cited to someone else - appears earlier in Wolmar. Some refs are combined with other works I don't have - eg Wolmar doesn't give the day (as opposed to the month) of the first VIP ride, but Jackson no doubt does. All ok I think. Myself I would have rolled some of these together and cited longer page ranges. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I don't have a copy of Wolmar to hand. I agree with the first change - xxx Road is the road to xxx. Jackson talks about the slums in the Fleet Valley and mentions everything except the £179,000 land purchase (although calling it favourable terms). However the date of the first VIP trip lead to some frantic page turning! Jackson and Simpson don't mention the date of the first VIP trip. I've therefore removed Simpson as a source on this line, together with the day of the trip. Sorry about that.
Johnbod, the idea of giving each sentence its own reference was to ensure things didn't get lost in copyedits and restructuring, which I think may have happened above. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the VIP trip is given of page 13 of Day & Reed as 24 May 1862.--DavidCane (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we awaiting a response or action on this point? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On whether the article says in May 1862 or on 24 May 1862 I'm neutral. On the question of a spotcheck for accuracy and paraphasing are you happy or are further checks needed? If access to sources is an issue I could email scans of a few pages of say Jackson tomorrow. (Jackson would be easier to scan than Horne as it's a hardback book.) Edgepedia (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - Are some of the book titles not complete? For example, "Steam to Silver: A History of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock" and "The Golden Years of the Metropolitan Railway and the Metro-land Dream". I noticed this when attempting additional spotchecks (which have not been possible using Google). Could the nominator fix this, and any others. Would the nominators be able to email me a scan of Jackson, Alan (1986). London's Metropolitan Railway, pp. 185–186, and Green, Oliver (1987). The London Underground — An illustrated history p. 44 to complete a few more checks? Graham Colm (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham Colm, I've done research on the book titles. I've corrected some, however the ones you mention Steam to Silver has different titles on amazon.co.uk and goggle.com and Edwards and Pigram amazon.co.uk, google. I've used the titles on the spine; is there an official way of determining the title? Edgepedia (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
erm..not that I know of. I am happy that you have checked. I don't think this is a big deal. Graham Colm (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly one should use what it says on the title page, but not using their capitalization if it's all bold, & often igoring long sub-titles, especially on old books. That & checking how big library catalogues handle it. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I have both the first edition of 1970 and the "fully revised edition" of 1983. Both merely show "Steam to Silver" on the spine, but both have a subtitle in smaller type on the front cover and the title page, and there are three versions of this:
1970 Front cover "An illustrated history of London Transport surface railway rolling stock"
1970 Title page "An illustrated history of London Transport railway surface rolling stock"
1983 Front cover and title page "A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock"
Personally I ignore spine titles, and if there is a discrepancy between front cover and title page (as with the 1970 edition here), I go with the title page. That yields either "Steam to Silver: An Illustrated History of London Transport Railway Surface Rolling Stock" or "Steam to Silver: A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock", depending upon edition. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the title pages of my editions of these two books I've updated the article to use the long form of the names. Edgepedia (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Article: However, the underground line from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained double track, causing a bottleneck.[157]
Source: Selbie was proposing a new Metropolitan tube line to relieve the serious bottleneck caused by having only one track in each direction through the tunnel section between Baker Street and Fincheley Road, but this did not materialise in his lifetime...designed by the Met's architect Charles W. Clark, who was also responsible for the design of a number of station reconstructions in outer "Metro-land" at this time.[157]
Article:..designed by the Met's architect Charles W. Clark, who was also responsible for the design of a number of station reconstructions in outer "Metro-land" at this time.[157]
Source: A number of new stations were modernised, with partial or complete reconstruction of the buildings, and new stations were opened in the outer 'Metroland' area. The new structured were all designed by the Metropolitan's own architect, Charles W. Clark....
Article: and on 5 January 1925 electric services reached Rickmansworth, allowing the locomotive change over point to be moved.[157]
Source: A major improvement in this period was the extension of main line electrification north of Harrow to Rickmansworth on 5 January 1925.
Article: The Hammersmith and City service stopped running to Richmond over the tracks of the L&SWR on 31 December 1906, although GWR steam motor cars ran from Ladbroke Grove to Richmond until 31 December 1910.[147]
Source: The other service using the Hammersmith & City line...was withdrawn after traffic on 31 December 1906. In its place a GWR steam rail motor worked every half hour between Notting Hilll & Ladbrooke Grove..this too was withdrawn after close of traffic on 31 December 1910.
There are no issues. And my thanks to the nominator for their cooperation in sending me PDFs of the pages I requested for checking. Graham Colm (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
All the images, most of which are PD UK (because of their age), have appropriate licences. Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Graham and Johnbod for spotchecks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
We are nominating this for featured article because this article has successfully undergone GAN, MILHIST A-Class and a peer review in the last couple of months, and we believe it now meets the FA criteria. We are available to respond to and address all positive criticism and objections as required. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Pavle_Durisic.jpg needs a non-Wikipedia source, and some evidence of copyright checking
File:Flag_of_the_Slovene_Home_Guard.svg: source? What's the copyright status of the emblem?
Here is the source for the Slovene Home Guard flag: [10]. The Slovene Home Guard no longer exists, it dissappeared after the end of the war, I presume that as a dissolved organization with no apparent heirs that there is no copyright claims on it.--R-41 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chetniks_Flag.svg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I copied source info from .jpg file in Commons across to the vector version in Commons (Ministry of Education, Yugoslavia). Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport
"Petar Radović, a judge and Chetnik of the Vuk detachment". There's something odd, and technical, about this phrase. Partly it is just a worldview issue - i have difficulty with someone being simultaneously a judge and a paramilitary soldier, without explanation. That aside, though, re "the Vuk detachment": when I clicked on Vuk I was assuming it was a place, but it turns out to be a person. Should it not be "Vuk's detachment"? And I have no idea what a "detachment" is.
"joined the 55th class of a military academy". Unless there is some meaning to "the 55th class" that can be explained to a lay reader, i think this should just read "joined a military academy".
Maybe nothing that went on in the Balkans made a lot of sense, but I was particularly confused by the claims that Durisic had killed "members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians" when he himself was supported by the Italians. Is there an explanation here?
I am concerned about a possible POV issue here: "However, Đurišić was caught by Serbian quisling government authorities and handed over to the Germans". "Quisling" to me is a strongly derogatory term, and I am not clear why the government's title is nto used, or at least the slightly less loaded term "puppet government", per the lead. Even that term, though, makes me uncomfortable unless "puppet government" is the prevailing term in third party sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Vuk edit is pretty new, I will tighten up the language.
I'll fix the 55th class thing, I agree.
You're right, nothing was (is) straightforward. The issue was not who supported them but their mutual enmity. I'll clarify.
The government was a puppet one, not sure how we can put that nicely, but essentially a collaborationist one. Puppet government is generally how it is described. The Government of National Salvation was what it was called. I'll address.
Thanks for your comments and interest.
Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done, let me know if you think any further tweaks are needed. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
excellent edits, thank you. Fascinating window into one of the many dark episodes of history around the second war. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Leaning towards supporting this one, as it's a great read and seems comprehensive and engaging. However, there are two minor quibbles: the article could do with a short description added to its persondata, just a brief sentence fragment or so; and there's one {{Clarify}} tag to be addressed which seems to have been added very recently, though it does seem like a sentence which might need another word or two as to reason, if one is known. Other than that I'd be happy to back this one. GRAPPLEX 05:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Clarify tag addressed, please have a look and let me know what you think? I'll have to familiarise myself with the persondata doover. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suits me. Support. GRAPPLEX 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes
Lead: Đurišić was perhaps the finest Yugoslav Chetnik leader, and his fighting skills were respected by his allies and opponents alike. -- "finest" is a very subjective term, regardless of what the sources may indicate; this term should be replaced by something a little more quantifiable or the sentence recast as something like Đurišić was considered a highly skilful Chetnik leader, respected by his allies and opponents alike. Alternatively, if you wanted to quote the author's exact words, that might work.
As I think it's first time to FAC for both nominators, a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing will be needed before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly first time FAC for me, not sure about PRODUCER. I have modified the wording re: 'finest' and added a further citation to the main body text regarding this observation of the man's capabilities. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, can you confirm what the story is with url-linking in the References section per this discussion? Just want to make sure it is right. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Article: In early January 1943, the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered Montenegrin Chetnik units to carry out "cleansing actions" against Muslims in the Bijelo Polje county in the Sandžak region of north-eastern Montenegro. On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia also supported by the Italians), and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children. Despite the fact that both Đurišić's Chetniks and the Muslim self-protection militia were supported by the Italians, these "cleansing actions" represented partial achievement by Đurišić of Mihailović's directive of 20 December 1941 to clear the Sandžak of Muslims.[31]
Source: (from p. 259, p. 258 is not available) Although "cleansing actions" in Sandjak and southeastern Bosnia were represented by Chetnikc as countermeasures against Moslem aggressive activities, all circumstances indicate that the operations were a partial implementation of the Chetnik plans mentioned specifically in Mihailovics directive of December 20, 1941 to Djurisic and Lasic about the cleansing of Sandjak of Moslem and of Bosnia of Molsem and croatian populations.
Article. While Đurišić and the other Chetnik commanders in Montenegro nominally recognised Mihailović as their supreme commander, they rarely obeyed him.[20]
Source: The Chetnik commanders barely accepted and rarely obeyed Mihailovic.
Article: During their occupation of Kolašin in January and February 1942, the Partisans turned against all real and potential opponents, killing about 300 of the town's inhabitants, and throwing their mutilated bodies into a mass grave they called the "dog cemetery". Due to this and other examples of communist terror, the Montenegrin population turned against the Partisans. Subsequently, Đurišić recaptured Kolašin and held it as a Chetnik stronghold until May 1943.[18]
Source: During their 47-day control of Kolasin in January-February 1942, the partisans killed some 300 of the town's inhabitants, throwing the mutilated bodies into mass graves which they called the "dogs' cemetery". The popular mood in Montenegro turned completely against them...Captain Djurisic's chetnicks then took back Kolasin, which would remain their stronghold until May 1943.
A little too close to the source.
Article: At this time he established closer ties with Dimitrije Ljotić, whose Serbian Volunteer Corps provided him with weapons, food, typewriters, and other supplies. He also worked with Nedić, who promoted him to the rank of lieutenant colonel and appointed him assistant to the commander of the Serbian Volunteer Corps, Colonel Kosta Mušicki.[46]
Source: After the capitulation of Italy in 1943, Durisic established closer ties with Dimitrije Ljotic, whose Serbian Corps provided weapons, food, typewriters and othe supplies. Nedic promoted Durisic to the rank of lietenant-colonel and appointed him assistant commander of the Serbiam Volunteer Corps..
Article: Soon after, the German Special Envoy in Belgrade Hermann Neubacher, Milan Nedić, and the German Military Commander in south-east Europe General Hans Felber arranged for Đurišić to be released from prison.[45]
Source: Neubacher also arranged, in autumn 1943, for the release from prison of of Chetnik commander Pavle Djurisic...
Article: In November 1943, Đurišić returned to Montenegro where he received supplies including arms and ammunition from the Germans with which to fight the Partisans.[45]
Source: Djurisic now received arms, ammunition, and other supplies from the Germans and returned to Montenegro in November 1943 to fight the Partisans.
It seems he did not get the arms and ammo in Montenegro.
Article: On 11 October 1944 the German Plenipotentiary General in Montenegro, General-Major Wilhem Keiper, awarded Đurišić the Iron Cross (2nd Class) in the name of the Führer and the German High Command.[46]
Source: Nedic promoted Durisic to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and appointed him assistant commander of the Serbiam Volunteer Corps, and, on October 11, 1944, Adolf Hilter awarded Durisic the Iron Cross.
There is no mention of Keiper in the source.
Article: On 13 July 1944, Radio Belgrade praised Đurišić "for his services to the Axis cause".[51]
Source: He was certainly warmly commended by Radio Belgrade for his services to the Axis cause (Broadcast of July 13th 1944.
There are some issues (in bold) that require attention. Graham Colm (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed these issues, except the reference to Keiper which draws on the entitlement document which is signed by Keiper. Should I create an inline citation to the document? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this is a good idea. Graham Colm (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note, let me know if you think that covers it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fine. I can't read it of course, but it is not a major fact that is likely to be contested. Graham Colm (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because Otto Graham was one of the most dominant American football players of his era (and arguably compares favorably to the leading quarterbacks of any era), and I'd like to see his article through to FA, if possible. I've brought it up to GA status, done a peer review and made some further improvements. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Batard0 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: At least two of the book sources are partially available online via Google Books (Piascik, Henkel) for checks.--Batard0 (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use endashes in ranges, not hyphens
Changed to endashes where they were hyphens (about 5-10 instances).--Batard0 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commentsleaning support: I know very little about football, but I managed to follow most of this article very clearly. The technical sections are excellent, and I think this gives a really clear overview of his career, how effective he was, and what made him a good player. The prose is very good. I've a few questions about things I didn't follow as a non-fan (most just need a link, I think), a few prose questions, and a few picky points which you can feel free to ignore. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Graham is remembered as one of the most dominant players of his era": By who? May be better as "Critics regard Graham as…"
Changed to "Graham is regarded by critics as"; I kept it in the passive voice to avoid confusion in the latter part of the sentence. If the subject isn't Graham, readers might think "having taken his team" refers to critics. Or am I being overly technical? I'd be happy to put it in the active voice if you think that works (probably preferable to avoid the passive, anyway).--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the Browns posted a record of 114–20–4": Could this be linked for people like me who are never sure what this means?
I've spelled it out to say "114 wins, 20 losses and four ties". I then linked winning percentage to "win-loss record" in the following bit. Hope this works.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto "including a 9–3 mark".
Switched "mark" to "win-loss record" and linked it. "Mark" is a bit jargon-y, anyhow. I also linked "playoffs" in case people don't understand what that means.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he still holds the NFL record for career average yards per pass attempt, with nine.": Again, some linking of "average yards per pass attempt"
Linked "pass attempt" to the appropriate section under "Forward pass". Also "yards gained" to "Yards from scrimmage".
"signed "Automatic Otto" to play for the Browns": Not too sure about the use of a nickname in the lead like this.
Agreed - a bit awkward. Excised.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His career is covered in 2 main sections, but they are rather long. Could they be split into subsections to make them less intimidating?
Yes. I put in two subsections under the "Professional career" heading and two under the "Coaching career" heading. Do these work?--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and went to Northwestern University on a basketball scholarship in 1940, when he was 19": 2 minor, picky points, but "attended" may be slightly more formal, and do we need both the year and his age? Surely one would suffice.
Substituted "attended" and removed his age.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"While football became Graham's primary sport, he also played baseball and continued on the basketball team.": "Although" may work better than "while" here.
"He was a first-team All-American in basketball as a senior.": Sorry, lost me here.
I tried to make this clearer by saying "He was named by sportswriters as a first-team All-American in basketball as a senior." At the end of the season, various news outlets put together "teams" consisting of the players they judge the best in their sports at their positions. They typically come up with a first, second and third team. They're basically imaginary all-star teams that never play together in an all-star game. Is there a way to make this even clearer without getting too verbose? I linked it to "All-America", which goes into additional detail on the matter. But it would be better if readers didn't have to follow any links.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link works; if you want to make it even clearer, maybe something like "included as a first-team All-American, a team selected by journalists comprising the best player in each position in basketball", although this is a bit wordy. The other option is to include the explanation as a note. I've no real preference either way and the link is fine if you are not happy with the wordiness.
I used this description in the text. I think it's probably better to put it within the text than as a footnote; I don't think it's too verbose.--Batard0 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"when he ran back a Kansas State punt 94 yards for a touchdown and had two more scores in a 51–3 victory": Not too sure about this, either.
I tried to simplify this one by saying the following: "when he caught a Kansas Statepunt and returned it 94 yards for a touchdown. He ran for two more touchdowns in the 51–3 victory." I'm not sure if this is simple enough and I'd rather be able to cogently and concisely explain what's going on than rely too much on links. Maybe if you could say which parts are still confusing to the non-expert, I'll make more attempts to elucidate them. I'd really like this to be completely accessible to everybody.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems really good, and very accessible. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Graham threw for two touchdowns"… and while I think I get this, not sure that everyone would who was not a specialist.
I changed it to "Graham passed to his wide receivers for two touchdowns" in the hope that this might make it clearer. Do you think it would be useful to have a prefatory paragraph (inserted after the first paragraph of the "Early life and college career" section) that describes Graham's role on the team at Northwestern and goes into some of the football terminology? This may be useful because, first, the way people played football in the 1940s differs significantly from how it's played today. Graham, for example, played on offense and defense, and both passed and ran with the ball to try to score touchdowns. These days, a quarterback's role is strictly limited to passing. Second, having some kind of introductory paragraph may be useful for non-experts to get a feel for how the game is played and what the rules are. Then again, such a paragraph may interrupt the flow of the article a bit. I'll give it a try if you think it might be a good idea; we can always delete it if it turns out not to be.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm fairly happy with the "accessibility" of this. I'm not a follower, but understand this all pretty well now. The paragraph on his role may be a good idea, though; certainly worth a try to see what happens. It won't affect my support either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried putting in a paragraph, but I had trouble making it flow with the rest of the text. It read like a digression, so I took it out. I'm beginning to think that a discussion of the evolution of the forward pass, etc., is probably best left to articles about the history of football...Graham was one of the game's first great passers, but none of the sources I have say he was a pioneer or that he changed the way the quarterback position was played, so it comes off as a bit off-topic. I'm going to leave it out for now, but of course am open to any suggestions on how to make this more contextually complete...--Batard0 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"…in an upset of an Ohio State team coached by Paul Brown, handing Ohio State its only loss of the 1941 season". Repetition of Ohio State; maybe rephrase as "in a victory over Ohio State, coached by Paul Brown, the team's only loss of the 1941 season".
"The Wildcats struggled in 1942, winning only one game as players joined the war effort.": May be better to slightly rephrase this to make it more explicit: "The Wildcats struggled in 1942 as their players joined the war effort, winning only one game." (If the source allows this rephrase)
"The following year, Graham and many of his teammates moved to the Naval Air Station Glenview in Glenview, Illinois but continued to play for Northwestern along with enlistees from other schools": Not quite sure I'm following this. Why did they move to Glenview? Had they enlisted? Why were enlistees from other schools playing for Northwestern? Or does it mean that enlistees played for their own teams?
The sources say they brought a bunch of enlisted men to play for Northwestern, not their own teams. They enrolled at Northwestern. I consulted the sources again and attempted to clarify it as follows: "The following year, Graham and some of his teammates enlisted in the military but continued to play for Northwestern. Enlistees from other schools also enrolled at Northwestern, where the U.S. Navy had a training station." I changed "many" to "some" since the source says Northwestern lost 30 of its players to the war.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across the Big Ten Conference before, and I'm aware that it's linked but for the benefit of the reader and to prevent them having to follow a link, a sentence somewhere to explain what it means would be a big help.
No problem. I described it as "a division of major college teams from the Midwestern United States". Is that adequate?--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"$96,821 in today's dollars": I think it would be better to give a year here.
I added the currentyear template for both dollar figures. I think that's what you're after.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he was also "just one of the guys," tackle Mike McCormack later said. "He was not aloof, which you see a lot of times today."[25]": As the quote says "today", maybe give the year that he said it.
I added the year as 1999, when the book it comes from was published. I'm not entirely sure when he actually said it (it could have been from an earlier interview as the book was being compiled) but I think it's a fairly reasonable approximation and probably within the bounds of verifiability...if it appeared in print in 1999, probably fair to say he said it in 1999.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown remembered a Northwestern game against Ohio State in which he ran to his left and flung a pass all the way to his right for a touchdown.": Is this notable enough to warrant inclusion?
Removed. It supports the preceding quote, but I think it's redundant and not that notable.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Graham gained 45 yards rushing on a long drive": Not too sure what this means.
I change it to "gained 45 yards by running with the ball". Does this clarify it enough?--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"With Graham behind center": Ditto.
Changed to "Graham at quarterback". "Behind center" is football jargon.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"second straight championship" and in next paragraph "third straight championship" A little more variety may be good.
Changed second instance to "third year in a row"--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Graham is regarded as one of the greatest winners of all time": By who?
Put in "by sportswriters", as this is supported by the three citations.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"When Graham retired from football, he said he was going to focus on managing…": Maybe "he planned to focus".
"in the five figures": This is a quote, but just checking if it should be the five figures?
Nope, it's "in five figures". Good catch.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any indication of why he was successful coaching the Coast Guards but not the Redskins? What went right/wrong?
I don't have a lot of sources for his later career...I've had to draw mainly from newspaper articles, unfortunately. There don't appear to be any books in existence that discuss these things, outside of an autobiography that's not reliable (and frankly, isn't very good). Nonetheless, I'm going to see if there are any news articles that discuss why he wasn't successful, and will update with whatever I can find.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple sentences about growing calls for his resignation following losing seasons in 1967 and 1968, with citations, of course. I'm trying to find some sources containing more detail about why he was unsuccessful other than just that he failed to win.--Batard0 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this unstruck if you are still looking, but it's not a problem for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Graham won a battle with colon cancer in 1977": Won a battle is a little tabloid-y.
Agreed. Changed to "overcame".--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"At the funeral several days later, Graham's longtime friend George Steinbrenner fainted, leading to speculation that he was in ill health, but Steinbrenner lived another seven years.": Does this really warrant inclusion in Graham's article?
Not really. Probably should be in Steinbrenner's article, but not Graham's. Removed.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref for coaching record?
Added sources for Coast Guard and Redskins.--Batard0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help with this. Any further assistance or suggestions for making it accessible for non-football people (or for making it better in general) would be very much appreciated.--Batard0 (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Happy to support now, all the changes look fantastic. I've left a couple of things unstruck for further clarification, but they do not affect my support. I'm particularly impressed by the determination to make this accessible to non-fans; I know myself how difficult this can be. A pleasure to read, comment on and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supportwith a minor comment. Is there any way to expand the "Later life and death" section? For example, what did he do from the time he retired in 1984 until his death in 2003? Anything on his personal life? We know he was married, but there is minimal information on his wife and family. Great article. GregJackPBoomer! 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will consult the sources and at minimum put in something more about his family, which is easy to do.--Batard0 (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit about his family and also his activities after retirement. I found a news story saying he played golf a lot with Joe DiMaggio and retired to a house on a golf course in Florida.--Batard0 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a couple of points. You may want to consider linking stipend for those who may be unfamiliar with the term. Additionally, is there anything else that can be said about his time at the Coast Guard Academy? Aside from their undefeated season in 1963, it seems a bit bare—I'm not overly concerned but curious. Otherwise, the article looks to be in excellent form. -- The Writer 2.0Talk 01:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much - I added some information about his teams' performance at Coast Guard, plus detail about coaching offers he got during his time there. There isn't a ton of reporting on Coast Guard during that era, as far as I can tell, probably because it's a small school. I haven't been able to find good secondary book sources that discuss this period in his career. I hope this helps clarify things. I also linked stipend. Thanks for the suggestion.--Batard0 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Thought this was a fine article when reviewing for GA, so minor corrections were just needed. Nice job. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – In the four-plus years I've been reviewing at FAC, high-quality NFL-related bios have been few and far between. This is probably the best one I can remember seeing. There were a few prose issues and such that I noticed, but I made some copy-edits to fix them. Overall, this was a smooth read and well-deserving of a star, and I hope we see more of your work at FAC in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and appreciate the copyedits.--Batard0 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and FYI in case it's useful, here are links in Google Books to some of the book sources. Most are only previews, so you may not be able to pick up all the refs. I'm not sure how these things are usually done, but I'm happy to quote supporting passages where requested (I have physical copies):
There are also some snippets from Cantor on Amazon's preview here: Amazon--Batard0 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadia Publishing is a self-publishing company in which most people can contribute and write a book (providing they have the access to historical pictures and such) about their local history and I'm dubious about the reliability of many of their books. Sometimes Arcadia history books is written by noted historians and journalists and it's OK to use, but in many cases, their books are written by someone who is just interested on the subject as a hobby, sorta like this website. I don't think Arcadia has a editor to do an accurate fact check on the information written. I've seen several books riddled with the stupidest errors (like one book I stopped reading after the third page when it said Florida was first discovered by Juan Ponce de León in 1565, and I saw another one that said Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1942). Can you explain how LaTourette and Henkel are reliable sources/experts and not just regular people who got the idea to write a book about their favorite subjects. I can't find much information on either author so I can't tell. If not replace the sources if possible. Thanks Secretaccount 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I think I can easily get replacements for the Henkel references; LaTourette I may have to source to newspaper articles, etc., but I'll see what I can find. Didn't know Arcadia was so suspect...--Batard0 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gone in there and added references anyplace where either LaTourette or Henkel were the only sources cited. LaTourette checked out well; out of 17 citations, only one raised suspicion when cross-checked with other sources: LaTourette said Graham returned a punt 94 yards for a touchdown in his first Wildcats game, while contemporary news reports say it was 90 yards. Frankly, the newspapers could be wrong here. I've seen many cases where the newspapers of this era have messed up statistics, even awarding touchdowns to the wrong player or not counting touchdowns at all. Nonetheless, I changed it to 90 yards, given that there are concerns about LaTourette's reliability. Since the refs pretty much check out, though, I left them in there alongside the new ones. Henkel's also check out; I left them in, but it's not strictly necessary because the information is duplicated in a lot of other places. Hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article: The AAFC's first season was not set to start until the fall of 1946, and Graham occupied the intervening months by joining the Rochester Royals of the National Basketball League (NBL), a forerunner of the National Basketball Association.
Source: ...Graham...played basketball as well as football at Northwestern University, and he played for the 1945-1946 Rochester Royals, champions of the National Basketball League, one of the major league predecessors of the National Basketball Association. (pp. 19-20)
Article: Graham was also drafted by the National Football League's Detroit Lions, but he did not sign a contract or play a game with the team as the war wore on.[24]
Source: He was drafted by the Detroit Lions of the NFL, but he entered the service upon graduation before signing a contract or playing a pro game.
Article: He never missed a game in his career.[24]
Source: Graham never missed a game in his ten-year pro career. (p. 20)
Article: The team went undefeated in 1963, earning the academy its first-ever post-season bowl appearance.[88]
Source: (dated Nov 19, 1963) A pair of undefeated football teams-Western Kentucky and Coast Guard Academy-meet Dec. 28 in the Tangerine Bowl. Former professional football star Otto Graham is coach of the New London, Conn., team...It is the first ever post-season football competition in in Coast Guard history.
Article: The college stars lost for the seventh time in a row that year, falling 24–3 to the Kansas City Chiefs.[99]
Source: The college All-Stars admittedly played "a lousy game", but coach Otto Graham claimed the Kansas City Chiefs were in tip-top condition in the 24-3 rout.
Could someone please check the images' licensing? There are only two. Graham Colm (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried and failed :-) First image is OK, but someone with more experience in assessing the adequacy of non-free use rationales and licencing needs to look at the second one. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's as far as I got :-) Graham Colm (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to remove the other image if need be. I thought it had a fairly strong rationale given that it shows something that's hard to describe with just words in the body of the article: the appearance of the plastic facemask. But I defer to others' better judgment.--Batard0 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale does seem a little weak compared to the one above it. This is the only obstacle to promotion, that I can see - it's your call. Graham Colm (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- removed as it's not absolutely critical.--Batard0 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I have recently expanded it significantly to GA, and following comments from other editors it seems to be close to FA. I will of course implement any further changes suggested here as quickly as possible. I could imagine the extensive quoting might be brought up as a problem, but these are reproduced at length in every book and paper about the bird, so I find them appropriate to feature here, since they are also all in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Some formatting issues in captions - those that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, several use hyphens where they should use dashes
Should be fixed now.
File:Leguat1891solitaire.jpg needs US PD tag
Done.
File:LocationRodrigues.PNG: on what source(s) or map(s) was this based?
I have looked carefully at the boundaries of the African countries on both maps and I think that "File:LocationRodrigues.PNG" is probably not derived from "File:BlankMap-World-1985.png". It might be one of the other maps in the Commons category "Category:Blank maps of the world for historical use". Snowman (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pezophaps_solitaria.jpg needs US PD tag and date of death for creator
Done.
File:Pezophaps_wing_bones.jpg needs US PD tag
Done.
File:Pezophaps.jpg needs US PD tag and date of death for creator
Done.
File:Pezophaps_sternum.jpg, File:Pezophaps_vertebrae_and_foot.jpg, File:Pezophaps_pelvis_and_gizzard_stone.jpg need US PD tag and date of death for creator
PD tag done, but I'm unable to find info about R. Mintern and G. H. Ford. It should be pretty safe to assume they died more than 70 years ago, having made the illustrations in 1869 and 1879. But in the worst case, they could be moved to the US Wiki.
Not sure what you mean by "US Wiki"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English Wiki, which has US copyright. Images published anywhere in the world before 1923 can apparently be uploaded here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Leguat1891frontispieceFr1708.jpg, File:Rodrigues.jpg, File:Pezophaps_stalagmite.jpg, File:Pezophaps.png, File:ExtinctDodoBird.jpeg need US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Thanks, all should be done now, apart from the issues noted. FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made these edits, MoS fixes and some tweaking, please check
The only problem is the caption to the taxo box image, it seems to be creating confusion. Leguat observed the bird in the late 1690s, but his drawing is from 1708, so it was not drawn from life, but from memory. He was the only person who drew it who had seen it. So the take home point is "only known picture drawn by someone who saw it in life", not sure how to word it differently from the original caption, which was "The only known picture drawn by someone who saw the bird in life, François Leguat, 1708".
I've changed "picture drawn" to the more succinct "drawing", is this OK? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea!
Genetically related to pigeons and doves—this phrasing suggests that it's related to, but isn't, a dove; clearly not what you intended.
I changed it to "genetically nested within" and "placement within the Columbidae", perhaps not the most elegant wording.
What version of English are you using? Mostly BE (grey, paedomorphic) but also "colored"
British, I think "color" was added by someone during copy editing.
by Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his edition of Systema Naturae — please clarify, since he obviously wasn't the author of the book
He made additions to it, in the 13th edition (and onwards) he published. I'm not sure how that could be clarified, without going into unnecessary detail. Linnaeus' last contribution was in the 12th edition. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help to say "in the thirteenth edition" instead of "his edition"? The current wording could be taken to mean that he wrote it in the margin like Fermat. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll add it.
measuring 90 cm in length and weighing up to 28 kg), whereas females were 70 cm and weighed 17 kg.—Imperial conversions for the poor old yanks please
Done.
ca. 50 g—as above
Done.
wrist-knobs (87–90)—the numbers are almost illegible in the image, can you either find another way to indicate the bones, or modify to show numbers in a larger font
I added "in the middle right".
Book refs. Either give locations for all publishers or none
I'm adding locations.
Thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm close to supporting, just wanted to see your views on the two further comments above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for the changes! FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So what happens from here? Never done this before. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support of DocTree. For full disclosure, I made a couple of minor edits to this article when I did a Good Article review of another article that was expanded and improved by nominator FunkMonk (Red Rail passed that review.).
Checked image ALTs. All images have appropriate ALT text (I added one for the range map).
Checked links to disambigulation pages. Made two minor edits to correct wikilinks to disambigulation pages.
Citation bot indicated no problems. Randomly checked sources available on-line. Some of the .pdf are large but definitely valuable. No problem found with factual information presented.
Wishing all involved the best, DocTree (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Literature review: I found number of sources using a JSTOR and Google Books Search that contain information that hasn't been discussed (or discussed only briefly) in the article:
from Amadon, Dean (1951). "Inbreeding and disease?" "Evolution" 5 (4): 417 JSTOR2405692. Amadon reviews Ottow's German-language paper (pub. 1950, trans title="Hereditary osteogenesis dysplastico-exostotica of the extinct flightless dove, Pezophaps solitaria, from Rodriguez"), which posits that samples of bone fractures represent a hereditary bone disease, rather than (or in addition to) the usual explanation of combat injuries.
a more recent source could be used to cite the use of wrist knobs as weapons: "In this species large examples, presumable males, have a considerable enlargement of the distal end of the radius, especially at the base of the fused carpometacarpus. While apparently not sharp pointed, it may well have been horn covered and certainly could have increased the wing's effectiveness as a weapon." From Rand, A. L. (1954). "On the spurs on boards' wings". The Wilson Bulletin66(2): 127–134 JSTOR4158290
to add some historical context, why not mention Robert W. Storer's theory that the Dodo and Solitaire "be placed in separate monotypic families, the Raphidae and the Pezophapidae, respectively" (from Storer, R. W. (1970). "Independent Evolution of the Dodo and the Solitaire" The Auk87(2): 369–70 JSTOR4083934)
"The absence of mammalian herbivores on oceanic islands permitted … the solitaire … to attain a large size." (from McNab, B. K. (1999). "On the Comparative Ecological and Evolutionary Significance of Total and Mass‐Specific Rates of Metabolism" Physiological and Biochemical Zoology72(5): 642–644 JSTOR316701; this conclusion is supported in Pereira et al. (2007) as well.
Pereira et al. (2007) "Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences Support a Cretaceous Origin of Columbiformes and a Dispersal-Driven Radiation in the Paleogene" Systematic Biology56(4): 565–72 JSTOR20143072 have a chronogram depicting Columbiformes diversification that looks similar to Shapiro et al.'s (2002) cladogram, except that the places of Goura victoria and Didunculus strigirostris are swapped; the article also discusses date estimates for the Raphus and Pezophaps split
Hutichinson has an article JSTOR27826550 that discusses the legitimacy of Leguat's original description. Apparently, Leguat's work was criticized by later authorities, and that history should certainly be mentioned here.
Storer (2005) JSTOR4090609 suggests that the feather-covered risings over each side of the crop (found only in the female), covered glands (or gland precursors) that may have produced just enough crop milk to influence division of labor in parental feeding responsibilities
How about these sources:
Author(s): Grihault, Alan
Source: Solitaire: the dodo of Rodrigues Island. Pages: 1–117 Published: 2007 ISBN978-9990336306
Haven't heard about that book before, looks like a popular work, so perhaps not so in depth?
Source: Ardea Leiden Volume: 22 Pages: pp. 21–29 Published: 1933
I've read that paper before, it doesn't seem to do much other than documenting the existence of a specific mounted skeleton, and disproving a claim that was never made (there's a reply in the end of the paper) "I am afraid Dr. Mortensen is fighting a ghost: I have never expressed any doubt concerning the existence of the Solitaire. My only point was to draw my readers' attention to the non-existence of Schlegel's Leguatia gigantea, a giant in which not even Dr. Mortensen appears to believe."
"The Nicobar Pigeon is their closest living relative." genetically or geographically?
Done (genetically).
generally, "which" is used after a comma (or other preceding punctuation); several occurrences in the article could be changed to "that"
"… led to the naming of a new species, Didus nazarenus" tell us it was named by Bartlett?
Done.
"Their weight may have varied substantially due to fat cycles" I don't think "fat cycles" is a common-knowledge concept, so it might be best to explain this term in layman's words
Done.
musket bullets aren't commonly used as a size comparison for bones these days; an actual measurement would be more useful
I'm unable to find actual measurements, the closest I could find is this statement by the Newtons: "In the largest (male ?) specimens its longest diameter is about half the length of the entire metacarpal, and its transverse breadth in any direction is not much less."
Cheke & Hume 2004 needs to be formatted as a cite journal, with full title, journal name, volume, pages, etc.
Done.
page #'s for Strickland 1848, Fuller 2002, Lydekker 1891, Hume & Walters 2012, Rothschild 1907, etc.
Done.
journal article titles needs to be consistently title or sentence case, and with Latin binomials in italics (see refs #6, 9); book titles should be title case
Done.
199–199 is not a valid page range
Done, was bot-generated.
was really only the first page of the 45 page review by Livezey (1993) used?
Thanks for those suggestions, my main problem is that I don't have journal access, most of what I've used have been books I own, free PDFs scavenged through Google, or papers I specifically asked for on the Wikipedia source request. I'll happily add all available info, but it'll take some time to get hold of those other papers. I'll adress your other points soon, but I have some answers to some of your questions. I used all of Livezy 1993 (half is about the Dodo, and much of it is long tables, which inflates page size), so I'm not sure what you mean. As for Leguat's account having been doubted, that is mentioned under the extinction section, you mean it could be expanded? FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can send the JSTOR articles if you have email enabled. My comment about Livezey reflects the fact that only the first page is given in the citation, rather than the entire page range (some of the other sources only give the first page as well). Sasata (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very helpful, I've received emails through Wikipedia before, so it should work. I think the page number problem is because the citations are bot-generated, I'll take a look... FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added the jstor citations you listed, as well as a summary of your descriptions of them, but I'll expand them once I obtain PDFs (if there is much more to add, of course). So the main problem now seems to be that I can't find any measurements of the wing-knob... FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found "Independent Evolution of the Dodo and the Solitaire"[14] through Google, so no need to send me that one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the PDFs, there wasn't much more to add from what I read, but I did flesh some sections out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, presuming my two minor comments below are addressed. Interesting article.
In the taxonomy section, the binomial names are mostly not provided next to the common names (eg. Nicobar Pigeon). Then there are no common names next to binomials in the cladogram. As a result, it is hard for the reader to connect the text to the cladogram. Can this be improved? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will put them into the cladogram next to the binomials, would that be sufficient?
Sure, that's fine with me, but maybe look at a couple of existing species FAs and see what they do - I'm not sure I've seen cladograms with common names, so the convention might be to use the Linnaean names in the text. Ucucha, casliber, sasata or others have experience and might comment <waves hopefully at passing editors> :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I based the mix of common and scientific names on the cladogram in pelican, which was recently featured (Casliber worked on it). FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Both sexes possessed a large callus-like knob of bone on their wrists at the base of the carpometacarpus, on its otherwise-small wings" - "their wrists", but "its..wings" - choose one or the other. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of small wings, since their underdeveloped state is explained further down in the section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- Hi FunkMonk, I think this is your first FAC? In that case, just like to see a reviewer make a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, first one, so that's alright! FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Article: François Leguat was the first to refer to the bird as the "Solitaire" (referring to its solitary habits), but it has been suggested that he borrowed the name from a tract mentioning the Réunion Solitaire.[5]
Source: In 1691 the French Huguenot refugee François Leguat and some companions attempted to settle on Rodrigues Island, 574 kilometres east of Mauritius, and stayed two years (Leguat,1707; North-Coombes, 1991). Leguat later wrote about a large fl ightless bird he had watched there, calling it a solitaire,
Article: The Rodrigues Solitaire probably became extinct sometime between the 1730s and 1760s; the exact date is unknown. Its disappearance coincided with the tortoise trade between 1730 and 1750; traders burnt off vegetation, hunted Solitaires and imported cats and pigs (that preyed on eggs and chicks).[3]
Source:Gennes's account of 1733 makes it clear that Solitaires were still then common..Silence than falls until 1755, when the elder Cossigny wote to Reaumer that; "For 18 months I have been trying without sucess to procure a Solitaire from Rodrigues Isalnd.. Cats had been imported to deal with the ever troublesome rats..
Article: Comparison of mitochondrial cytochrome b and 12S rRNA sequences isolated from the femur of a Rodrigues Solitaire and the tarsal of a Dodo confirmed their close relationship, and their placement within the Columbidae.[2]
Source: Despite the substantial morphological differences between the dodo, the solitaire, and other pigeons, the ML analysis shows them to be nested within the family Columbidae.
Article: They have a small stump of a wing, which has a sort of bullet at its extremity, and serves as a defence.[21]
Source: They have a small stump of a wing, which has a sort of bullet at its extremity, and serves as a defence.
Article:A similar cladogram was published in 2007, differing in the inverted placement of Goura and Dicunculus, as well as the inclusion of the Pheasant Pigeon and the Thick-billed Ground Pigeon at the base of the clade.[14]
Source:The extinct, flightless dodo and solitaires (Raphidae) were embedded within pigeons and doves (Columbidae) in clade C, and monophyly of the subfamily Columbinae was refuted because the remaining subfamilies were nested within it. Divergence times estimated using a Bayesian framework suggest that Columbiformes diverged from outgroups such as Apodiformes and Caprimulgiformes in the Cretaceous before the mass extinction that marks the end of this period.
Article: The resulting clade consists of of generally ground-dwelling island endemics.[12]
Source: Their analysis shows the dodo and the solitaire to be close relatives, with their nearest living relative the Nicobar pigeon Caloenas nicobarica from the Nicobar Islands and nearby south-east Asia.
Article: Extinct (by 1778) (IUCN 3.1)[1]
Source: Pezophaps solitaria (Rodrigues Solitaire) Status: Extinct ver 3.1Citation: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 19 August 2012.I can't find the date mentioned.
No issues, except the 1778 date of extinction. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/106002443/0 "Justification: This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but was hunted to extinction in the 18th century. It was reported in 1761, but had become Extinct by 1778." FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better link than the one in the article, I suggest you use it instead. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name is supposed to link to that page, as in the Dodo article, but I'm unable to figure out why the name doesn't become a link in this article. Anyone know what's different between the citations? FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally worked, now the name links to the right page. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the identical text in Graham Colm's 4th article/source pair above is from a direct quote that's properly attributed. I checked .pdf sources that were available on-line back on 5 Aug. Found no problem with accuracy or close paraphrasing at that time. In my opinion, FunkMonk's presentation of conflicting source information, as in the taxonomy, is exemplary. DocTree(ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 17:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that pair was an issue. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, would it be helpful to have a paragraph in the ecology section here about other extinct species this bird shared Rodrigues with, as in the Dodo article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material; see Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. The use of longish quotations is far too excessive in this article. Another reason not to use these old quotations is that they are written in an old form of English with old spellings, old capitalisation, and refers to old objects. How big is a "Musket Ball" and why is Musket Ball capitalised? Snowman (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of extinct birds, whose life appearance and behaviour is only known from such contemporary descriptions, I think it is quite different from say, an article about an extant bird, which can be observed today. I see no meaning in closely paraphrasing a text which is in the public domain anyway, and comprehension problems can be solved with square brackets. All secondary sources about these birds (technical as well as popular) likewise quote the old descriptions at length. Even the book Extinct Birds (Hume & Walters 2012), which has very short entries for each bird, quotes Tafforet at length in the Solitaire entry. See also the FA Mary Anning, which uses extensive quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki is an encyclopaedia, so I do not see the point of comparing it with a book. The quotes used on this page are too many and too long. The quotations here are longer than those used on the longer article on Mary Anning. The article about Philip Larkin is long with several short quotations. Quotations have been removed on the Brown Thrasher page and the Western Jackdaw pages. I think that it would be better if the quotations were paraphrased and changed to a more readable and a more concise form of English. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think those examples are comparable. Those are extant birds, so having quotes there does not really enhance the article, as they have been observed and described from life by thousands of scientists, and we therefore have infinite interchangeable sources to paraphrase essentially the same information from. Literature about extant birds rarely quotes descriptions (since they are readily available for original descriptions), but literature about extinct birds almost always quotes contemporary descriptions, if such exist. I think each of these quotes enhance this article, as they are the only contemporary descriptions of the bird in existence, each quote brings unique info about the bird to the table, and each is therefore "precious", so to speak. I know that argument is total pathos, but to ground myself a little, encyclopaedic texts can and do also contain long quotes, see for example this 1858 encyclopaedia entry about the Solitaire and other birds, which quotes Leguat in full (even though space is very limited): [15] That should say something about the value of these quotes. Only Leguat's description was known at the time, by the way. Unlike such encyclopaedias, we have much more space to play with. See: Meta:Wiki is not paperFunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that there is of course a difference between an extinct bird which was never described from life by scientists, only laymen (such as the Red Rail, †1700), and more recently extinct birds (such as the Huia, †1907), which were extensively described by contemporary scientitsts. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An example of an article which is problematical because it doesn't incorporate or discuss contemporary descriptions is Great Auk. Practically all that is known about that bird in life is from old descriptions by fishermen and other sailors, not from scientists. Therefore, much of the info presented as fact in the article is really just conjecture, paraphrasing is bound to include interpretation, in many cases suggesting dubious theories, and it is quite "dangerous" to mix the two, since it is misleading. I have mentioned some concerns here:[16] That one "slipped through" the FAC process because yes, there are secondary sources that simply paraphrase the old descriptions, but other sources are more sceptical, which the article does not even try to convey. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this an intersting discussion. I certainly noticed the extensive quotes and the difference between this and other articles. I liked the quotes, and am generally supportive of FunkMonk's arguments, but i thought a few could be summarised in text instead - the last two quotes in the 'Behaviour and ecology' section, and the first quote in 'Diet' would be my picks for least integral to the article, colourful though they are. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your choices, and have been thinking about it myself. My picks would be the last quote in Behaviour and ecology, and the quote in Extinction, since they do not really tell much new about the bird, and are not as widely cited as the rest. The Cossigny quote doesn't even describe the bird either, so paraphrasing it does not contradict the arguments I presented above. I'm hesitant to remove the Leguat and Tafforet quotes though, which are the best known, first rediscovered, and most widely cited descriptions. They pretty much "defined" the bird for modern science. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes I mentioned above have now been paraphrased. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOFULLTEXT says; "Longer texts are best summarised with the full text placed on Wikisource, or given as an external link." Snowman (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is "dun colour"? I think that the readability of the quotes is complicated by the use a sort of English that is not used now. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Dun" is often used when describing horses, even in modern times (see dun gene). Nothing that square brackets can't fix. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In present-day language, I presume that "dun" is jargon that usually relates to horses, but this may not be how it was used more than a hundred years ago. People who read the article and the quotes are likely to be interested in ornithology and may not be knowledgeable on horses nor old versions of English language. You replied without actually including an explanation of what colour dun is and the "dun gene" article appears to say that the gene changes the expression of a number of different horse-colour genes, so I am no further in understanding what colour dun is. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some specialist historical knowledge on armaments may also be needed to undersand the size of a "musket bullet" (which appears in the main text) and also the size of a "musket ball" (which appears in one of the long quotes). Snowman (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modern dictionaries explain "dun" as greyish brown, yet modern sources about the bird seem to describe the "frontlet" as black rather than greyish brown (likely based on Tafforet's account rather than Leguat's, so who knows which was correct?). So as you say, meaning could had changed, and this ambiguity actually strengthens the argument for the inclusion of original text and wording, accompanied by modern interpretation, as explained above. In this way, we do not take either interpretation or original account at face value, and therefore do not present a specific POV. As for the musket bullet comparison, as stated earlier, I can't do much about that, the secondary sources available to me do not specify it further. But I'd be happy if it could be figured out, of course. Note that the bullet issue is separate from the quotation concern, since secondary sources use the comparison even when paraphrasing. Perhaps not even these authors know what is meant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the use of "dun" can be explained without using a long old quote. The OED might provide the old meaning of the word "dun". Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy that a musket ball and a musket bullet, objects that are not commonly used now, are used to compare various dimensions. Obviously, this makes the article difficult to understand. Surly someone must know how big these objects are and their dimensions should be included in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is a frontlet? Snowman (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to word counting software, the article has 2743 words of free text and and additional 1390 words in long quotes. Hence, about a third of the text in the article (excluding image captions) are old quotes. Does anyone know of any other Wiki article that has a greater proportion of text in quotes? Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with the musket bullet comparison either, but that is somewhat irrelevant, since it is widely repeated by secondary sources, if not all. Not much I can do about it, unless someone brings forth an overlooked source. Not one of the sources used in the current version mention a specific measurement for the knob. Even if we do find a military history source unrelated to the bird which states the measurements for say, an "average" musket bullet, adding such here would be synthesis of sources, and we don't even know what kind of musket ball Leguat was referring to (there were several types with different sizes). "Frontlet" means the forehead of an animal, here it is meant as the band near the beak. As for quotes in other articles, the problem is that we have no comparable featured articles about recently extinct animals whose life appearance and behaviour is only known from old observations by laymen. The closest is Great Auk, and I have already explained why it is highly problematical that its article lacks contemporary quotes. Furthermore, unlike the Solitaire, the Great Auk's soft tissue is completely known from scores of specimens, and it has an extremely close living relative, the Razorbill, which aids behavioural inference. The Huia and Thylacine became extinct so recently that they had already been described from life by hundreds of actual scientists, so they are hardly comparable (though both do contain quotes). FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page about synthesis of sources is headed "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". I think that the use of a musket bull and a musket bullet was intended to indicate dimensions, so if the article provides the sizes of these ballistics then the position that will arise will be what the original author intended and there would be no issues about advancing a new position. I think that omitting the size of a musket ball and a musket bullet makes the article difficult to read. I think that the article should include the sizes of these ancient ballistics and this would be useful to readers. Have you made any attempts to find out how big these ballistics are? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as I pointed out already, there were many types of musket bullets, which varied considerably in size (see musket). How exactly are we going to determine what caliber Leguat referred to? It is simply impossible (unless we compare one to an actual Solitaire metacarpus, sad to say I've got neither in my possession). At the very best, we could mention what the size range was for such bullets, but that would be fairly useless. See for example these images, the range is immense:[17][18][19][20] Picking one size would be blatant original research. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that attempts made by the authors of the quotations and sources to explain the dimensions are meaningless? I suggest from the way that musket ball and musket bullet are used in the quotations that there is a size or size range that most contemporary people will have recognised as being the standard size of a musket ball or bullet. Culinary and food items are also used to describe things; "the size of a plumb". Plumbs also vary in size; nevertheless, a certain size range is suggested. Please find out how big these ancient ballistics are to advance the discussion here and to make the article less of a riddle. On the other hand, if size comparisons included in the article are simply impossible to understand, then please remove them from the article. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Picking a size is simply original research, not allowed under any circumstances. A plum, just to use your example, hardly varies as much as the sample of musket bullets I showed. And even if we used plums as an example, how would you determine the size of the "average" plum? There are different types of plums, each with its own average size. Your intention is good, but I must object, we cannot be precise here, it would be too arbitrary. As for not including the comparison at all, that would go against every published source about the bird I know of. I must object to that as well. I would like to see further opinions on this. If we really wanted to further the discussion, perhaps we could see if there are measurements of the metacarpus itself, as the Newton brothers stated the knob was half the length of this bone (there are no scale bars in their figures). The power supplier to my PC was fried yesterday, unfortunately, so I cannot look through my sources until next week (I write this from a laptop). I did look before, but never found such a measurement. This paper contains some bone measurements, so may hold the key: [21]FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the photographs of ballistic balls linked above do not prove anything. The musket balls shown in the photographs may not be a random selection and may include selected ballistics of a range of different sizes for illustrative purposes. It would be possible to select big plumbs, middle-size plumbs, and small plumbs and take a photograph of them and it would not clearly indicate what most people think of as an average sized plumb. Finding out more about the facts of ballistic sizes is likely to be useful to research the size of the birds dimensions. I expect that a range of sizes will be a likely outcome and this avoids selecting a particular size of musket ball or bullet. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Knob" is half the length of metacarpal, per Newtons
Let's forget the plums and balls for a minute, it is futile. Only realistic chance of getting an exact, reliable measurement (without measuring the knob itself) is to find a measurement of the metacarpus, half of that will be our salvation, as I mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to determine the size of a metacarpus (five bones in the hand). I presume that this means is the distance across the hand. I note that you have implied above that the size comparisons used in the article are simply impossible to understand, and if this is true I think that these riddles should be removed from the article. However, I think the ancient authors wrote intelligently and that a person knowledgeable on ancient ballistics would be able to understand what the size comparisons with ballistics are meant to imply and provide references. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I also stated, practically every single published text about this bird makes the musket ball comparison, even in paraphrasis. However, I am willing to remove it from the main text, as it is already in the Leguat quote, but I'd really have to hear some second opinions first. A single other reviewer has brought up the issue, but never demanded the comparison removed. I'm still sceptical that anyone would be able to decipher the calibre from such a vague statement, but let's see. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been expression my opinions logically and making suggestions, but I have not made a demand for text to be removed. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the sizes of musket balls and bullets, I guess that every text about this bird that makes a size comparison based on ancient ballistics is lost almost all modern readers. The size comparison puzzle may be found elsewhere, but I think that it would be preferable that the Wiki did not include this puzzle. I doubt if any volunteers will arrive here to provide ancient ballistic sizes, but some answers or pointers may be given on inquiring at relevant WikiProject talk pages. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This must be one of the longest and most technical discussions I've had on Wikipedia, but also quite enjoyable. I think I'll just remove the comparison from the main text, and leave it in the quote. I hope it will be a somewhat satisfactory compromise. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think "... about half the length of the metacarpal" refers to a bone in the birds wing and not the bones in the human hand. I note that reference to a musket bullet has been removed from the main text. Nevertheless, I think that compliance with WP:NOFULLTEXT has not been improved. I think that too much of the article is in quotes and that they are written in an old sort of English language that is difficult to read now. The quotes include old language such as "dun" and "frontlet", which I have enquired about above and awaiting elucidation. Snowman (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I like the quotes overall, I'm still of the view that the (very colourful) quote about gizzard stones doesn't add much that isn't effectively said in the existing text, perhaps with a little expansion. I didn't have any difficulty with "dun", which I knew to be a grey-brown colour, and which in contemporary use I don't associate solely with horses, either. "Frontlet" is another matter, but I wouldn't mind a square bracketed explanation. If there isn't a reliable explanation, I would recommend a footnote placed at that point, the text of which says basically "It is not reliably known to what part of the anatomy this word refers". I understand Snowman's concerns, it's just that, on balance, I find this a richer article for having the quotes. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The frontlet issue can be resolved, it can mean both forehead and a sort of headband, I actually think he meant the latter on second thoughts (it referred to the swan like stripe at the base of the upper bill). As for the gizzard quote, I think it is highly notable, as it is the only reason the stones found were even suspected to be gastroliths in the first place (when collected it was unknown what they were). This very passage itself has therefore been integral to our understanding of the bird and interpretation of its remains. As for metacarpal, in birds it is fused with the rest of the hand in the carpometacarpus. But the metacarpal itself can still be separately listed (as it was in the source). FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of meanings of frontlet in the OED. The one that I think is most likely is; "b. Ornithol. The margin of the head, behind the bill, of birds, generally clothed with rigid bristles" and the OED gives a quote of its use in 1874. One of the illustrations on the page would seem to confirm this. It can also mean the forehead of animals, a headband, and more. Snowman (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1907 restoration seems to exaggerate this feature more than is implied by Leguagt's illustration and the descriptions. But perhaps it is supposed to be a male, as it does not show the breast like area. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds - (disclosure as wikiproject birds member) - I like the quotes as they (a) break up the prose in a refreshing manner, and (b) give the reader the most direct insight into the observations without hypothesising by secondary sources. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that page organisation could be better and more artistically laid out. There are blocks of text and images all over the place and odd-sized white space between these and text, at least on my screen. The Philip Larkin article is tidier has blocks of text one the left side and images on the right side of the page. Snowman (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Apart from the wrist-knob he described, ...". Could this be clarified to say clearly if bones confirmed the description of the knob or not.Snowman (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this in the source and I have rephrased the article, but it might need rephrasing. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I have changed it to; "... had light-coloured elevations on the lower neck." Snowman (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
", having light elevations on the lower neck". What is an "elevation" or "light elevation"? Snowman (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Many skeletal features of the Solitaire and Dodo that are unique among pigeons ...". I do not understand this, which seems to imply that it would have been obvious that the Dodo originated form a pigeon. In fact the origins of the Dodo was a mystery until DNA analysis. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re File:Leguat1891solitaire.jpg. This is an illustration of a bird with a tree or cactus in the background. Does the artist mention this plant in his description of it? Is the fruit on the tree anything to do with the bird? Does the bird eat that fruit? Snowman (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the A and E Newton paper there is a description of the microscopic anatomy of a wing knob by J Gedge. Would this be informative to help describe these unusual bone-knobs? Snowman (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has; "Newton, A.; Newton, E. (1869). "On the Osteology of the Solitaire or Didine Bird of the Island of Rodriguez, Pezophaps solitaria (Gmel)". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 159: 327. doi:10.1098/rstl.1869.0011.". The journal has; "10.1098/rspl.1867.0091 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1867 vol. 16 428-433 ". Snowman (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been careful to avoid white space, and I have not seen any on either my large screen or this small laptop screen (what is your setting for text size?). As for image placement, animals and people should face the text, per image MOS, and that's what I have mainly followed. Alignment also varies to prevent clutter on one side. The quotes in the Larkin article are different, as they are poems, which stretch vertically instead of horizontally, due to the short verses. As for Dodo origins, it was widely accepted they were pigeons already in the 1850s, the DNA study only confirmed it. As for the fruit in the image, Leguat mentions it ate "dates", but that is all. And yes, that study you mention might be helpful, if it exists, and wasn't just a personal comment. The two Newton papers are an abstract and the article itself, but the abstract does contain slightly different info. An elevation is a point protruding higher than the surrounding area. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other reports of elevations on the lower neck? Could it be that the lighter colour there gave the impression of an elevation? Snowman (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing is known of this feature beyond Leguat's description and drawing. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
An episode of the hit primetime medical drama Grey's Anatomy, known for deviating from its usual themes. I am nominating it for featured article status because I created it, had it featured at DYK, listed as a GA, and approved for A-class. A lot of work has been put into this article to ensure it meets the criteria, including a peer review from TBrandley and a recent copyedit from Nikkimaria. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Thanks for the source review; I was concerned about who would have done it since Nikkimaria is a nominator :-) TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think she most likely would of questioned Wetpaint, Zap2it, and TV Fanatic as sources. But, those have been explained before. TBrandley 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those have been determined reliable. By the way; Nikkimaria is a girl :-) TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. Used to writing "he". :0 TBrandley 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done; that is awkward because "opined" is synonymous with giving their opinion. It wasn't his opinion, it is fact; he wrote the episode. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That said, I see several instances of the curly being used in the quote feautead at the end of production. Examples are It’s, That’s, etc. Please change.
You mention reviews from critics, but, then, to find more, you have to look at the second paragraph. Merge "The episode received positive reviews among critics" to the second paragraph
Support. Looks good now. TBrandley 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting, but just to clarify, what were you saying was very repetitive? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""Give Peace a Chance" opens with". We do know that it opens to them. Its the first sentence, just WP:COMMONSENSE. TBrandley 02:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was chosen as a lead-in word, instead of just saying "Webber is implementing...". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. TBrandley 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments fro Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Support - Fairly short, but solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Support. With the issues being resolved, GPAC is now ready to be an FA. --Sofffie7 (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"The initial airing was viewed by 13.74 million Americans" not definite. Hypothetically, an Australian, on holiday in Atlanta might have viewed the episode – does that make them American, or native to the country? Going by Triangle (The X-Files), best to use 'viewers'.
I changed it to 'people' because it sounded redundant to say "viewed by XX million viewers". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is multihour hyphenated or not? I'm certain I've seen it presented singular (as a Countdown conundrum) and prefixes like mega, mini and multi very rarely need hyphens. Might just be hyphenated in American English so be sure to double check. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The spellcheck on my computer says it's hyphenated. In addition, a quick google search without hyphenation makes the word hyphenated. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
I would like to see a lead image. Is that possible?
That makes two of us. Look at all the episode screenshots here. Do you think any of them meet NFCC? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all of them, I think this would be the best as it shows a lot of the cast which the article talks about. It also shows them in hospital clothing and would be necersary to illustrate exactly what they look like. The article, I feel, could do with some illustration. I have never seen the series and whilst reading it, I was trying to visualise what the characters might have looked like; this image (or one similar) would certainly of helped. I am no image guru so it will have to properly assessed as to the meeting of NFCC criteria, but I think you might have a strong enough case to include it or one like it. -- CassiantoTalk 04:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that meets NFCC. Usually, the only time it seems episodic images are allowed, is when they are critically commented on. I feel like this would be deleted. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Knowing that she will not be able to use the bathroom for the entire procedure, Lexie decides to wear a diaper into the operating room, which impresses Yang." Why would this impress her?
"Isaac asks Shepherd to attempt removing it." --- "Isaac asks Shepherd to operate on him"
I think that's a bit ambiguous, because he could be asking him to do any random surgery; he asks him to remove the tumor. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that ambiguous when you consider we have mentioned he is suffering from a tumour. Also, "attempt removing" sounds wrong. "attempt to remove it" sounds better IMO -- CassiantoTalk 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to simply "Isaac asks Shepherd to remove it." TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...the episode was written by Peter Nowalk and directed by Wilson" -- I would use Wilson's full name here as its the first time she is mentioned.
Her name is linked and given in full in 'Plot'. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, sorry I missed that. I think there needs to be some explaination that she was the director and the actress in the episode. As far as I can see there is no mention of this within the same sentence. Wilson is a very common surname and without the explanation early on that she did both, one would have to stop reading to go back to check it was the same person. I think with this explained, surname usage would be OK. -- CassiantoTalk 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""Give Peace a Chance" was originally broadcast on October 29, 2009 in the United States on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) channel"
I've never seen it written like that. For example, see "Say Hello to My Little Friend", a recently promoted FA. (I know it's NBC, but it's the same concept except for the first word.)
We mention "I Saw What I Saw" by name the second time around when I think it should be the first. For example "The episode underperformed the previous installment in terms of viewership. It was viewed by a total of 13.74 million people, down 1.66 percent from the previous episode "I Saw What I Saw", which garnered 15.04 million viewers."
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel its a thorough look of a fairly major Indonesian religious figure. It has gone through a GA review by Grapple X and a peer review by Mark Arsten. If passed, this will be our first FA on a National Hero of Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments for now
This is very well written. I found a few glitches that need attention, but nothing worth arguing about:
"...quoting the Finding in the Temple to show why he should not need his parents permission." - possessive needed.
Done.
"He found himself intrigued by the Trinity, and asked several of the priests for clarification." - redundancy, how about was intrigued?
Done
"Soegija, who found himself wanting to learn more." - same here.
Done
This reads a little awkwardly, "Several other of Soegija's writings were published in St. Claverbond, Berichten uit Java." How about Several of Soegija's other writings?
Done.
Please check for WP:ENGVAR consistency, I think I saw "counseled" somewhere.
Done.
"On 30 May 1963 Soegijapranata left Indonesia for Europe to attended the election of Pope Paul VI." - I guess this is just a typo? Graham Colm (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following a further two readings, I am satisfied that this contribution fulfils the FA criteria. I am impressed with quality of the prose, particularly with regards to style and flow. I found the coordinates a little strange, given this a biography and not a geography article, perhaps you could remind me why they are needed? Graham Colm (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indicates the location of his grave (the functionality is built into the infobox). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow; great work. TBrandley 02:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it all, thanks for looking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Was already happy with this one when I reviewed it for GA; the subsequent smoothing of minor wrinkles just seals it. GRAPPLEX 21:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Supported below I peer reviewed and copy edited this a month or so ago, so I don't have too much left to add.
"Soegija was pressured from his Catholic classmates" Is it just me, or does this sound a bit awkward?
If I remember correctly, that was "under pressure" before. Changed.
"he required permission from his parents first; although his parents refused, Soegija was nevertheless allowed to study" I'm being a bit picky here, but there's repetition of "parents... parents" here.
Agree with you. Done.
In the first paragraph of "Path to priesthood" there's some repetition of novitiate, and some repetition of Xaverius in the third.
Removed one "novitiate", two "Xaverius"
"In a letter dated 11 August 1923 he wrote that the Javanese were so far unable to discern between Catholics and Protestants, and that the best way to convert the Javanese was by deeds, not words." Probably not an issue, but is there a relation between the two halves of the sentence? If so, you should probably tie them together more clearly.
Not really, no. How's this.
Actually, I think the earlier version worked better, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"After his ordination, Soegija appended the word pranata, meaning "prayer" or "hope", as a suffix to his birth name, a common practice in Javanese culture after its bearer reached an important milestone." What was the common practice? Adding "pranata" to one's name? Or adding a name in general?
How's this?
Try to double check that the refs are in ascending order, I fixed one out of order sequence.
You might think about adding a pronunciation of his name, it looks like quite the tongue twister. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be IPA though. I'll get on that — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added, for what good it'll do the average reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph in the lead there are several sentences that begin "In [year] ..." Might want to try for some more variation.
How's this?
"Concerned with civilian suffering, the vicar apostolic told the Allies that they must stop the battle, the Allies could not comply as they did not know the Japanese commander." I think this is a comma splice.
You're right.
"installing Moch. Ikhsan as mayor" Presumably this isn't an error, I'm just curious what "Moch." stands for.
Presumably "Mochtar", but a ref would have to wait
"In 1953 the Ministry for Religion decreed that no foreign missionaries would be allowed into the country, and a subsequent law prohibited those already in the country from teaching." Some repetition of "country" here.
Done.
I made several copyedits, hopefully nothing offensive.
The only big issue I have is the removal of "by" from "by then under Dutch control". The Proclamation was made in Jakarta, so just "then" could be misread as implying that the Indonesian government had never had power over Jakarta. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Soegijapranata promoted the state philosophy of Pancasila – literally the five tenets – through the organisation." I feel like this is a bit of a garden path. I'd suggest starting with "through the organisation".
Okay.
"asked the vicar to join the National Council, a request that Soegijapranata refused; the vicar did," Some repetition of "the vicar" here.
Vicar --> he
Also, you have a couple semi-colons pretty close to each other in the paragraph I took the above sentence from.
Trimmed.
"The film ... sold over 100,000 tickets on its first day." Is that a lot for an Indonesian film?
In a word, yes. More lengthily: Surat Kecil Untuk Tuhan was the most viewed film of 2011 and was seen by only 700k people total. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Several non-fiction biographies of Soegija, by both Catholic and non-Catholic writers, were released during this time." When is "this time"? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "concurrently" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, I'm confident that this meets the FA criteria at this point. Seems well written and comprehensive, also very interesting and engaging. I did a quick search for sources during the PR and this seems to cover the available English reliable sources I turned up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still places the prose could be improved, mostly owing to repetition -- these examples from the lead:
Soegija was born in Surakarta, Dutch East Indies, to a courtier and his wife. The Muslim family... -- If we're going to emphasise that he was born to a Muslim family, it might flow better to say "to a Muslim courtier and his wife. The family..."
Agree, done.
He began his two-year novitiate with the Society of Jesus in September 1920 in Grave, later finishing his juniorate there in 1923. -- 1923 is obviously after 1920, so do we need "later"?
Graham got that.
...called for the central government to send someone to deal with the unrest in the city. However, unrest and food shortages continued... -- Not essential, but be nice to come up with an alternate word to the second "unrest".
Done.
He was elevated to archbishop on 3 January 1961, when Semarang was elevated to an ecclesiastical province. -- Could he be "promoted" or "raised" to archbishop, so we don't repeat "elevated"?
Done.
Bit of a howler here: Several biographies of him have been written about him"
Looks like Graham got that.
Scanning towards the end I noticed Soegijapranata then went for treatment at Canisius Hospital in Nijmegen, where he underwent treatment from 29 June until 6 July; this treatment was unsuccessful. -- All those treatments and still unsuccessful? I'm sure we could easily reduce to two treatments, one if we're imaginative...
This was actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd review and copyedit the whole article myself except that, with Graham reviewing, we might have trouble closing the FAC -- but I think it needs another pair of eyes to check prose throughout.
Well...
Lastly, we'll need an image check at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering posting at WT:FAC but wasn't sure if non-delegates are allowed to request an image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but it's fine for non-delegates to post requests there (as you've found by being bold)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check -- Got on to this myself and am satisfied with licensing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the look!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because, since building it up from a stub, it is now comprehensive, well-organized and fully referenced. The book which is its subject was a turning point for its author on personal, artistic and professional levels, and it was a surprise best-seller from a veteran underground cartoonist whom few would have expected would ever have broken out of the underground. It has just passed GA review. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Disclaimer: reviewed at PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Rielcomicstripcover.jpg: purpose of use could be a bit more expansive. Also, are you sure Brown retained copyright to the cover? It would be more usual for the publisher to assume copyright of works they publish.
Done---Drawn and Quarterly has a reputation for not retaining the rights of the artists it publishes (actually, this is standard practice in the alternative comics world, where creators' rights has long been a hot topic). The indicia on both the serial and the collected work confirm that the copyright is his. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Battle_of_Batoche_Print_by_Seargent_Grundy.jpg: was this subject to Crown Copyright? Also, do you have a catalogue or ID number for the archive, or a link?
Done---added link to where I originally found it, plus more catalogue information and more detail to the description. The Crown did not hold the copyright---it was published independently by John Wilson Bengough's Grip Printing & Publishing Co. in Toronto in 1885. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg: need more information. Is the photographer known? Was this subject to Crown Copyright? If so, when/where was first publication?
Done---the photographer was George Lancefield, and the photo is actually believed to be from ca. 1875. I've added more information, and I've put in a request to have the file renamed to reflect the correct date. Library and Archives Canada doesn't say if it was subject to Crown Copyright, only that the copyright is expired. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, compare the two Arnold 2003s - one includes an access date and one does not, even though these cite the same magazine. Essentially, access dates aren't required for newspapers/magazines/journals/books, but if you want to include them you can so long as you're consistent in what types of publications include them. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the "Eye Weekly" link has gone dead. maclean (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's frusatrating. It appears the Eye Weekly site now redirects to The Grid TO, and the Eye Weekly archives have gone down. Ther's no copy at the Wayback Machine, although Google still has a cached copy.
The "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=" parameter of cite web might work for this but I an unsure how long the google cache will exist for. It is ok to remove the dead external link - they are not required. maclean (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...the cached page has disappeared, just as I thought I should download a personal copy before it did. Too bad, it was a good article, and I used it as a ref in Chester Brown and Paying for It as well... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 06:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed this article at Talk:Louis Riel (comics)/GA1 under the GA criteria and again here under the FA criteria. It is well-written and well-researched and meets style guidelines required by the FA criteria. maclean (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Supported below Looks interesting, I'll give this a review. I made some copyediting changes, feel free to revert the stylistic changes if you don't like them. My experience with Canadian comics is limited to the first half of the Cerebus series, so I'll mainly be looking at prose/MOS issues.
Check for consistency in the use of the serial comma.
"a key work in serious graphic novels holding shelf space in mainstream bookstores" There's a fused participle here, I think. Also, this sentence reads a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it?
"and which he himself does not necessarily believe" Not a big deal, but this also seems a bit wordy.
I'll have to think about how to reword this. I don't want to remove it, though. The way Brown's notes undermine his story is one of the more interesting aspects of the book, and critics and reviewers have repeatedly noted it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Though Brown grew up in Quebec, where the majority speaks French, Brown speaks only English,[3] and only became interested in Riel's story in 1995, well into his adulthood." How do the two halves of this sentence (his language and when he became interested in Riel) relate?
How about: "Brown grew up in Quebec, where the majority speaks French, and where Riel is often considered a martyr. However, Brown (a monolingual English-speaker), was largely ignorant of Riel's story until he read a biography about the Métis leader in 1995." From the interview which is the source for this, Dave Sim (another monolingual English-speaker, from Ontario) assumed Brown's upbringing in Quebec would have meant that Brown would have been inundated with Riel's story while growing up, and that maybe that was the source of Brown's interest in the story. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to paraphrase this quote: "his "antagonistic relationship with the Canadian government","
Really? I thought that quote was about the perfect way to phrase it. Is there some reason to reword it? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess you can leave it--seemed a bit odd to me for some reason, more of a suggestion I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check for consistency with dates after commas: "In 1995, Brown..." vs "In 1998 he turned his attention..."
There's a little repetition in the last section, "graphic novel ever" is repeated in a couple sentences and "especially in Canada" is repeated in the same sentence.
Do you know which stream of Anarchism Brown was part of before his transition?
He was only an anarchist in a vague, "government is bad" sort of way, but "anarchist" is the way he consistently described himself in interviews. He never formally subscribed to any political ideology until he became a libertarian. He says himself he wasn't very politically aware before his libertarian rebirth. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good thus far, will post more comments later. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made some more copyedits, my apologies in advance if they introduce errors. Still looks pretty good.
In the "Primary characters" section, I see you use " ; " in front of the names, I think " ''' " is better for screen readers or something.
Done. I looked at some literature FAs, and it looks like some of them put the characters in subsections, so I've gone and done that, too. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2012, Louis Riel was one of two books that would the first Drawn and Quarterly would offer in e-book format" A bit jumbled here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tone and mood are set by the composition of the panels, as during Riel's trial when all tonal variation is dropped, and the white figures are placed against a heavy black background,[29] emphasizing the courtroom's claustrophobic atmosphere" Just a suggestion but I think you could remove "courtroom's" since the reader will infer that his trial took place in a courtroom.
"⟨chevron brackets⟩, and Cree language dialogue in ⟨⟨double-chevrons⟩⟩." I think just the link would do here.
I'm sure it would, but I think it gets the point across quickly and concisely, especially since a lot of people aren't familiar with the word "chevron" in this context. Is it intrusive or distracting? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The size and weight of the dialogue in the is varied according to speech patterns" a bit jumbled here.
Done. Weird, there was an extra space in the source for "seech balloons"... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"reminiscent of the late-19th century editorial cartoonists that would have been Riel's contemporaries." "Would have" or "were"?
"It has perhaps sold more copies that any other graphic novel within Canada." Is there a way to be more definite here? Maybe attribute the estimate to someone?
Done. Actually I meant to change that, and forgot. Attributed to Jeet Heer. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Louis Riel brought Brown out of the fringes into the mainstream,[46] and also brought more serious attention to graphic novels." Is there a good way around the "brought... brought" repetition here? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking the time to look this over. If you have any more feedback or answers to my questions, though, I won't be able to respond quickly for the next month. I'll be travelling, and I'll have infrequent access to the internet. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, I think this meets the FA criteria now, good work. Sorry for the slothful pace of the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect to support, but have a small batch of comments. I'm sorry to be so delayed and I'll hope to have the rest to you in a day or so.
""He also noted where he incorporated a conspiracy theory not widely accepted by historians, and which he himself does not necessarily believe." This is an awkward sentence ("noted where") and the ending reads like a legal disclaimer. I think this can be better handled, perhaps by moving it up to the start of where you talk about his apparatus, and use it as a lead-in. "Brown included in the comic a conspiracy theory ..." leave out Brown's opinion.
I'm not sure I would finish the lede that way, which is your last opportunity to sell the reader on the "first page" of the article (i.e., he's got to decide whether to scroll down or not. Do you expect Brown's change of view to be important to the reader? Will the reader consider Brown important enough to want to get the goods on how it was that happened?
Done. It was important in the sense that he would later run for federal politics as a Libertarian, and that his next book would be written from an explicitly Libertarian point of view, but I suppose it's not a good way to end the lead. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overview
If you are going to say how long the depiction of Riel's conflict with Canada is, we need the length of the the book to be close by.
You should probably explain what Underwater is as soon as you mention it. I'm getting somewhat of a feeling that this article assumes some knowledge of Brown and his works, and it assumes that he is prominent enough for us to take considerable interest in him. I don't know if he is or not, I know little about comics. Just saying that's what is coming across to me.
" reevaluating his diagnosis of mental illness" Whose diagnosis? And is it settled that Riel was mentally ill? The last I heard there was still some discussion about this.
"While Brown's depiction of Riel" this paragraph, perhaps boiled down a bit (you don't need the introductory clause) possibly should be consigned to a footnote.
Image caption: For those not minded to click on the image and given the tiny print in thumbnail, I would indicate where Manitoba is on the map with something like "lower centre" in parens.
Clarify how the prisoners can be released from Fort Garry and subsequently pass Fort Garry.
Done. It was Schultz's men, not the prisoners, who subsequently passed Fort Garry. I've reworded for clarity. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbnail introductions along the lines of "English settler" would help with keeping track of the names.
" One of the prisoners, Thomas Scott, relentlessly quarrels with the guards, showering them with racial epithets. Eventually, he is convicted of treason" The implication is that his badmouthing of his guards led to conviction for treason (it's the "Eventually,", really) possibly without legal proceedings, just because he ticked off his guards. Trial by fury? You need to make it clear that what happened to Scott was by Riel's provisional government.
In the comic, does he return to Red River (you should probably say Manitoba, btw) to stand for Parliament? Or was it in his absence?
In the book, he runs and wins his seat while hiding out in Manitoba. He's depicted later in Ottawa, hesitant to actually sit, and then goes into hiding again. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mackenzie becomes prime minister before 1874, no? Is it presented out of chronological order in the comic?
Done. "become" ==> "has become". The book is strictly in chronological order. Mackenzie's election is not shown, though, and he makes his (brief) appearance only after Riel's 1874 win. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of an exile if he was near Montreal in 1876.
He was supposed to be in exile, and was in the US until being transported secretly to Montreal. In the book, he was most recently in Washington DC before he is brought to Montreal. It is not stated how he was brought there, but he was brought there under an assumed name. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Batoche, Saskatchewan, in mid-1884." Saskatchewan? In 1884? Perhaps (now in Saskatchewan)
I imagine by his comment that the break was from the Catholic Church. Perhaps it would be wise to mention Riel's Catholic birth at some point earlier than this.
"every dog shall bark" You say he famously said this. At least according to Gwyn, his most recent biographer, there's doubt about whether he did. Can you phrase this in a way that doesn't say to the reader with definiteness that he did? Yes, I know it's the plot section but you are saying with definiteness that Macdonald said this.
Done. "famous" was entirely gratuitous, and I've removed it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" the rebels receive a pardon," I would say "remaining rebels"
The drunkenness of Macdonald is certainly established historical fact, although I don't think there's any indication he had a drinking problem in 1885. He appears to have cleaned up his act (or his wife did) while he was in opposition.
In the book, Macdonald is depicted as coming up with the conspiracy to finish the CP railway by instigating the North-West Rebellion while in a drunken stupor alone in the Watts Hotel in November 1884. If there's a reference saying he'd given up drinking by that point, I'd be happy to include it, but I hardly think his depicted drunkenness would be more libellous than depicting him coming up with the conspiracy. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appendix
" Louis Riel, Brown was increasingly making use of notes and appendices in his work." Increasingly compared to what? It's not so much the notes, it's the "increasing ... use of ... appendices" which is giving me pause here.
Given that you mentioned, in some detail, Mom, above, should some mention of From Hell be done up there as noting the genesis of Riel?
In the source, Brown mentions the influence in passing, but no details are given. I'm not given the impression that the influence was great. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" he would not actually have been present." "He was not actually present"
The sentence about the grant of $6000 seems out of place.
Really? He was given the grant halfway through the serialization. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note the sentence on the footnotes in this section, and that it is the third time you have mentioned them in more than passing. Can some consolidation be done?
"as the series progressed and the influence of Harold Gray became stronger" You've mentioned Gray before, though only in passing. I'm not able to see why a minimalist drawing style would lead to big hands. You may want to say that he altered his drawing style as the series progressed, and why, and say he adjusted them. I don't think "corrected" is the proper term.
A minimalist drawing style doesn't lead to big hands—Harold Gray's drawing style was noted for small heads and big hands. The paragraph doesn't mention minimalism.
"Composition takes place from panel to panel—scenes change anywhere on the page with little regard to page layout." Huh?
Maybe I'll have to work on this. Brown doesn't take the comnposition of the page into account when telling his story. In many comics, transitions happen between pages, but in Louis Riel, scenes can change anywhere on the page. This is because Brown draws each panel on separate sheets of paper, whereas traditionally one would draw the whole page on one sheet of paper. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He frequently cited Harold Gray " You've mentioned Gray twice before, but this seems to be the main explanation. I'm dubious that this is the best way to inform the reader about Gray's influence over Brown. You may want to have this explanation prior to the earlier two mentions of Gray.
Do you mean: move the "Style" section earlier in the article? Given that the influence is 99% in the drawing style, I don't think the explanation would be better in a different section. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've moved the "Style" section forward, so I suppose this is done. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Gray often used his strip as a public platform for politics, and Louis Riel was also very public and outward-looking, in great contrast to the inward-looking comics he had previously been known for—notably his autobiographical work. " This sentence takes on too much, and it is unclear what the attributes you mention mean. Divide and rephrase.
"extremely cartoony style of Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe" Don't most cartoons have a cartoony style? Can this be better explained for the lay reader?
Legacy. I think it is premature to speak of a ten year old book as having a legacy.
Could you suggest a better catch-all for the content of that section? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while I understand Wehwalt's doubt, I thought it was probably the best word, on balance. "Critical reception" would not cover everything that the section addresses, and I'm not a fan of "Impact", which was the only other thought i had.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"despite Riel's own political conservatism" I'm not sure I would characterize Riel as a conservative.
Done. Reworded to shown it was Brown who considered him politically conservative. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't anything more be said about the footnotes/appendix? Such things can be clever (say those of George Macdonald Fraser. You never really tell us anything about it except that it's long and that Brown details his political change.
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. There's a three-paragraph section on the appendix, and it definitely talks about things other than Brown's politics (in fact, the "Appendix" section doesn't even talk about his politics—that's talked about elsewhere in the article). CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment I find the opening sentence to be a little awkward and non-standard. Could it be recast along the lines of Watchmen?—indopug (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One issue with that is that it was never conceived as a ten-issue series---it was conceived as a graphic novel. The fact that it was serialized was against Brown's intention, and it wasn't known at the beginning of publication how many issues it would be. Wording it the way it was in the Watchmen article would put undue weight on the serial, which was financially unsuccessful and not the way Brown conceived his book, whereas Watchmen was conceived as a 12-issue miniseries which later just happened to be collected in a book due to its success. If the opening sentence is awkward, I'd be happy to fix it in some other way. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it myself to my liking, but feel free to tweak/revert (specifically, the mention of it being a historical bio of Riel is moved to the second sentence). One more thing: a lot of words should be de-linked—rebel, martyr, index, prophet, insanity, visions—and this is just in the first part of Overview. Basically, common English words needn't be linked.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of issues:
"Graphic novel" is a term I've danced around. The term itself is a movig target---not only has its meaning changed rapidly over time, but it has widely different meanings for different people. Some avoid its use entirely; others use it as a synonym for comics; yet others insist it must mean "novelistic" comics (which, again, has different meanings for different people). Given that Louis Riel is a biography rather than a novel, I've avoided use of the term except where unavoidable (for example, all comics over the past decade have been classifed as "graphic novels" in bookstores and libraries, so in references to its sales classification I've referred to it as a "graphic novel"). "Comics" is neutral and factual.
I don't like the idea of referring to the serialization dates in the first sentence---it puts undue weight on it, when the serialization was something that Brown opposed, and was commercially unsuccessful. Unlike something like Watchmen, where each issue was a "chapter", in Louis Riel, Brown paid no heed to the serial nature of the book, cutting off issues in mid-scene once the required number of pages had been met. For the reader, I think it would be far more helpful to talk about what the book is about, before talking about incidentals like the serialization dates. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind de-emphasising the serialisation. However, keep in mind that, in a sense, "how the author intended his work to be" is not really the ultimate consideration for us. How history actually played out matters too. As for graphic novel, replace "comic book" in the lead sentence?—indopug (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"How history actually played out": in that case, the serial was a commercial flop, but the book was an unqualified critical and commercial success, breaking into mainstream bestseller lists. It is the form, whether hardcover, paperback or digital, that the vast majority of future readers will be exposed to. Reprinting of the serial, which Brown was opposed to, and which had less consistent artwork, is extremely unlikely.
"Comic book" is totally inappropriate, as it refers to the thin periodicals that North American comics stories (aside from comic strips) were most commonly printed in in the 20th century. In fact, that's what originally gave rise to the term "graphic novel"---just what do you call a book full of comics, when "comic book" already refers to the floppies? A "comic book book"? Unfortunately, things have come full circle (in a way) with many booksellers and librarians now referring to all comics as "graphic novels", including the floppies. Comics is frustrating to talk about in English when one is trying to be precise, and the situation doesn't seem like it will clear up in the near future. This is why I prefer "comics", as it doesn't seem to be such a moving target. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
Is it proper to pluralize "comics" in the lead? "Louis Riel is a 2003 comic biography..." seems more proper to me.
In that vein, "In 1995, Brown published the anti-psychiatry comic essay..." in the background section would also be more proper.
Like "economics" and "politics", "comics" is singular when referring to the artform. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Comic" also has the meaning of "comedic". Neither the book nor the essay are comedic. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Would "The book explores the possibly schizophrenic aspect of Riel's personality..." sound better?
"He became interested in Riel in 1995 after reading Maggie Siggins' 1994 biography Louis Riel: A Life of Revolution." - Redundant, as you already mentioned one paragraph above that he became interested after reading a biography.
"and the Toronto Star placed it on its list of the ten best books of the century in 2009" - this misled me a little, as I first took it to mean over the last 100 years. That struck me as very odd. The source refers only to the decade ending 2009. I think that should be made a little clearer.
I was looking at some of the references, and noticed in the Joan Marshall reference that she notes the speaking of Riel and others is "more educated and sophisticated" in French than English, part of which the dropped h's in English is meant to imply. I think that might be a useful addition to this article.
Overall though, I quite like the article. I can't see much wrong from my position, and I am unable to think of anything it may be missing. I also may have to check out this book, though I generally dislike graphic novels. It seems interesting! Resolute 02:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now, nice article! Resolute 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Why is there a section called "Overview" that is actually half the article? And should "background" really be a subsection of an "overview"? Why are the plot and "primary characters" subsections of "overview"? And why is "Appendix" a subsection of overview?? The article structure seems wierd to me.
I've fiddled with this myself to try and improve it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The overlinking is extraordinary. I've tackled some and will try and tackle some more.
I've never quite understood this. Many people (myself included) don't read articles (particularly long ones) in sequence. As long as the duplicated links are in different sections (and they are), why is this an issue? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OVERLINK in the Manual of Style, it is about helping readers identify relevant information; but links also detract from readability, in that they attract the eye - so we only want them where necessary. Yes, if someone picks up the thread half way through, they may strike a word or name that they might want to know more about but, if they know they started half way through, they'll figure it might be elsewhere in the text. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though I've left a couple, which I'm willing to defend if anyone cares enough to object. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In "Appendix", we are told "In Louis Riel, the appendix totalled 23 pages, along with a bibliography and an index." Then in the very next section, "publication history", we are told "The comic book and the collection both came with copious amounts of footnotes (23 pages in the latter), and the collection came with a bibliography and an index." This seems repetition of some oddly obscure detail, yet slightly inconsistent in referring to the 23 pages as appendix in one, but footnotes in the other (or are they genuinely two different parts of the text, but both just happen to be 23 pages long?).
Done. The appendix is made up of footnotes. I've gone and reduced the amount of repetitious details. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency query - a rebellion is called North-West Rebellion at one point, but 1885 Rebellion at another.
Overview refers to "end notes"; publication history refers to "footnotes". Are there really both kinds? Footnotes are at the bottom of a page; endnotes are at the end of the entire text. Which is it?
My 'oppose' is based on the article structure - but if it can be explained and defended, and other editors have no problem with it, then fair enough; I also don't get how something got this far with the overlinking on steroids, but at least that can be easily fixed... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
[reply]
On further thought: I think the minimalist solution is: get rid of the two paras directly under "Overview" - if you want to keep any of that text, it should be under the next heading "Background". Then delete the heading "overview" and promote "Background", "Plot", "primary characters" and "appendix" to top-level headings. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now that structural issues in particular have been addressed, but with the caveat that I haven't looked at source issues and referencing. The changes weren't that major, but I think it has a much better 'feel' now, and it tells an intriguing story. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
"Don McLean and D. N. Sprague" - And they are? I'm hearing "American Pie", but I doubt that's the right person.
Done. McLean was a researcher from Saskatchewan, and Sprague was a historian. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Louis Riel script came to over 200 pages." - Reads a little awkward. Why not "The script for Louis Riel came to over 200 pages."
Unlikely. Pretty much everything notable about Jasper is covered or coverable in the Simpkins article. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but now we have "publish" repeated twice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Le crépuscule des Bois-Brûlés ("The Twilight of the Métis")" Why do you have a translation for this and not the others?
Done. I thought the translation was in the source, but that doesn't appear to be true. I don't trust my own French to have done it...so where did it come from? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: "Please" isn't really encyclopedic. Perhaps just "Other translations contradict the one given here (see Manitoba), but "the god that speaks" is the translation Riel's character gives in the story", or even "other translations contradict the one given here (see Manitoba)"
"the white figures are placed against a heavy black background," - In a literal or racial sense? If the former, this may need a bit of rephrasing.
I think this is only an issue when the line is taken out of context. At this point in the article, and in the "Style" section no less, it's hard for me to see this not being obvious. I also don't see any obvious fixes and aren't awkward. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"size 0" - Any good targets?
It would be nice if the Ink brush article weren't so horrible. Maybe someday I'll be able to motivate myself to work on it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He also included a "Major-General Thomas Bland Strange" in an 1885 meeting at which he was not actually present. - Perhaps "He also included Major-General Thomas Bland Strange in an 1885 meeting at which the general was not present."
CAD $6000 or CAD 6000 ? Don't forget, D stands for $
In the article for Canadian dollar, I see a chart using "$CAD" and "$USD", as well as "US$". Does this require fixing? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that when I go to banks they just use CAD and USD. Perhaps the alternative, C$? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit tricky - we should not be making up our own term, but using one that sources use. I think CAD (and no dollar sign) or CAN$ are options. CAD$ might be an option, despite the redundancy - i have seen it used occasionally. C$ seems less often used. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick with CAD myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a large swath of readers who wouldn't know immediately what "CAD" meant without a dollar sign somewhere. I'm Canadian, I live in Japan, and I don't think I would have recognized it until well into my twenties without a dollar sign. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, Hamilton? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
making the book's success a surprise. - surprise to whom?
To Brown, his publisher, his fans, his critics, and the publishing industry, which rarely had seen comics in the bestseller lists before then, especially from underground cartoonists. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The comic book and the collection both came with an extensive appendix, and the collection came with a bibliography and an index. The end notes, bibliography, and index were tightly hand-lettered by Brown." - Perhaps with the previous information on the appendix?
(he would later run for parliament as representative of the Libertarian Party of Canada, to the dismay of his friends) - Perhaps as a footnote?
No. Since Louis Riel, Brown's politics have become a central part of his public persona, and was front and centre in his next book. Researching Riel was the turning point for his politics, and he's talked about it multiple times. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be in the main text. You could consider reworking text to take it out of the parentheses. But i don't mind it as it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree to reworking it into the main text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence seems a bit long and convoluted, the second a little short and choppy. Suggest revamping as: Louis Riel is a 2003 historical biography in comic-book form of Métis rebel leader Louis Riel. Created by Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown, it deals with Riel's antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government. -- or something similar (note my suggestion also alters "comics form" to "comic-book form", which I think reads better). If you go with this phrasing, the next sentence would probably flow better as It begins shortly before the 1869 Red River Rebellion, and ends with Riel's 1885 hanging for high treason.
Done, except for the "comic book" bit. As I've explained above, the word "comic book" refers specifically to the thin, floppy periodicals in which multipage comics have traditionally appeared in North America. This is what gave rise to the use of "graphic novel" in the first place: just what do you call a book-length comic book? Further, British members of WikiProject Comics have pointed out that "comic book" is not a term normally used in Britain. If we are looking for commonalities, then, even "graphic novel" would be a better term (being in use in all English-speaking countries these days). That term's definition, however, is a moving target, and I'd avoid it except where it can't be avoided. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but "comics form" still sounds an odd construction to these ears, and I noted when I was composing the above post that you've said "Louis Riel was the first comic book..." towards the end of the lead... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. The serialization (ten issues from 1999 to 2003) received a grant, making it the first comics periodical (in North America, known as a "comic book") to receive such a grant. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I think you haven't taken an article to FA before, Curly, I'd like to see a reviewer make a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promoting this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I haven't looked properly yet, but "in order to" in the lead should be just "to". Tony(talk) 13:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)�[reply]
Article: Brown enjoyed this project and thought he would like to take on another project in which he could "cram a lot of research into a comic strip".[10]
Article: He also came across books by researcher Don McLean and historian Douglas N. Sprague that advanced the conspiracy theory that the 1885 North-West Rebellion was deliberately provoked by Prime Minister John A. Macdonald in order to gain support for the building of the transcontinental railway.
Source: ..including the conspiracy theories advanced by D. N. Sprague and Don McLean. (According to these authors, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald deliberately provoked the 1885 rebellion in order to garner support for the completion of a transcontinental railway.) I think the page range should be 165-166
Done. If you mean to include the full sentence, then that would be 164–165. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article: The book makes frequent deliberate use of silent panels, focused on imagery[10]
Source: ...a minimalist approach that saw him "focus on imagery and ... try to have silent panels as much as possible."
Article: as did his earlier experience researching and annotating his comics essay, "My Mom was a Schizophrenic".[10]
Source: This is on either pp. 157, 164 and 204, not p. 165
Done. 164 is the only page that mentions the research aspect. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article: An army of 1,200 men arrives, ostensibly to keep the peace, but when it is learned they intend to lynch Riel, the rebels abandon Fort Garry. Riel flees to the U.S., and the anglophone population assumes governance.[23]
Source: Louis Riel: the newly, ad hoc-elected eponymous popular leader sends his troops into the nearby-situated Fort Garry to secure the provisions and weapons stored there, before they fall into the hands of their pro-Canadian adversaries.
I can't fully verify this.
From the source, this is closer: These lead to the promise of extensive autonomy for the region, now called Manitoba by its government, as well as amnesty for those involved in the insurrection and the execution of Scott. Rather than honoring the deal, however, Canada sends its army to the area and crushes the opposition. This leads to the English-speaking part of the population taking over the region’s governance and Riel being forced to go into hiding. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 19:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no mention of 1,200 men or the lynching (and please try to do something with your signature, which by occupying three lines on each occurrence , is cluttering the edit page). Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...okay, I've removed that. It's disappointing that I can't find a source that talks about the lynching. Taking that out removes context. Curly Turkey (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article: ..which were rendered running with their legs splayed, as an artist may have depicted them in the days before the influence of Eadweard Muybridge's photographs of bodies in motion.[23]
Source: This is accentuated specifically by the use of the pre-photographic convention depicting horses running with their legs splayed – a non-naturalistic and now archaic, but nevertheless dynamic strategy fully in step with pictorial convention before Eadweard Muybridge’s late 1870s split-second sequential photographic depictions of horses and other bodies in motion.
Article: Against his will, Riel's lawyer tries unsuccessfully to defend him on grounds of insanity.[23]
Source: He is defended by a lawyer who – against Riel’s will – seeks acquittal on grounds of insanity, but ends up convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
Article: The drawings were finished using both a thin ink brush (no larger than size 0) and dip pen with a Hunt 102 nib and black ink.[50]
Source: For the Riel book, I drew on water-colour paper, using a thin brush (a zero or thinner), or a dip-pen with a Hunt 102 nib, and black ink. (A dip-pen is one that has no ink cartridge—you have to keep regularly dipping it in ink.) Those materials and tools might sound fancy, but all you really need is any kind of blank paper and a drawing tool of some sort.
No issues, except for those in bold text, which need clarification or correction. Graham Colm (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Sorry for coming back so late:
Shouldn't there be a critical reception section quoting or summarising what major critics and publications had to say? Enough has been written about it's commercial successes, but you don't learn of its critical acclaim until Legacy.
You said above that the author wasn't happy that it was serialised. I'm surprised this isn't in the article.
"Louis Riel is a 2003 historical biography in comics form by Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown. It deals with the rebel Métis leader Louis Riel's antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government." - I think the opening should be changed to this because 1) the artwork's creator really should be in the first sentence and 2) you avoid the awkward "Louis Riel is a biography of Louis Riel" construction.
How about:
"Louis Riel is a historical biography in comics by Chester Brown." It is about Métis rebel leader Louis Riel and his antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government."
and (last paragraph)
"Originally serialized in ten instalments between 1999 and 2003, it was the first comic book to receive a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts."
Perfect. I wouldn't mind adding his reluctance to serialisation too.—indopug (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a couple of key things in the body are missing from the lead. You mentioned above about not wanting to give undue importance to the the serialised publication, but it needs to have a cursory mention at least. Also, you could include a bit more about its critical acclaim.—indopug (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - One of the spotchecks still needs to be addressed.Graham Colm (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I haven't forgotten that. I'm still trying to figure out how I screwed up and how to fix it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note - This has been a candidate for a long time, and I think consensus to promote has been established. I am aware that one or of the reviewers' comments have not been fully addressed, but these can be ironed out post promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The best-known and most influential ancient Egyptian myth, demonstrating the Egyptian perspective on subjects ranging from lunar eclipses to sick children. And above all, death and rebirth. The article uses the best sources available to me (all professional Egyptologists) and has been tweaked in response to its peer review (here). A. Parrot (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Opening_of_the_Mouth_-_Tutankhamun_and_Aja.jpg needs US PD tag
It doesn't currently have the PD-Art tag; you could add that, and use PD-old-100 instead of PD-old if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Egypte_louvre_066.jpg needs to account for licensing of 3D work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How, precisely? The sculpture is 2,800 years old and inherently public domain, and the photographer has licensed the photograph. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but just throw in a PD-old-100 for the sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was quite impressed when I peer reviewed this article a couple of weeks back. However, although my review was acknowledged, there were no responses provided to individual points; it seems that some of my points have been acted on, others ignored. There may be justifiable reasons for not adopting my suggestions, but I would like to know what they are before I can consider supporting the article here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I was uncommunicative; I didn't mean to be. I acted on each of your suggestions, taking all of the specific suggestions about wording and trying to clarify the points of confusion that you mentioned. I felt I'd addressed the issues, though I can see a couple of instances where one might think otherwise. For instance, when you asked for the provenance of "The Tale of Two Brothers", I added that it dates from the New Kingdom (I didn't think its original location was relevant here, and now that I look nobody seems to know, but I suppose I could say it's on a papyrus). You asked me to say what stelae are; I thought it would be a bit awkward to describe them specifically, considering that the point of the sentence is to mention a particular type of stela with a specific name, but I did link to stela and mention that they are "inscribed stone" objects. I have no intention of ignoring your input, and we can discuss whatever problems you feel the article still has, here or on the article talk page. A. Parrot (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support: I've checked out my peer review comments. You appear to have dealt with my issues except for a couple of minor ones:-
"Well-known" in the lead still has its unwanted hyphen
My objection to "entertaining writings" is unaddressed. I think either of Johnbod's suggestions, below, are better than what I suggested, and think you should adopt one of these.
Otherwise I am happy to support, subject to sources and spotchecks clearance. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod:
"Episodes from the myth were also recorded in entertaining writings" - my italics. Find an idiomatic phrase: "comic texts", "texts in a lighter vein" etc.
I'm not sure what's the best option here. Because the rest of the paragraph describes the tone of the text, I think the first sentence should indicate the text's purpose—like a novel that people keep around the house, rather than a religious tome that's rarely read. I was going to change the sentence to "writings meant as entertainment" in response to the peer review, but apparently the edit didn't take. A. Parrot (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sorted Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for someone to say whether "writings meant as entertainment" would suffice. Does it? A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly better. I'm not sure the distinction between tone & purpose is all that significant, nor that we know enough about ancient Egyptian literature to be very confident about the purpose of stuff with no ritual use, especially when religion and humour appear to mix, which is a very tricky area. Do we know that such writings were really "like a novel that people keep around the house", I wonder? You don't really need to get into that here, & maybe should avoid doing so. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article isn't the place for great detail about "Contendings", and there is some uncertainty about its exact significance. But, just to give you the background, it was a personal possession, belonging to a scribe who lived at Deir el-Medina. Maybe something like "tales that are more like folklore than ritual texts"? Baines supports that description for "Contendings" and the other stories ("Two Brothers", "Truth and Falsehood") that the sentence encompasses. A. Parrot (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok, ""writings meant as entertainment" though this is still rather cumbersome. "writings intended for entertainment" may be better. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is. Done. A. Parrot (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"When searching for or mourning Osiris, the two goddesses are often likened to falcons or kites, possibly because the Egyptians associated these birds with mourning, or because of their connection with Horus, who often is represented as a falcon..." - Nothing to do with the characteristic flying motions of these birds, then? They are indeed searching, for prey. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have one source that suggests that connection (although, at least in the kites' case, they look for carrion, which is more relevant to Osiris' corpse). I've added the source and the statement. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not sure what the main Egyptian species is - maybe the black kite but most of them go for anything the right size, live or dead. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very nearly there - no other points. It is all rather confusing, but no doubt that reflects the reality. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I tried to explain the conflicting versions as well as I could without leaving out important variations on the story. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support: Read till Synopsis
Add date for Old Kingdom
Done.
"His queen is Isis, who, like ... Set, ..." We are not introduced to Set yet in the Synopsis. "like Set" seems awkward.
I changed "like" to "along with" and added that Set is Osiris' murderer.
Sometimes "Contendings", sometimes "The Contendings of Horus and Set". Make it consistent.--RedtigerxyzTalk 06:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the full title is awkward to say repeatedly. Currently the article says the full title on the first mention within a paragraph and "Contendings" on subsequent mentions. Maybe the full title should be limited to the first mention within each section? A. Parrot (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest using the full title in "Sources" with something like (referred to as "Contendings" further), then only using "Contendings". In "Conflict of Horus and Set", the full title is used thrice then suddenly the short one.--RedtigerxyzTalk 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completed the read. Looks good. --RedtigerxyzTalk 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there are no reliable sources for this, but I was once told that it is possible that Osiris, Set, and Horus were real figures, and the myth was based on real events. Could this be explored? ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, "Origins" covers this POV that the deities were pre-historical Egyptian figures.--RedtigerxyzTalk 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article mentions Kurt Sethe's old notion that Osiris (but not Set or Horus) was a historical ruler. His perspective is very outdated today, and I mentioned it only as an example of the kind of interpretation that early Egyptologists put on the story. Nor did people in ancient times, when the myth was a living tradition, generally claim that its characters were human. Although I don't think my sources say this explicitly, I get the strong impression that the Egyptians always thought the characters were gods and not humans. Some Greeks and Romans argued that mythical figures from many cultures were deified humans (see euhemerism). But Plutarch is the Greco-Roman voice that has most influenced perceptions of the Osiris myth since his time, and he explicitly rejected the euhemerist viewpoint. A. Parrot (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see an indication that the Pyramid Texts were carved on the walls, I think that helps to put them in context. Why not include the image of the Pyramid Texts?..Modernist (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting long read - crazily contradictory - although that's the crux of the complexity and quality of your effort. I'm troubled by the Set - Seth? duality and the Re - Ra duality - you use Re-Horakhty and Ra - I think it should be one or the other and/or have an explanation for the duality...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've specified that the Pyramid Texts are on the walls. I could use an image of some Pyramid Texts, or of some portion of the Book of the Dead. But both of those just look like columns of hieroglyphs with nothing particularly interesting about them. (If there were a proper photo of a whole pyramid chamber on Commons, that might be different.) If you really want an image there, Pyramid text Teti.jpg is my preference.
The article text consistently uses Set and Ra, reflecting our article titles, except in the Sources section, in the quotation from Redford. Modifying quotations isn't good, except when there are brackets to indicate editorial insertions. I can change the quote like this: "…Seth [Set] as a strong-man buffoon of limited intelligence, Re-Horakhty [Ra] as a prejudiced, sulky judge…" A minor inconvenience is that this is the first appearance of Ra's name in the article and therefore should be linked, but I have to put nowiki tags around the outer brackets so they don't interfere with the link syntax. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support see below by the way...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the image that you found - it's helpful IMO to see what you refer to, and I agree with these changes - Re-Horakhty [Ra] and "…Seth [Set]...Modernist (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the image and adjusted the quotation. A. Parrot (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- given the interval since the nominator's last FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources here before promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think many Wikipedians have these sources on hand, but some of them should be checkable online. The UCLA Encyclopedia entry is linked in the Works cited section of the article, and in my (North American) region, I found Google Books previews for Hart 2005 [26], Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1996 [27], te Velde 1967 [28], Griffiths 1980 [29], Assmann 2001 [30], and Lichtheim 2006a [31]. All of them seem to match the pagination in my copies of these books. A. Parrot (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
tentative support Looking promising on prose and comprehensiveness -reading and copyediting as I go. No deal-breakers thus far but I do wonder whether the prose can be tightened a little....I'll jot queries below My concern isn't great enough, nor can I find any prominent enough examples to be actionable - interesting read: Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Set sexually abuses Horus - maybe "...sexually assaults..."? is better...?
It might be. That wording was influenced by yet another version of the myth, in which the sex is sort of voluntary—Set wants Horus to sleep with him, Horus agrees if Set will give Horus some of his magical strength, Horus foils Set by catching the semen, and then the text breaks off. Should I include that version too, change the wording, or both or neither? A. Parrot (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I think I'd spell it out as the two words are rather clumsy in encapuslating the dual stories (one coercive, the other seductive) - I'd describe both versions. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "coercive" version isn't so much a version. The wording in "Contendings" is so spare that there's no telling whether Horus is coerced or assaulted. I've explained the "seductive" version and avoided "assault" wording, though I think "violation" is justified—Griffiths refers to it that way and regards says the episode represents "ignominious treatment" . A. Parrot (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, interesting conundrum - meh - not a dealbreaker as it is hard to see anything else that would be significantly better and is spelt out in following sentences....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sportchecks unfortunately my library searches have been somewhat unproductive, and have only produced the Plutarch reference. I'll work though that anyway and see how we go.
Citation 18 - supporting the text "About a century and a half later" is a couple of pages of dicussion on when Plutarch wrote his work, I personnally think it would be more accurate to say something like "towards the start of the second century", but I don't think it's really worth arguing over...
I changed it, but I also changed the preceding sentence on Diodorus, as I don't want to say "in such-and-such century" in three sentences in a row.
Citation 21 - supported by page 51 - the reference can be narrowed a bit.
Page 51 supports the influence of Greek philosophies, but not really the other parts. I narrowed it to 51–52 and 98, which still covers everything.
Citation 31 - to support the text "By the New Kingdom, a tradition had developed that Set had cut Osiris' body into pieces and scattered them across Egypt. Cult centers of Osiris all over the country claimed that the corpse, or particular pieces of it, were found near them." although the pages are about this part of the myth - I can't find mention of Set (and the mention of Typhon, is unrelated) - I suspect the first sentance needs it's own citation.
Fair point. I realized that the citation to Pinch, p. 79, can support both sentences with a slight adjustment. Unfortunately that text can't be spot-checked, but it does mean less citation clutter in the text.
Citation 40 - source would support 'chest' rather than 'coffin' I think
If you're up for yet more spotchecking, you can look at the Google Books links I provided above; I don't know whether the delegates will think it's sufficient to check eight citations out of 110. A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add'l spotchecks -- Fayedizard and my fellow delegate, Graham, have been doing such a sterling job of spotchecking FACs lately that it seems only fair to step in to do some myself here, one each from Hart 2005, Meeks & Favard-Meeks 1996, te Velde 1967, and Griffiths 1980:
FN56 -- no issue.
FN73 -- no issue.
FN79 -- no issue.
FN85 -- I would include p. 158 in the citation range, as it provides more context, but aside from that, no issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added that page to the range. A. Parrot (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... after additional work over the span of a year, I feel it meets the criteria. I initially nominated the article at FAC in June 2011 however concerns over the amount of autobiography refs stonewalled further progress. After obtaining additional outside sources, promoting the article to GA status and soliciting the input of two editors familiar with the subject, I'm prepared to go ahead and move on to the next phase and earn Mr. Ryan a bronze star, although it may serve as little consolation for his lack of Super Bowl trophies. The Writer 2.0Talk 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: This seems very well written and clearly explained. I'm not a football fan at all, but followed this without too many problems. I haven't looked at sourcing at all, but cannot see too many problems with the overuse of the autobiography which I see were a prior concern. Also, I cannot vouch for the comprehensiveness of this article as football remains a subject on which I am woefully ignorant! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"After growing up in Canada for the majority of his youth, Ryan returned to the United States as a teenager": Maybe "After spending the majority of his youth in Canada, Ryan returned to…"
"Ryan spent the next twenty-two years": Should this be numerals?
"serving as an assistant coach in various capacities on different teams": This is unclear: how can he be an assistant coach in different capacities? I'm assuming he was coaching in different areas, but this could be made clearer.
"At the behest of Baltimore Ravens head coach Brian Billick, Ryan joined the team in 1999 and spent nine years in Baltimore.": Maybe "At the behest of their head coach Brian Billick, Ryan joined the Baltimore Ravens in 1999 and spent nine years there."
"Players have expressed their interest in playing for Ryan because of his player-friendly attitude": Players … player. Not too sure how to get around this.
"Ryan is also known for his highly esteemed defenses": I think it should be "highly-esteemed", but not sure this is a good phrase. Maybe something like "Ryan's teams are highly regarded [by critics? by commentators?] for their defensive capabilities…" And the following quote needs intext attribution.
"Rex then moved with her to Toronto, Canada": Minor point, but was this only after she completed her doctorate?
"he and his brother were frequently getting into trouble": How severe was this? In trouble with who?
"The reasons behind this were two-fold": Perhaps this is an unnecessary flourish?
"he was responsible for a multitude of jobs": Doesn't quite sound right. Maybe "had many [or a multitude if you prefer] jobs/responsibilities". And some examples may be nice.
Can "winning record" be linked somehow for non-specialists? Similarly, I always like a link on records (e.g. the later 8-8 record) for those of us who can never remember what all the numbers mean.
"When his father, Buddy, was hired…": Do we need his father's name again? And a repetition of Buddy in the same sentence. The next sentence also had two Buddies!
"newly named": Should it be "newly-named"?
"Ryan learned lessons on coaching talent and managing various personalities, which contributed to the defense's early success": This comes across as a little vague and woolly. Particularly as it comes from his autobiography. He "learned lessons"? What does this mean exactly?
Sorry for non-specialist questions, but could "points" and "rushing yards" be linked?
Again, pardon the ignorance, but "who retained Ryan as defensive coordinator and promoted him to assistant head coach": were these posts held at the same time?
"Ryan's 9-year tenure": Should it be nine-year?
"came to an end about an hour later": These seems unnecessarily informal.
"began to carry out a platform he outlined for the franchise's future": How can you carry out a platform?
"The basic idea was to get the players away from any distractions on or off the field": Again, unnecessarily informal. Why not "He planned to remove the players from distractions on and off the field".
"An unapologetic Ryan continued to exude confidence in the team": Why would he need to apologise?
"The Jets were one win short of tying the franchise record set by the 1998 team led by Bill Parcells": The record for what?
"Holmes allegedly quitting on the team against Miami": More informality, and "allegedly" is never great. He either did or didn't, and who is alleging?
I'm a little concerned with over-detailing in the Jets section. The rest of his career is fairly briefly outlined, but here we go into fairly minute detail like "the defense did not allow a touchdown" and "despite being overwhelmingly named the underdogs". There also seems to be a hint of sensationalist journalese creeping in with "stunned", "stray" and "humiliated". I think this section could stand a polish or two, but nothing major, and I appreciate that his most high-profile job needs more than his earlier ones.
"Ryan is often willing to defer the coin toss to the opponent to open the game on defense and "set the tone," generate turnovers and "create plays" as a result of these turnovers.": I'm afraid this loses me.
The coaching section reads a little too much like his personal manifesto, or defending him from critics. Rather than giving his views, some critical commentary would be better: what do critics say about his coaching or his team's play. What do analysts say about the team, and how effective his strategies are? I'm sure it exists somewhere. And do the fans like him? Does he her grief for being too defensive?
Finally, the Personal life section is a little trivia heavy. Why does an encyclopaedia article need to mention his weight loss surgery, or a foot-fetish video? Doesn't really seem all that important. Nor am I convinced about the acting section, but the rest looks fine.
Sorry for quite a long list, but most are minor and feel free to argue any of them as some may be personal preference. I don't see any major issues, and look forward to supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments Sarastro. I just wanted to mention a few things about the points you raised:
"The reasons behind this were two-fold": I'm open to suggestions in regards to how to change this, I can't seem to come up with anything that flows properly. I do feel the sentence needs some type of preface, whatever that may be.
I will address the point you raised about his job responsibilities. I'm currently away but I'll be returning home tomorrow so I'll take a look in the book and add those.
I believe I removed most if not all of the sensationalist phrases.
As with the job responsibilities, when I return home tomorrow, I will search for some commentary on his methods though it may be difficult. Typically teams in the NFL have their own identity and no one generally questions it unless everything falls apart but I'll give it a look.
In regards to the personal section, the foot fetish mention was in there because there were multiple IPs clamoring for it when the news originally emerged and I get the feeling there may be future instances where there is some bickering that it doesn't appear in the article. For now though, I have removed that entry. In regards to the weight loss, Giants2008 bought up a point before I came to FAC that it is somewhat important given his job is coaching athletes and his habits now are beginning to reflect his work. I'm impartial to the acting section so I can either remove it or leave it.
Leaning to support: No problem on the two-fold thing if you want to keep it, and the changes look good. Also, no problem on weight loss, although I don't think it comes across that he was previously obese, and that this is a little hypocritical for a coach. I'll have another look when you have fixed up the last points you mentioned, but I'm leaning support now. I may wait for someone with more subject knowledge that me to take a look before switching to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple responsibilities mentioned in the book and I have also found some commentary regarding his coaching strategies on offense and defense. If further clarification is needed, let me know but I hope I have addressed the remainder of your concerns. -- The Writer 2.0Talk 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Happy to support now, everything looking good. A great piece of work, well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions and support! -- The Writer 2.0Talk 01:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-checks – No close paraphrasing concerns, but I did see a few small verifiability issues in checks of seven references.
Reference 2 is used eight times; I checked the second and fifth uses. The second verifies the quote in the lead. The fifth states that he was a lineman at Southwestern Oklahoma, but I didn't see where it said he was a defensive end. Of course, this is a long story and it's possible I wasn't looking in the right area.
Ref 5 says Rex and Rob are fraternal twins. I'll assume ref 4, which is also here, covers the birth date and place.
Ref 10 verifies the Hall of Fame statement. No problems here.
Ref 23 doesn't state that Ryan was interviewed by the Ravens for the head coach position.
Ref 31 verifies its sentence fully. No problems here.
Ref 46 doesn't say that the Dolphins fans spat on Ryan at the MMA event.
Ref 71 seems to verify what it is citing. I assume the book cite covers the quotes. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the comments, Giants. I replaced Ref 2 (fifth use) with a new Ref, you're correct in your assumptions about Refs 4, 5 and 71. I added a new Ref along with Ref 46 and Ref 23 was fixed. -- The Writer 2.0Talk 17:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't strike what's up there so the spot-checks can stay visible to the directors, but my concerns are resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments last time, and it has improved since then. I did not see the autobiography concerns as seriously, but they've been cleaned up in any case.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm probably not the best judge of articles about football of any description, but I've been asked to comment so I'll concentrate on prose and general presentation:
"Players have expressed their interest in playing for Ryan because of his player-friendly attitude" - can this be rephrased without the "players - playing - player" repetition?
"Following the divorce, his mother..." → "Following the divorce, their mother..." (you haven't singularised the boys at this stage).
"their brother Jim" - maybe mention this sibling at the start of the section? Was he older or younger?
"too much to handle as a single mother..." → " too much to handle for a single mother..."
"Rex followed his father to Illinois where the family settled in Prairie View" - who is included in "the family" here? Presumably not including the mother?
"College" section: this doesn't seem an adequate title for this section.
"Upon graduating from Southwestern, Ryan secured a job as a graduate assistant at Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) Eastern Kentucky in 1987 with the help of his father." The phrases don't seem to be in the right order. I would suggest "Upon graduating from Southwestern in 1987, with the help of his father Ryan secured a job as a graduate assistant at Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) Eastern Kentucky."
Who are the Colonels, and who are the Cowboys? Don't assume that all your readers will be familiar with the nicknames for US football teams
"The Bearcats" occurs twice in one sentence
I used the winning record link, and got confused because the link article does not explain what a "winning record" is. Perhaps more wins than losses, but this is not obvious
"New York Jets" section: more date information needed in the opening paragraph. When was the late season collapse? When was Ryan offered the coaching contract and when did he begin work? No specific date is given until the fifth paragraph which is confusing
Per above, I'm not exactly sure what year we're in, but I think it's still 2008 or possibly 2009. Either being so, the first such-and-such since 2004 doesn't seem a particularly big deal; it's only four or five years ago.
He "flashed an obscene gesture"; what does "flashed" mean in this context. In the UK, "flashing" means exposing your private parts; surely that's not what he did?
"Writing on the ESPN bus..." Reads very peculiarly - did he scrawl it with a felt-tip or what? Maybe a little more detail.
What in this context does "on the road" mean?
"quitting on the team against Miami" reads like informal sports journalism. What does it mean, and how does it relate to Holmes being "benched" (presumably substituted?) in the fourth quarter?
Sentence too long, convoluted: "After the Jets finished the season with a disappointing 8–8 record, Ryan admitted to having lost the pulse of the team and promised to no longer name captains, as Holmes, who was largely portrayed as the main source of discontent among multiple news outlets, was named one of six season-long captains." I lost the thread somewhere.
"Coaching philosophy" section. I don't think that so much of this section (about 80%) should be in quotation form. The text should largely be your own, with appropriate use of paraphrase.
"Ryan refuted this claim..." It's not really a "claim"; I would simply drop the word: "Ryan refuted this, stating..."
"running the football" → "running the ball" perhaps? "Football" has previously been used to describe the whole sport.
"and eventually reverted to their former run-oriented offense by the middle of the season" - the word "eventually" is redundant here.
Don't start fresh paragraphs with pronouns ("His defensive strategy...")
"Acting career": No hint of this before; how did it come about? Is it really a "career", or was this a once-off? Was it a real part or a cameo? Lots of questions.
What does the term "Coaching tree" mean? Also, isn't it a waste of time to have a heading (Assistant coaches under Rex Ryan who have become NFL head coaches) with nil data?
These are mainly pretty minor points, and shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. You'll find I took care of the phrasing issues per your suggestions and provided additional explanation regarding the winning record, the dates, and the ESPN tour bus. I tried to cut down the quotes in the Coaching philosophy so hopefully it flows better. I linked coaching tree and removed the Assistant coaches subheading per your suggestion. In regards to the acting career I'd be happy to remove it if the changes I made still do not warrant its inclusion. -- The Writer 2.0Talk 16:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Be sure to check scores such as 5–11 and 30–17 use the en dash, not hyphen
Fix redlink in "on the Colts' home field to qualify for the Divisional Playoffs"
Under Coaching tree, 1994–1995 should be 1994–95 per WP:YEARLemonade51 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. All scores have en dashes as far as I can tell. -- The Writer 2.0Talk 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Image Check. Images are ok. The two from flickr are commons-compatible. I have no issues with the writing. Refs are reliable and well-formatted. PumpkinSkytalk 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead I noticed that New York Times was in standard font. Newspapers and journals, like book titles, should be in italics. Pls check for any similar instances in the article as well.
The subsections under Personal Life are very small, just one short paragraph each. It might look better if you created a Health subsection that covered both the dyslexia and weight-loss surgery paras, and a Media (or similarly titled) subsection that covered both the book and the acting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the NYT mention and did not find any similar issues. I replaced the subsections and they do indeed look much better. Thank you for your comments. -- The Writer 2.0Talk 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another one of my WWI-era German battleships, this was the only ship to miss the Battle of Jutland, since she was in dockyard hands for routine maintenance. I wrote this article back in December 2010, it passed GA in January 2011, and a MILHIST ACR in March of this year (see here). I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the standards of FAC and exemplifies our best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
"sister ship": Do we usually link that at first occurrence?
"Princess Mathilde of Saxony christened the ship and her brother, the last king of Saxony, Friedrich August III.": She broke a bottle of champagne over his head?
"toward", "towards": consistency. AmEng has a slight preference for "-ward", BrEng for "-wards".
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) Amazing progress over the last couple of years, Nate. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dan, your edits look good. And yeah, you had to watch out for Princess Mathilde, sometimes she just got excited about breaking champagne bottles ;) Everything should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all correctly licensed (OK, so File:SMS_König_Albert.jpg gives two different reasons why the file is PD, but that doesn't matter. Both are correct.) Bit confused by "The shaded areas represent the portions of the ship protected by armor" because I can't see any obviously defined areas, shading goes from light to dark as far as I can see and I can't believe the armour was that patchy. Maybe it was, but could you give it another look? The caption doesn't actually say what we're looking at, which would be helpful at least. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad original scan (that I had copied from Google Books) - I'll try to clean it up this evening. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a slightly cleaned up version of the line drawing - see how it looks now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better in terms of shading. I think the caption needs to say something about what we're looking at – a plan of the class, or schematic, or whatever it's called. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I had missed that part of your first comment. I've clarified the caption. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, perfect. Happy to sign off this part of the review. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I don't think the namesake is cited
Does it really need to be? The namesake died 8 years before the ship was launched, and his niece and nephew were involved in the launching ceremonies (which is to say, how likely is it that the ship was named after the Medieval King Alberts?)
Its a challengeble fact, so it should be cited; there's no exception for 'everyone knows that', sorry.
My initial reaction was that this isn't an interesting question, but now I think it is. Per WP:V, citations are for claims that are either being challenged or likely to be challenged (by somebody), with just a few specific exceptions and recommendations. Of course, stuff that isn't general knowledge is likely to be challenged by someone at some point; thus the sourcing requirements at FAC. But if you personally believe the information to be true, and you also believe that it's unlikely that any reader will challenge the assertion, then WP:V says it doesn't need a citation. What makes this interesting for me is: what if it isn't common knowledge, but after learning something in the article that is cited, it becomes completely obvious? Is that "likely to be challenged"? I don't know. (In this particular case, I'm pretty sure I agree with Parsec, but since he and I work together a lot, you probably shouldn't take my word for that.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious why the ranges and speeds are in nmi/knots converted to metric instead of km / kmh? Someone probably asked this before...
Do you mean why the primary units are nmi and knots? Or why the conversions also include Imperial measurements?
Why the primary units were nmi and knots, yes.
Doesn't it make sense to use nautical units of measurement as the primary units? To use land units would be like saying the governor in my Ford Ranger cuts the engine off at Mach .128 (98mph) . Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought nations that used the metric system usually used the metric system for nautical distances and speeds. Not a big deal - its all converted anyways and consistent with every other ship article.
The generic north sea graphic isn't that useful - its probably better replaced by one of the graphics of the actions mentioned in this section.
Another editor asked for a map of the North Sea during the A-class review, and there aren't any really useful (or relevant) images in the other articles.
I'll ponder this for a bit. Kirk (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a better map would be some kind of summary of the actions in the North Sea, which doesn't exist yet in wikipedia.
The operation Albion introduction paragraph is probably longer than it needs to be; maybe use sentence 1,2, 5?
I cut it down a bit, see how it reads now.
The other 'fate' sections have a 'click for a larger view' in the caption. Kirk (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say I'm surprised you can't cite the namesake thing. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also noticed that namesakes are often not discussed in secondary source - I think in this case it might be because it was common knowledge and its not important to historians to add the detail for modern readers in modern sources. Leaving it in uncited is probably better than leaving it out since I would assume the average reader would be like me and read the lead and immediately wonder "Who is König Albert?" Kirk (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the namesake search, I looked for 'named' and I found this book which explains the naming system [34]. Also, interestingly the author says that SMS König is named after King William II of Württemberg not the German Emperor as King of Prussia as it says in the article (also uncited :). Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had found Rüger, but he doesn't make the connection explicit. I don't feel that the connection is likely to be challenged, however, and it should be fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, just because Rüger is implicit instead of explicit which southern german royal this ship was named after doesn't make it a bad source, and its more explicit about others, I would start using it. For the record, I'm challenging that fact; and you regulars know its WP:Likely I will challenge your uncited facts in the infobox in pretty much every ship review I stumble upon.
Support - I enjoy this series, and this article meets the FA criteria. As far as the name stuff goes, Parsecboy's initial explanation made sense to me, and I defer to Dank opinion. Kirk (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I always cite the namesake if I can find it.
Link turret in the main body and infobox as well as all of the terms in the armor section of the infobox. Plus anti-aircraft gun, turbine, Schichau, boiler, shp in both places.
I've deleted the unnecessary bolding in the infobox. Otherwise up to your normal standard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links added as suggested - as for the namesake, I haven't been able to find a citation for it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the FA criteria are met here - great work. My only comment is to ask whether this was one of the ships whose crews mutinied at the end of the war; this should be clarified in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Nick - I've clarified what happened in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re naming; this book gives an interesting data point. --John (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John - if you look above, Grandiose and I already discussed that book. The problem is, Ruger doesn't explicitly connect the two, so it doesn't quite work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger, sorry to have wasted your time. I should have read the whole conversation. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all - thanks again for looking :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support on prose; query: did I miss it, or is "dreadnought" not linked? Also, is there a convention that. The differing measures of tonnage are not linked? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): TBrandley 00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I present "Say Hello to My Little Friend", an Awake episode. This episode is regarded by many as one of the best entries the series ever produced by critics. It is already at GA. I have added images to the article. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, and the page has sections for conception, themes, broadcast numbers, critical reception, and even pre-broadcast information :) As tagged in my previous FAC, reviews from the TV Fanatic website have had their notability questioned, but it was decided that it could be used. Thanks, and I hope you enjoy reading through this article. Its appreciated. Feel free to be honest below. TBrandley 00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:LEDE, this article should have a shorter lede. Also, I don't think its ready for sub-sections yet (none of those sub-sections look really developed to me) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Just noting that this same user has left more comments below. Cheers.
This user, Crisco, has now supported below after more additional comments. Yeah. :) TBrandley 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
Link to the discussion about TV Fanatic you refer to in the nom statement, please?
It is here. Also, TV Fanatic operates with a dedicated editorial staff, and is owned and operated by Mediavine Inc. (SheKnows Entertainment), a publishing company, while SheKnows Entertainment is a high-quality source itself, meaning TV Fanatic would also be. Based on its website, I'm pretty sure its okay to use as a high-quality source.
Sorry for the brief set but my time is quite limited. I gave it a quick read through and these issues were noted at first glance.
"Later, Britten meets with Emma's father Joaquin (Carlos Lacamara) at a coffee shop about the new baby..." There sounds as if there is a word or two missing at the end. "Later, Britten meets with Emma's father Joaquin (Carlos Lacamara) at a coffee shop to discuss the new baby" maybe?
Done
"The entry was directed by Laura Innes, who guest stars in the recurring role of Captain Tricia Harper on the series." On the series or in the the series.? I would suggest its "in" if your finishing with her starring role and "on" if you finish with her behind the scenes role.
Done
"The episode featured a number of cultural references to various media." -Should "types of” be between "various media"?
Done
"It was Killen's sixth writing credit and Chang's second writing credit for the series" - two "writing credits" sound repetitive. You could say "It was Killen's sixth writing credit and Chang's second for the series" or something similar.
Done
I think that's it for now but I will give it another read through later.
An informative little article about a series I have never watched. As a result of this read through, I may go out and buy it now as it sounds quite good. -- CassiantoTalk 04:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the review! I have fixed all of the issues. Sorry, but you cannot buy the series; it hasn't been released on DVD as of right now. If you'd like to watch, you can on Hulu.com Plus. I also appreciate your interests. TBrandley 05:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all above points have been fixed and, IMO, is therefore worthy of featured article status. -- CassiantoTalk 07:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Comments:
""Say Hello to My Little Friend" is the eleventh episode of the American television police procedural fantasy drama Awake" - Wow. That's a mouthfull, anyway of shortening?
Not done. There is no way of shortening.
Im not sure the ratings and reception should be so far up in the Lead, normally at the bottom.
The section for Cancellation isnt focussed on this episode, just a minor comment is needed.
Done
- Not a full check through, just major points. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I have fixed most of the issues. Others are noted above. Thanks again! TBrandley 17:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. While there's a lot of good stuff going on with the article thus far, it's not yet at featured quality.
As a consequence of the reality switching, the plot section is a bit hard to follow. The lead contains important plot information that isn't contained or referenced in the synopsis--this is problematic in and of itself, but a lot more time should be spent putting in signposts so the readers know which reality is which during the summary.
Done. I have explained in the "Plot" section
There's a tendency in the production section to rely on pulled quotes, but just using them leads to not so much in the way of useful content. For instance, the article says this:
He and his writing team "played" with the hallucinations featured in the entry.[5] Along with "That's Not My Penguin", "Two Birds" and "Turtles All the Way Down", Killen claimed that the installment was something that he wanted to "pursue with the show going forward".
This really isn't clear. What does "played" mean? Did they change the plot structure, or directing style to highlight the hallucinations? What does it mean that he wanted to pursue this installment? The source provides this:
So to me episodes like the penguin episode ("That's Not My Penguin") and the episode where he hallucinated the character from the other world ("Say Hello To My Little Friend"), and even the last two episodes, those were closer to the model that we would have tried to pursue with the show going forward. [...]
The source makes it much clearer that only having one criminal case in an episode and focusing more on emotional moments and the characters was what he wanted to pursue in later episodes. You should only quote people when it makes things clearer, not more opaque.
Done; and removed for some of those.
Just citing the episode itself for the cultural references (" This installment contains footage from Cheaper by the Dozen, a 1950 film, which is a cultural reference.[3] Also, a line in the episode, was spoken by Tony Montana (Al Pacino) in the 1983 movie Scarface while shooting a M16.") feels like original research.
Done. I have removed it; there are no web references that could be found other than episode.
I don't think there's enough justification per WP:NFCC to include File:Awake S01E11.jpg--reviewers commented on the situation, but there's no detail in the frame that aids reader comprehension significantly.
Done. I have removed it; I just like the picture. Lol :)
Have fixed all of those. Thanks for your FA review. Hope you can support now, or more comments. Thanks again! TBrandley 20:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the article. Further comments:
There seems to be a paucity of development/production information. When/where was it shot? Were there any special effects, and if so who did them, et al.
Update. I have found a ton of production information, and added it to the article. So, done. Hope its good!
Did the episode show anywhere else in the world (UK markets, etc) or was its NBC premiere its only proper airing?
Done. It was actually already there, but to match with "Squeeze", I have moved it above. Also, it aired in Canada on Global, but there is no WP:RS for it. Anyway, thanks.
All concerns all now fixed! More "Production" has been properly added. TBrandley 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from TRLIJC19
File:Laura Innes 2010.jpg is properly licensed and sourced from commons, and the caption is appropriate.
Cool. :)
File:Jason Isaacs by Gage Skidmore.jpg has an appropriate license and source from Commons, but I think the layout and caption needs adjusting. Can you put the image on the left, because the other one is on the right. Also; in the caption: "They felt his performance deserved an Emmy Award." is repetitive of the previous line. Merge into one sentence: "Critics felt that Jason Isaacs' performance deserved an Emmy Award."
Done
MOS review from TRLIJC19
Lead
Although the MOS specifies to use last name after first mention; this article is different because they are all "Britten". Therefore, all the referrals to Michael as Britten should be changed to Michael.
Done
Plot
The Britten issue is existent in this section too.
Done
Themes
Unlink The Little Guy; it's linked above.
Done
Britten issues is existent here too.
Done
If all the above issues are addressed, I'll be willing to support on MOS compliance, images, and sourcing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing to do this review! I have addressed all of these issues, and hope that you can support now. :0 TBrandley 05:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all. on technical MOS compliance, citation layout, and images. MOS support does not mean I support on prose; I am supporting on the article's compliance with MOS (linking, quoting, word styling, etc.).TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks pretty solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After the few of the above issues are solved, I'll support. --Khanassassin☪ 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all of his comments have been addressed, and moved to this talk page. So, I now hope you can support/oppose also. Ha. Thanks, TBrandley 02:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. :) --Khanassassin☪ 09:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Article: It was Killen's sixth credit and Chang's second writing acknowledgment for the show.[3]
Source: Reference 3 is not a source.
Done. I have replaced with episode guide from Radio Times
Article: That scene was shot three or four times with a different performance by Isaacs each time; the actor did not know which take Innes would use.[4]
Source: I can't see where this is mentioned
It says it in the sentence starting "I sat on the floor..." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "Say Hello to My Little Friend" continued and introduced key thematic elements to the series that were originally introduced in "The Little Guy". Key themes in this installment included when Michael was unable to see Rex and realized that Hawkins was trying to kill him in the car crash.[9]
Source: Not that it was a huge revelation, mind you, since it was told to us back in "The Little Guy" that Carl had used a little guy as a driver when he tried to have Britten killed. I can't verify the second sentence.
"Hawkins being the one who ran Britten's family off the road.", just under the image, may be what you're looking for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article:It was described as a "show about grief" when it first started airing and that the "cause of the car accident didn't really matter" at that time.[11]
Source: When Awake started, it was a show about grief...The cause of the car accident didn’t really matter.
Article: Isaacs found "Say Hello to My Little Friend" the "most difficult [episode] to shoot" as one of the character's realities was fabricated and had to disappear by the end.[4]
Source: That whole episode was the most difficult to shoot for me, because one of the worlds had to disappear.
Article: "Say Hello to My Little Friend" marked the first appearance of Hawkins, a detective who was described as a titular "little guy",[8]
Source: When Alias alum Kevin Weisman makes his debut on NBC’s Awake this Thursday...My long-standing theory: Weisman’s character is “the little guy” mentioned by the hobo back in Episode 2
Article: Despite the series' cancellation, NBC still decided to air the remaining two episodes in the show's original time slot.[2]
Source: I can't see this information in the source
Last paragraph has everything but "in the show's original time slow". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically searching for the information on the original time slot. Graham Colm (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have removed "in the show's original time slot", since, no source, for it. So, its done. TBrandley 15:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article: The episode's initial broadcast was viewed by approximately 2.51 million viewers.[16]
Source: NBC,Awake...2.510
There are some issues (in bold) requiring clarification or explanation. Graham Colm (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all of your spot-checks concerns. Thanks for the spot-check! TBrandley 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is presently a good article and has gone through a peer review, which identified no major issues. I believe it is a comprehensive look at one of only eight Republicans to be elected governor of Kentucky. Historian Thomas D. Clark opined that he was the strongest of the eight. Please note that the Sigmund Byrd work "The Louie Nunn Story" was very difficult to find on interlibrary loan. I don't have access to it at the moment, and if I get comments that require me to find it again, it will take at least a few days to respond to them appropriately. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 12:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Supported below I peer reviewed this a while back, and I think it is very close to FA. A few quibbles:
I'd swap the order of the last two sentence of the first paragraph of "Early life".
No problem with that. Done. Maybe I'll get around to writing the article on Lee Nunn one day. Several people have told me he was quite the interesting character. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information on his activities between '63 and '67?
I didn't run across anything. I know his brother was kind of known as a back room dealer on campaigns and such. Perhaps Louie also adopted that strategy during this period. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"his proudest accomplishment at governor." Do you mean "as governor"?
"In 2000, Nunn successfully defended actor Woody Harrelson, who came to Lee County, Kentucky, and planted hemp seeds in open defiance of Kentucky's law forbidding cultivation of hemp. " Was Harrelson arrested, or was this just defending him in comments to media? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a reviewing this so quickly. Would be nice if this one didn't drag on for almost two months like the last one. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it will be closed by September... Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Alright, between the PR and the above comments, everything I could come up with has been covered, and I'm confident that meets the FA standards. It was easy reading, good job. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN21: not seeing this work in Bibliography
Since this was added along with a bunch of other information from the Byrd work, I'm thinking I mistakenly typed "Nunn" where I meant "Byrd". Changed. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 13:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I assisted at the peer review and was pleased to see the progress made thereafter. A very good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Louie_B_Nunn.jpg: any idea who painted this or who might hold copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added {{Information}} template. The artist's name was available, but not the date of the work. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 13:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning to Support
Not sure that you need all the links for fairly everyday terms, e.g. given name, general store -- those are examples, perhaps you take a pass through the article and see if there's anything else that we could do without linking.
Removed a few. Ultimately decided to keep "final examinations", but that one could probably go either way. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 12:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect to see a source or sources for the Ancestors table, as not all members are mentioned/cited earlier in the article.
This has come up before. Spacini (talk·contribs) did this with all the Kentucky governor articles. It's a project he was working on for the Kentucky Historical Society. I think there's a hidden comment above the table that says the information was taken from public records. Spacini could tell you more if you want to contact him. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 12:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think a nominator needs to take responsibility for what's in the article, whatever the source, and I think a section like this needs to satisfy the same criteria for referencing as any other part of the article. Had a look for precedents of uncited Ancestors sections in other recent Kentucky governor articles, i.e. Garrard and Scott, and couldn't see such a thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the successful FA noms of Governors Laffoon and Collins for precedent, and also for Spacini's response to previous concerns expressed about this section in those articles. I would consider public birth and death records as reliable sources, but I'm not sure how you would cite such a thing here. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments and those of Spacini in the earlier FACs, though I note that the noms also show that reviewers are questioning the worth of such sections in non-royalty articles. That said, my concern was not so much the section's presence as the lack of citation. I have to stand by that, as I can't see how such a section should be exempt from clear sourcing at FA level. The last time I raised something like this (wearing my delegate's hat, rather than as a reviewer) was for Mary, Queen of Scots, and the nominator took care of it to my satisfaction. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not being privy to how, exactly, this section was compiled, I'm basically at a loss as to how I might remedy this situation myself. I dropped Spacini a note and expect he will try to address this within a few days. Although it will delay my FA nomination of Constitution Square State Historic Site to keep this nomination open, I'm willing to wait on him to communicate with you and try to find acceptable sourcing. Alternatively, I would be OK with starting an RFC about this general issue (both the worthiness for inclusion and the appropriate sourcing). I would agree to abide by whatever consensus dictates in exchange for your immediate support of this article, assuming this is the only thing standing between you and a support !vote. This would give me a reference point for when this issue inevitably comes up again, and it would let us close the book on this nomination, which has been open for a month and a half already. Either way is fine with me. I should note that I'll most likely be off-wiki for most if not all of the weekend, so I won't be able to participate in much discussion after today until Monday. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 16:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per my conversation with Spacini, I've commented out this section until he can run down the citations again. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a couple of things in the text but otherwise prose, coverage, structure, referencing and images seem fine -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hope we can get the two issues above resolved and get your support. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 12:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your trouble (and to Spacini) -- happy to support in this form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After a couple read throughs I was unable to find anything actionable. Of curiosity, did he have any political interests before the county judge decision? Reads as if it was on a whim, though maybe it was. If nothing is in sources about that though, then there's nothing to add. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 02:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the sources on his early life are scarce. I might speculate that his older brother Lee Roy, who was a behind-the-scenes operator for the Republicans for a long time, from what I understand, may have influenced the decision, but I don't have a source to back that up. Thanks for the support. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks. If you are interested in Kentucky-related FACs, watch here for my nominees. They're basically all Kentucky-related. I've got two ready to go here as soon as this closes, although I can only nominate one at a time. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Acdixon. I will watch for the articles. Good work. Paulista01 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very objective article, couldn't find any problems. Paulista01 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning tosupport. A query:
"He managed Senator Cooper's re-election campaign in 1960 and Senator Morton's in 1962.[11] He also managed the state campaign of presidential candidate Richard Nixon in 1960." Can the article tell us nothing about the outcome of any of these campaigns? Did either of the Senators win? Did Nixon take Kentucky?
Fixed. All three campaigns were successful, although Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy nationally. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 13:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nunn doubled the accommodations in the state park system". Strange use of the term accommodation, and don't understand why it is plural. Is this referring to hotels / campgrounds?hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a regional variation of English. It doesn't seem at all strange to me and, in fact, reflects the wording of the source. My understanding is that it would refer to primarily overnight accommodations such as cabins, campgrounds, etc. Of course, the source gives no context, so I can't say that with certainty. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 13:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your responses. Good article. I'm a support. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfills FA criteria and its topic is notable. Dan56 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate Dan's work on music album articles. This one is only one example of his wonderful work. It is sad to see so less reviewers, and I am curious why a street or a storm receive more reviews than a significant album. Overall, I think it meets the criteria. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dan's work here on this article is definitely worth it here for a featured article nomination seeing at how well organized it is. Definitely one of the most important albums of its time. BrothaTimothy (talk·contribs) 21:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the best put together music articles I've seen and a fairly refreshing read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I was reading, it seemed like the word "various" was used frequently towards the beginning of the article. That's not a deal breaker, and I don't necessarily think changes are required, but I just thought I would note this as something that caught my attention. Later in the article, the "Singles" section begins: "The album produced five singles, including the hit singles [...]". While "singles" and "hit singles" are two distinct terms, I'm wondering if that sentence might read better as "The album produced five singles, including the hits [...]". Again, these are minor nitpicks. Overall, I'm very impressed with the article's comprehensiveness and quality of writing, and I'm happy to support. Great work! Gongshow Talk 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced some of the "various" with "several". I'm not sure about "hit", though, as the article hit single seems to distinguish between "hit single" and "hit" in its lead; not sure if it's a difference, but I think it's safer to use the complete term. Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the hit/hit single point; I agree that using the complete term is probably safer. Thanks for considering my comments, and again, kudos on a great article. Gongshow Talk 19:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, is that something I can do (if so, how?), or should another commenter address that? Dan56 (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An independent reviewer needs to do this, I'll put a notice on the FAC Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks by Fayedizard
Spotchecks for Sons of Soul using revision [38]
There are roughtly 224 cited sentances and we choose 15 randomly
Source is behind paywall, which isn't ideal - can it be sourced somewhere else?
2 "Wiggins, his brother guitarist D'wayne Wiggins, and drummer Timothy Christian Riley each played several instruments for the album.[2][3]"
Source is behind paywall, which isn't ideal - can it be sourced somewhere else?
All sources "behind paywall" are the only available for the content cited; most of the sources available for these older albums are these kind of archives (I used Google's news/archive search to look through previews of the sources' text) Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3 "In 2007, Vibe included the album in its list of the 150 Essential Albums of the Vibe Era (1992–2007).[4]"
Source matches
4 ""Gangsta Groove" adapts hip hop's "gangsta" trope in a humane story,[5]"
Source says:"another hopped on the "Gangsta Groove" bandwagon while putting across a nonexploitative, recognizably human story" :)
In the context of the paragraph, the reviewer is discussing how the group reappropriated other styles; the sentence preceding it said "one cut parodied dance hall". "the "Gangsta Groove" bandwagon" is an allusion to the popularity of gangsta (rap) ("bandwagon") at the time. If still necessary, I'll revise it differently. Dan56 (talk)
5 "D'wayne used a Microtech Gefell UM70 for his lead vocals and an AKG 414 for his background vocals.[6]"
Source not available to this reviewer - as the other sources so far have matched, I'd be happy to take this one on faith...
6 "Other songs are characterized by funk grooves, including "I Couldn't Keep It to Myself", "Gangsta Groove", "Fun",[7]"
Source not available to this reviewer - as the other sources so far have matched, I'd be happy to take this one on faith...
7 "Along with Mint Condition, Tony! Toni! Toné! were also one of the few mainstream R&B acts to play with live instruments.[8]"
Source says: "One reason is that many groups are blending live instruments with electronic sampling, a mainstay of hip-hop records.
"Groups like Mint Condition and Tony Toni Tone don't just sample their music, they actually play it," Jam says. "There's a return to musicianship.""
Revised to "Along with R&B acts such as Mint Condition and R. Kelly, Tony! Toni! Toné! played live instruments that complemented their hip hop sensibilities."
9 "According to Raphael Wiggins, the song is about "fair-weather friends" and "people who come around you for fraudulent reasons", a theme comparable to that of the O'Jays' 1972 song "Back Stabbers".[10][11]"
Both sources behind paywall, which isn't ideal - can it be sourced somewhere else?
10 "It ultimately peaked at number 70 and spent nine weeks on the chart.[12][13]"
This is a bit of a problem - the sources are copies of the chart, nine weeks appart, But I'm not sure that necessarily implies that the song was also in the chart in between...
The second cited source supporting the weeks it spent is verified by the "WO" section of the chart cited; it says the number of weeks it spent. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, apologies, that's my general unfamiliarly with the source kicking in...Fayedizard (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11 "In Canada, it debuted at number 75 on the RPMTop 100 Albums in the week of July 24.[14]"
Source matches.
12 "having been frustrated with their limited time onstage and Jackson's frequent show cancellations.[15]"
Source matches.
13 "|description = The rhythmic, uptempo song incorporates classic soul and New jack swing styles.[16]"
Source matches (close enough for me)
14 "A tour staffer recounted that they "left the tour with no advance notice" and "were extremely unprofessional."[17]"
Source is behind paywall, which isn't ideal - can it be sourced somewhere else?
15 "In November 1993, the group embarked on Janet Jackson's high-profile Janet. World Tour as a supporting act.[15][18][19]"
Bit of a problem here - I can't see where any of the sources support the 'world' bit of the tour - am I missing something?
The tour mentioned in the sources is Jackson's tour for her janet. album, whose article on Wikipedia is titled Janet World Tour; the group only made the tour's early North American dates before dropping out, but that was the name of the tour. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the end of the spotchecks - there are things to look at and I'm not sure if the delegates will accept this as a thorough spotcheck given the number of articles that I don't have access to. :( Fayedizard (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dont know what I can do about those "paywall" sources, but I addressed the other stuff. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder if searching with Google News helps. For example, for point #9, the quoted "people who come around you..." is verified with this search. Point #2, the statement identifying the musicians ("brother guitarist", "bassist", etc.) can be looked up with a search like this: I used an available text from the link cited, placed it in quotes, added what I used the source to cite for like "brother", and got the result. Does any of this help? Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks pretty good for #2 and #9 (actually for #2 this appears to be not paywalled (I think) - I should mention as well - the parts were I copied and pasted in the source (numbers 7 and 4, for example) are not be suggesting that they are issues to be resolved, I'm just presenting the text so that it's clear to all other reviewers (and the delegate) that it's fine - nothing to worry about there but I'll make sure that I make that clear on future reviews :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt in, I don't see anything wrong at all with having references behind paywalls. Only allowing easily verifiable refs would mean we couldn't use most books as references in FAs, which goes completely against our sourcing guidelines. As long as the information can be verified, through a subscription to a research database in this case, it meets our requirements. That may make it harder to spot-check, but it doesn't make the sources any less reliable. While I'm here, the references shouldn't have titles with all caps. A fair number of them need fixing, and I'm surprised that four supporters and a spot-checker failed to catch that. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to clarify - I wasn't intending to suggesting that the paywalls were a stumbling block, I randomly selected 15 sentences to check and, where I could not check because of a paywall I mentioned the fact - the point was to give the closing editor as much information as possible so that they could judge the state of the article. By personal perference, I would, in general, like to see fewer sources behind paywall, and my comments reflect that, but I certainly don't think that I would be imposing it as part a review just yet :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Known for his clumsy character Inspector Clouseau and his many comic roles on radio, Peter Sellers was one of the best known comedians of his generation. Over the last few weeks the article has been expanded and has completed a peer review with three excellent editors—Brianboulton, Lobo512 and Tim riley—examining the text and one—J Milburn—examining the images. We are now nominating this for featured article status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. We hope that you enjoy reading this article as much as we have enjoyed writing it, and we look forward to all comments and suggestions. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As noted, I took part in the peer review, by the conclusion of which the article, IMO, met all the FA criteria. The structure is sound, the proportion well judged, the detail full but not excessive, the prose fine, the referencing thorough. Tim riley (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your excellent PR and final support Tim! -- CassiantoTalk 21:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the article is well written and well balanced in all aspects and ticks all the boxes for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your support! -- CassiantoTalk 21:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article from a biographical/quality viewpoint, yes I agree its FA standard. However, what alarms me here is that as an article on an actor you've practically missed coverage of any critical acclaim or criticism of even his major roles and have failed to inform the reader about the nature of a lot of his films and actors/directors he worked with in his films. I'm very surprised actually that Tim riley did not think that important and overlooked that. I believe FA articles should be as a comprehensive as possible, and whilst the article writers have a done a fine job with the biographical information the actual content related to his acting roles and reviews is surprisingly poor. I would not feel happy voting "support" for an article which largely ignores what should be standard in actor biographies, to at least cover some of his major roles and provide information about who he starred with and quotes of his performances from film critics. Contrary to what is said above I get the impression that from 1970 onwards the article is rushing to finish and his career in the 1970s is far from as comprehensive as it should me. "Writing in The Sunday Times, Dilys Powell noted that Sellers gave "a firework performance, funny, malicious, only once for a few seconds overreaching itself, and in the murder scene which is both prologue and epilogue achieving the macabre in comedy." If you could introduce a few more quotes like that, ideally some from American critics too like the NY Times and Chicago Sun on a few more films and mention a few of his costars in more of his films/directors he worked with I'd support.
Browse his filmography at the NY Times and read some of his reviews. Also look through Roger Ebert's stuff like Dr. Strangelove. Related articles at the LA Times. A wealth of further material on Highbeam. I think you'd be surprised just how much information and perspective you are evading if you haven't done so. Also, is the infobox really essential? I'd rather see a portrait.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dr. B we will look into it and construct it in a sandbox. I'll send the link. I agree about deleting the infobox in favour of a portrait. Any other reviewers here think the same? -- CassiantoTalk 10:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to removing the infobox. There's a huge no-consensus on the talk page, and the scuppering of Flemming's FAC over this same issue. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to begin working on this myself as I think with my edits I can improve the comprehension of his film work, but I just wish I had had the chance to edit this before you nominated. As a reader I personally did not know Sellers portrayed a "sexually voracious Queen Victoria", its this sort of thing the article should cover, the nature of some of his roles and their critical reception. Its the final component I think which is needed, otherwise biographically its excellent. Never mind, I will work hard on this today. I would prefer to work in the article space if that's OK as I imagine between the time I edit in a sandbox a few other editors will have edited it, I just think its easier to do so. But feel free to correct me and assist!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is much to be said for mentioning reviews as Dr B suggests. Happy to chip in if wanted. I can access Times, Guardian, FT, and a range of niche journals. Tim riley (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've become something of a co-writer but Support. I am now happy with this article as an effective encyclopedia article summarising the career and life of Peter Sellers. I think the article does justice to a comedy legend and that the article needed to be pretty long to be comprehensive. It is my idea at least of how an article on a top importance film biography should look. Very well researched, thorough but not excessive in its details of each film and issue. I think it flows nicely. I still want to do a final check this evening in google books and highbeam to ensure nothing has been overlooked, and if Mr. Tim riley is heading to the British library any time soon I'd love it if you could help out by browsing the Michael Starr biography from 1991 which aside from the Lewis book seemed to have some important details which might further improve this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be careful with the Lewis book: it's so hideously twisted against anything Sellers ever did it needs careful balancing with some on the others. Lewis seems twisted bith bile and hatred against Sellers, calling him "evil"—and yet had never even met him. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed! But the nastiness aside, is one of the best sources. The Michael Starr book looks almost as good from the snippets I've caught.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
I notice some of the sources have google book links, others not. Shouldn't they all be consistent?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there is an available book with preview online, not otherwise (see WP:PAGELINK) - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that under the terms of the Highbeam agreement we must attribute them in the ref with something like "accessed via Highbeam Research". I had accredited them but somebody has removed all of the attributions and they should be restored.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. There is no requirement that "HighBeam" be explicitly wiki-linked; that's unwarranted promotion. They get the actual link, which is sufficient. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
In Ref 74 The Manchester Guardian was stationed in Manchester. It was only until 1964 did they move to London. Therefore I suggest you remove the location parameter as it is obvious where the paper was printed.
My mistake. I've changed it to Manchester, rather than remove it altogether, purely for the sake of consistency. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Express should be Sunday Express in Ref 268
Now tweaked. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
?Per WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year" so wouldn't the heading years need adjusting?
the year headings are already shown with two digit closings, (1925–35) for example. is that what you mean, or have I mis-read you? - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, my mistake. Perfectly fine, have crossed the message.
Thanks very much for spotting those: it's much appreciated! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it The Daily Mail or The Daily Mail? Personally I would go for the latter as it is stylised like that in its article.
It's the latter. Now changed - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under 'Being There, Fu Manchu and marital problems': "and not simply for its humor" should the word in bold be spelt in British English? Lemonade51 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in a quote, so the US spelling comes across with it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupported below I'm reading through the article now, about 2/3 of the way through my review, will hopefully have comments tonight or tomorrow. This is a long article! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Alright, I finished my read through and came up with some comments. This seems like a very comprehensive, exhaustively detailed piece of work, and it's generally well written throughout. I have a few comments, most of which are about copy editing. I'll make some copy edits myself, feel free to revert if there are any issues with them. In my opinion, the article is approaching FA quality, but a few tweaks are needed to get there.
"Sellers died as a result of heart disease in 1980 aged 54." Should there be a comma after 1980 in BritEng?
"Peg Sellers was related to the pugilist Daniel Mendoza (1764–1836), a relative Sellers greatly revered" Some repetition here, "related... relative"
Changed for "ancestor" -- CassiantoTalk 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)" most paragraphs start with "In [year]...", I'd suggest trying to vary that a bit.
Swapped a few starts to different wordings. -- CassiantoTalk 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, that article is inconsistent in date-related comma usage, I see "In [year] Sellers..." a few times and "In [year], Sellers..." a number of times. I made notes of most of them, so if you don't want them I can help pull them out.
I think most of these have been covered where necessary… - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"somebody very like Albert Herring has always been trying to escape -somebody earnest and sympathetic is behind the imbecile's mask." I think the hyphen should be a dash here.
"ellers himself once remarked, "I'm always playing old Colonels, actually"; the film performed poorly at the box office." The two parts of the sentence don't seem very closely connected here to me, or am I missing something?
I've removed the colonels section: it wasn't connected to the film at all, but a more general comment. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""The last of the great Ealing Comedies, "The Ladykillers" is a wonderfully macabre black comedy" I think "The Ladykillers" should be italicized here.
"He was nominated for the Best British Actor award at the 16th British Academy Film Awards for his role as John Lewis, a frustrated Welsh librarian whose affections swing between the glamorous Liz (Mai Zetterling), and his long-suffering wife Jean (Virginia Maskell)." This seems to mirror his real life to some extent, has that been noted in the sources?
I've searched through the sources to hand and Walker, Sikov, Evans and Lewis did not pick up on that aspect of life-mirroring-art. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kubrick had American jazz producer Norman Granz record Sellers's portions of the script for Sellers to listen to, so he could study the voice and develop confidence, granting him a free licence to break the rules.[118] As Sellers's biographer Alexander Walker notes, Sellers" You use "Sellers" four times in two sentences here, I suggest cutting down on that.
Tweaked. – Can you check it still makes sense? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sellers's last film of 1962 was a legal satire, The Dock Brief, directed by James Hill and co-starring Richard Attenborough. Sellers's" I'd suggest trying to avoid starting consecutive sentences with "Sellers" like this.
"The problems with the film were compounded by Sellers being unhappy" I'd suggest "by Sellers's unhappiness..." I'd suggest something similar with "despite Minnelli being engaged to Desi Arnaz, Jr., and Sellers still being married."
"The film was shot on location in Marrakech, Morocco, Gstaad, Switzerland (Sellers's adopted tax-free domestic haven) and Nice, France on a budget of £3 million." Might want to use semi-colons here.
Removed the film locations – not needed and more pertinent to the film's own article - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Janet Maslin of The New York Times noted how Sellers divided his energies between a serious character and a funny one, but that it was his serious performance which was more impressive." I see an ending quote here, but no opening quote.
"He portrayed dual roles, including King Rudolf IV, ruler of the fictional small nation of Ruritania." Might want to describe both roles.
I've corrected this entry as Sellers was in three roles, not two. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" it certainly garnered him the most critical acclaim." I'd prefer to avoid the use of "certainly" here, if that's alright.
It is: it's not certain at all and I've removed the line. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In March 1980 Sellers asked his fifteen-year-old daughter Victoria what she thought about Being There: she replied, "I said yes, I thought it was great. But then I said, 'You looked like a little fat old man'" The initial part of the quoted portion sounds like a response to a reporter's question, not her response to Sellers.
Tweaked to accommodate the quote flow. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try to be consistent with how you put parenthetic explanations of worth (before or after period).
Done (I think!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" A poor working relationship quickly developed between Sellers and Welles and Sellers eventually demanded" Could this be rephrased to avoid the "Sellers and Welles and Sellers"? Also you have "Sellers eventually" in consecutive sentences there.
It's unfortunate that so much is being added and revised during the FAC, that makes it easy for little issues to slip in undetected. Not that there is something wrong with the quality of the additions, per se.
The information has been added, streamlined and now looks a lot better. The salient points remain with a few extra bits added. -- CassiantoTalk 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there's a discussion on the talk page about the length. My initial impression is that it's a bit too long, but Avery Brundage was promoted a month or two ago at about the same length, so I guess that's not a deal-breaker. It is somewhat quote-heavy, but, again, not to the point I'd oppose over it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per above. The article has now been trimmed and is now complete. Mark, we would really value a reassessment in relation to the new additions if you have the time. -- CassiantoTalk 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is unfortunate and I'd preferred to have done what I've done before this was nominated which I had promised but I believe the article is now of FA standard and I personally feel more comfortable viewing an article which is very comprehensive and not missing anything of major importance. It could be trimmed a little bit in parts but I am always careful not to rant on about one issue and if you read the article fully I believe it is actually quite concise and informative and flows nicely. There is more weight on some of his more major films like Kubrick's films but quite rightly so. I'd say a lot of the quotes especially about Seller's personality by friends and colleagues are very valuable to truly understanding his personality and his highs and lows. Where possible I've tried to convert some to prose. The lead, yes it's become quite long but it needed to be to effectively summarize what has also become quite a long article. If you read the lead through I don't see anything excessive about it and I think there is a need to mention many of those films and his major award wins and nominations. I've trimmed it a little, not by much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to look through your recent additions, looking at this: "Although the film was widely praised by critics, Lord Snowdon was highly critical of the film, saying "I absolutely loved Peter, he was one of my closest, dearest friends. He had a light touch, a sense of humour, I can't bear to see him portrayed as somebody who was apparently without either".[184] Sellers's second wife Britt Ekland also believed that the film left the audiences with the wrong impression, saying "the film leaves you with the impression that Peter Sellers was essentially a likeable man when in reality he was a monster. He may have been a brilliant actor, but as a human being he had no saving graces at all"." I'm not really sure this needs to be in quotes, I think it could be paraphrased without too much effort. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done with the article now, the Olympics beckon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It wasn't long before Sellers's insecurities and paranoia began to manifest," WP:CONTRACTION issue here, also kind of a wordy sentence, how about "Sellers's insecurities and paranoia soon began to manifest"
I think there's some unnecessary detail in the second to last paragraph of "Death and subsequent family issues". Do we need to know where his daughters live today? Or that one of them posed in Playboy and had a coke habit etc.?
No – good point. Info now removed, (although I've left the info about Frederick in the footnote). - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"his entire estate worth an estimated £4.5 million while his children received £800 each" Might want to add a contemporary equivalent there.
There are a few WP:PLUSING issues throughout, not a big deal, but not quite optimal either.
"its black humour was overcooked" is there a better word than "overcooked" here?
I've removed the section of sentence. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"with his wife telling Malcolm McDowell that she was arranging a divorce,[289] and Sellers telling his son that" Some repetition of "telling" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mark - There are still a few points to cover, but we'll do these very shortly. Thanks very much for you thoughts and suggestions on this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Mark. Sorry I have not been more involved with your comment fixes, but I was holding back until the extension/non-extension matter was resolved. I'm happy to say it now is but that darn cat has since hogged all the milk! -- CassiantoTalk 18:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, I believe that the problems I spotted have been evened out, and I'm a lot more comfortable with the article's length now, so I am ready to support. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for all all your thoughts and suggestions and your ultimate support Mark. Your comments have improved this article no end. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't think that the article rambles on excessively, I find it very informative, it just needs condensing and trimming, which is currently being done as I see. I think the current version is major improvement and Dr. Blofeld deserves credit for his efforts. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 15:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLeaning to support: I peer-reviewed this article a few weeks ago. It has enjoyed an adventurous and controversial career at this FAC; all I will say is that in its present form, I think it is sufficiently comprehensive to fulfil the FA requirements in this respect, without laying undue burdens of detail on the reader. My remaining concern is with prose matters; reading through again, I am finding quite a few prose glitches which I am fixing as I go along, and I will defer my final declaration until I've finished this. One thing I haven't fixed: the geographical area known in Britain as the "Far East" is in my experience always capitalised - I've never seen it otherwise, except in the lead of this article. Does anyone know differently? Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian, both for your polishing of the article and your comments here. I've capitalised the Far East, as I also know of no good reason why it shouldn't be. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for me Brian. I'm so pleased you prefer it's current form. Your small fixes here are invaluable. -- CassiantoTalk 15:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm through with my fixes. I may of course have missed a few but I believe I've caught most, and have just a few remaining queries:
"Sellers took amyl nitrates as a sexual stimulant with Ekland..." I'm not sure how to interpret this. Does it mean that Sellers and Ekland both took the drug, or that Sellers took it to stimulate his sexual performance with Ekland (because she wasn't sexy enough on her own?). Please clarify.
Good point. I was also wondering this. I picked up something the other day in highbeam which actually said it was Ekland's "athletic prowess" between the sheets which caused the heartattack.. I know after the ordeal Sellers said "I didn't know if I was "coming" or going" LOL. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now tweaked to provide clarity. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text could be interpreted as meaning that Sellers was replaced in Casino Royale by Cooper, which is not the case. Perhaps: "Sellers left the film before his part was complete. A further agent's part was then written for Terence Cooper, to cover Sellers's departure". Or some such
Three unreleased films in the early 1970s: we only learn of these from a quoted comment; perhaps they should be mentioned briefly in the substantive text.
Unfortunately they are not mentioned in the text by name. Looking through the dates and film history one was obviously the dire Ghost in the Noonday Sun, but that's a bit of OR to get that one. The others are even more in the way of guesswork. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this point at peer review: surely, "making him a millionaire" should read "restoring his millionaire status"?
It should—and now does. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of Secombe's joke "Anything to avoid paying for dinner" is missing; the remark needs a context
A general point: the words "notes" and "noted" are much overused, as in "Spike Milligan later noted...", "Roger Lewis noted...", "Peter Evans notes..." - and many more, at least 25 or 30 times in the article. It began to annoy a bit towards the end. It's a small point, but it would help if a few of these were changed: "mentioned", "observed", "asserted", "declared", "expressed the view" are all usable. A thesaurus is indispensable for would-be FA writers.
Mea culpa, I'm afraid. I've stripped out the worst excesses, so no single word or phrase is releated to often or in close proximity. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have upgraded to full support. A heroic and ultimately worthwhile achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, you changed your tune! Thanks! Thanks for taking the time also to make the needed minor edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've changed my tune. The article has, however, changed back to something in my view eminently supportable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, thank you so much for all your time and effort on this article: it is very much appreciated indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if at the end we don't walk away with an FA, it is still a great honour knowing we have a Brianboulton support. Thank you for all your help Brian! -- CassiantoTalk.
Delegate's comment - I have moved the discussion on the Info box to the Talk Page. Please continue discussing this there and hopefully reach a consensus. I don't consider this issue to be central to the promotion or archiving of this FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is being repeatedly reverted by the nominators over the addition of fields to the infobox by Connormah; |birth_place= and |death_place=. See 1(e) stable.
So you're trying to fail this based on your petty infobox dispute? Kinda pathetic don't you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing. As I see it, they're the ones pushing this into unstable territory. This not a petty issue; I've long advocated proper website structure. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of what this editor, at least, noted beginning with Talk:Peter_Sellers#Poor_paragraph_structure and subsequent problems, has been improved in the least. Oddly, all the problems noted actually doubled in size since noted, with the addition of 5,000 words to the body. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto thought I implied the word "you" instead of "I", as if I was telling others what to do, LOL. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead issues:
Unreliable sources: Use of and restoring lengthy quotes from tabloid writers in the body and lead: "The Daily Mail described Sellers as . . ."
No place of birth or death in infobox: Although Schro included this vital basic fact to his rewrite of Ian Fleming, they disallow it for Sellers;
No official website allowed: As per Ian Fleming, Sellers' official website would improve the infobox but is removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its your right to oppose. But in all honesty I think editors of the calibre of Tim, Brian and Mark would not have supported it if they'd seen any outstanding issues with the prose. And I'm certain the closing admin would be well aware of your agenda with the article and immaturity shown here in requesting your name be removed from the editing history for embarrassment of associating your name with it and for your resentment of the article development and praise given since you edited it. The behaviour of both of you here comes across to me as pointy and intentionally disruptive and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see this. Very disappointing. Infoboxes are irrelevant and unimportant and it astounds me why you think they are and how it has become a major source of conflict. I understand you like consistency with articles, nothing wrong with that, but your insistence is starting to grate, and I am fairly neutral in regards to infoboxes, I don't mind either way, although if I had my choice I'd go for a clean picture for a not sports biography. But please just try to dial this down a little eh? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not the place for it, I know, but infoboxes are important; précis, metadata, accessibility by software systems, to facilitate automated propagation of content, so highschoolers can cheat on tests with mobiles, for casual readers... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
For articles with a lot of data yes, like sportspeople or cities or aeroplanes they are very useful for fact finding. But an infobox which merely says place of birth and death, and wives is hardly something to be so fanatical about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments - As far as this nomination is concerned, I am ignoring the debate on infoboxes. To be blunt, I think you guys need your heads banging together. I never seen such a trivial issue causing so much heat (and so little light) at FAC. I would like to see a constructive spotcheck of the sources for verification and to check for close-paraphrasing, and an image review to ensure that the – in my view – complex licences are to FA standard. As I said above, please try to reach a consensus, with regard to your disagreements over the infobox, elsewhere. Graham Colm (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images: definite problems here.
File:Dr. Strangelove - Group Captain Lionel Mandrake.png, File:Dr. Strangelove - President Merkin Muffley.png and File:Dr. Strangelove.png all rest on a no-notice basis. However, they appear to be shots from the film, and if correct then this would render Dr Strangelove out of copyright, which I find hard to believe. What I think is more likely is that the trailer didn't mention copyright, but the original film did. That would be sufficient to ensure copyright in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (I know there can be exceptions for press works, but these are deliberate by the publisher, not accidental.)
File:Britt_Ekland_and_Peter_Sellers_1964_crop.jpg needs a US copyright tag. That would be PD-1996 if applicable. Someone needs to do some digging to see if the file was in the public domain in Sweden on Sweden's URAA date, which is normally 1 January 1996.
"Traditionally" is unfortunately not enough; the community rejected that line for one of your files, here. The file here does not show the reverse. The signature could be an issue if the file was otherwise kept, but I'll airbrush it for you if necessary. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion at the Village Pump/Copyright about the need to show the back of photos. One editor commented, "While that's not a bad idea, it is by no means common practice. I've uploaded some 30,000 photos here, and this is the first time I've heard of the idea. - User:Jmabel. In any case, the Polanski image DR was based primarily on other reasons unrelated to seeing the back. Nor has this image been tagged as requiring such added proof, which would actually be creating a new standard of proof unsupported by common practice. One admin stated elsewhere that unless the back of such photos were commonly used for printing copyright notices, there should be no presumption it could be there. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed File:Britt_Ekland_and_Peter_Sellers_1964_crop.jpg until such time as a pre-1996 publication can be located. I've also tweaked the links on Commons of the two images to at least point to a page where the image can be found (the same site as previously). Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that SchroCat removed the image from the article based on your comments only, and should probably be restored. The handwriting was also removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really struggling to follow this all but WW, I was being a little more lenient. You're right, I shouldn't have been but on my reading of the Polanksi image your proposed presumption of non-copyright was found wanting but their was some suggestion that showing or indicating the contents of the reverse of the image was a more defensible presumption. However that wasn't the issue at hand and therefore all we do know is that some of the files will need to be deleted. What I'll do as I'm struggling to keep up is review again soon and you can more these comments to the talk page or something. As far as the image current nominated, it's nominated by MRG and I would say that was a good indication that it will be deleted (I think so as well). Probably best given that we're looking at the overall use of images here to remove it but keep an eye on the outcome anyway, i.e. plan for the minimum case. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grandiose. I've removed as per your advice with the caveat that should the Commons discussion "clear" the image, then it will be returned. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reader's comment - I find this article hard going for someone not that familiar with Peter Sellers. Sample section heading:
"Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)"
I didn't know what The Good Show was, so I did a "find". It's not mentioned until the end of the fourth paragraph in that section (no links to Goon Show or explanation of it's significance or what it was.) Using "find" again, I reach the link in the image caption. (The linked article is a long read to figure out Sellers' importance.)
It's actually linked in the first line of the article. It's then linked in the fourth paragraph as that's the right place to put it. The section header is "Early post-war career and The Goon Show": the first three paragraphs are about other parts of his early post war career, the fourth is about The Goon Show. You are entirely right about the lack of post-lead link and thank you for picking up on that: I have now added one where appropriate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The next mention of The Goon Show is under the section heading "Death and subsequent family issues". And there only because of "Sellers's friend and Goon Show colleague" which all the subsequent mentions seem to be. e.g. under "Legacy". Best clue of The Goon Show's importance is under "Legacy": "media historian Graham McCann states "the anarchic spirit of the Goon Show ... would inspire, directly or indirectly and to varying extents, ..."
Question: Why is the section "Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)" if it doesn't explain the importance of The Goon Show?
There is already a quote in there which says the show was "probably the most influential comedy show of all time".[54] I think that puts it into at least some form of context, but I will add some more details shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the headings are confusing that way. Good, I guess, for those very familiar with Peter Sellers, but not good for those wanting to learn about him. Apparently his mental and personal problems dominated his career. It certainly sticks out more - even though I had to do a "find" for Sophia Loren after I came across her name farther down. Too many names to take it all in. There are many illuminating insights scattered about but only "Technique" focuses on his "comic brilliance". (Maybe it's just me that I can't read, or maybe all the famous wives and such should be under a "personal life" section so that it doesn't distract from the fact that he was a great comic actor first and foremost.) MathewTownsend (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Matthew. I have to be honest, I have never been keen on the section headings; I thought they were a bit too long and seem a bit scrambled. I think the "Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)" section could be broken up. I would like to see The Goon Show get its own sub section as, IMO, it was a show which shot Sellers to fame. SchroCat what are your thoughts? -- CassiantoTalk 18:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the additional headings, there was initially a breakdown by decade until the Peer Review suggested adopting the headings such as they are now. For those unfamiliar with the titles of films, the dates are there to negotiate through the years. I'm wary of splitting the section in two as it would leave two rather short stubby sections which are innately connected: much of Sellers's early post-war work on radio was leading up to the Goons and so there is a logical flow between the two. Let me add some further detail about the programme and it may become a bit more logical to split the section after that.
In terms of the split between private and professional lives, there are two approaches that biographies follow on Wiki and there seems to be a roughly even split between including and separating. There are valid arguments for both such approaches and we've decided to go with the chronological approach for both because, yes, his mental and personal problems did dominate his career to a large extent. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the chrono order. We agreed to adopt this during the PR, something which I omitted to say earlier. I want to keep to this chrono order as swapping over to a "Personal life" section would be far too much work this late on into the FAC. -- CassiantoTalk 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response from reader -
It's not so much the chronological order decision. I looked around and found Ernest Hemingway who also had four wives and a complicated personal life and whose article is also chronological. But the section headings in his article clarify rather than confuse.
I think the following headings in Peter Sellers are misleading and confusing (which don't reflect the importance of what's listed in the heading in the section):
The Millionairess, Lolita, The Pink Panther and divorce (1960–63)
Dr. Strangelove, health problems, a second marriage and Casino Royale (1964–69)
The "period of indifference": two marriages, two Pink Panther films (1970–78)
Being There, Fu Manchu and marital problems (1979–80)
Death and subsequent family issues
Contrast with those of Ernest Hemingway. His biography is clearly presented, but not at the expense of the focus on his work, writing style, themes, influence and legacy, selected list of works.
There should at least be a selected list of Sellers work. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We were advised to look at Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson, both of which are also FAs and have a similar headline style. In terms of the list of works, Sellers made over 50 films, a number of albums and singles, as well as appearing on television and radio. A number of these appearances are very notable, and it was decided to move them all to a separate page, Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record. The link is in a clearly signposted section on its own "Filmography and other works". Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section headers are proving difficult to rename in order to capture that sections prominent points. I have had a go here, but to be honest I don't think they are descriptive enough. Although I am not a fan of their length, I think a descriptive header is better than a short one. -- CassiantoTalk 20:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a focus on proper headings, note that the previous headings were based on using his most significant career appearances as dividers. That format was overturned by Schro/Cass, who redesigned the structure of the article based on their opinion, "his mental and personal problems did dominate his career." A number of editors felt that tightly intertwining his personal life with his career was unproductive and confusing. Headings with "The Pink Panther and divorce," "second marriage and Casino Royale" and "Fu Manchu and marital problems" should be fixed, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section headers were changed per a this peer review to satisfy the concerns of a reviewer. It wasn't "our opinion". I have already said above I would prefer them shorter, but we have to oblige with the PR as otherwise it would make a mockery of the whole thing. Now it has been mentioned on here, we will work towards improving it further; but to be honest it is going to be very difficult to do as we are trying to satisfy two reviewers with differing opinions. -- CassiantoTalk 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, While I appreciate your concerns, the headings here do mark certain periods in Sellers's life. These are clearer than having (for example) simply a year block, which is what we adopted prior to the recent changes, and they do try and encapsulate the information in the section. In this respect they follow the same pattern of Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson. I appreciate that there are drawbacks to this approach, but there are serious drawbacks to Ernest Hemingway too. If I want to find out about, for example, where and when he wrote The Old Man and the Sea , I have to do a text search. I don't know enough about Hemmingway's life to know where he wrote each of his works and I would consider that a serious drawback. However, I note and like the way that the Hemmingway article follows a similar structure as Sellers: a single chronological run through of his personal and professional life, with an examination of his professional art afterwards.
What we have aimed for here it to highlight the main aspects of a period, both personal and professional, thus "The Millionairess, Lolita, The Pink Panther and divorce (1960–63)" A year block covers those who want to find out about his work in a particular timeframe and the title pulls out both both the major professional and personal aspects of his life. If you could suggest any constructive way of covering the periods of his life as I've outlined I would be delighted to consider them. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus why does the article dwell on trivia at the expense of Sellers' achievements. e.g.
In 1949, Sellers started to date Anne Howe,[44][c] an Australian actress who lived and worked in London.[46] The couple were introduced by Sellers's agent in late 1949,[47] and Sellers proposed to her in April 1950.[48] The couple married at Caxton Hall in London on 15 September 1951,[49] and their son, Michael, was born on 2 April 1954.[50] A daughter, Sarah, followed in 1958.[51]
which could be just:
In 1949, Settlers started to date Anne Howe,[44][c] an Australian actress living in London,[46] whom he married in September 1951.[49] Their son, Michael was born in 1954[50] and a daughter, Sarah in 1958.[51]
Truly, I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I empathize with the difficulties you are dealing with. I was just so disappointed to be unable to make much sense of this article. But I do recommend condensing and trimming the personal info and putting more emphasis on his talent, equivalent to Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey and Ernest Hemingway articles. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hard time? On the contrary - more a breath of fresh air. Since last month, when Schro/Cass started blitz-editing the article, it's been fact-fed with a diet of lard and sour cherries. It's ready to keel over with the dead weight of factoidal obesity. If the NHS can find the time, the article now needs a good lingosuction to be usable by anyone. Not to criticize the "heroism" of Schro/Cass in their 24/7 labors, of course, but in its present state it resembles a beached whale, done in by trivia blubber. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, Thanks for your further comments, but I think you missed what I was saying initially. We were advised that the format of the section headings from Carey and Jackson were something we should follow, not the article structure. We adopted this format to move away from either the block decade (sections too large and unapproachable) or the single film title (misleading, pointless and inaccurate). If you look at the Michael Jackson section headings you see the following:
1.1 Early life and The Jackson 5 (1958–1975)
1.2 Move to Epic and Off the Wall (1975–81)
1.3 Thriller and Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever (1982–83)
1.4 Pepsi, "We Are the World" and business career (1984–85)
1.5 Appearance, tabloids, Bad, films, autobiography and Neverland (1986–90)
1.6 Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation and Super Bowl XXVII (1991–93)
1.7 First child sexual abuse allegations and first marriage (1993–94)
1.8 HIStory, second marriage and fatherhood (1995–99)
1.9 Label dispute, Invincible and third child (2000–03)
1.10 Second child sexual abuse allegations and acquittal (2003–05)
1.11 Closure of Neverland, final years and This Is It (2006–09)
As you'll appreciate the Sellers titles follow broadly the same pattern of personal life and professional record as signposts for points within the article. Yes, there may be a need for some prior knowledge to get the best out of those titles, but I find it infinitely more helpful than:
1.1 Early life
1.2 World War I
1.3 Toronto and Chicago
1.4 Paris
1.5 Key West and the Caribbean
1.6 Spanish Civil War and World War II
1.7 Cuba and the Nobel Prize
1.8 Idaho and suicide
At least with Jackson and Sellers the titles of the main works flag up which section. I take your point about the filmography section and I've added a list of films for which he was nominated for awards. It's therefore based on something concrete, rather than anyone's personal choice, although again a reader will have to hunt through this article as much as Hemmingway's for the other works that don't readily sit in this list. Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto and I have undertaken fairly extensive research into Sellers, which includes aspects of legacy and technique and the results are what you see there. I will add some further information shortly, but this largely reiterates what has already been said already. As to your thoughts about this article being more about a neurotic than an actor, Sellers was both and the two sides affected each other continually – I'll leave it to Blake Edwards to explain, and there are a thousand and one other similar stories. I'll let you know when I've squeezed the last I can from the legacy/technique searches. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew, I've done a fairly extensive (although probably not exhaustive) search through an online academic articles library and other sources (news sources, Google books etc) and all that I have found about Sellers's technique I have added to the article. There really is very little written about his approach, with most writing being from reviewers about the outcome of the films. However, I've added what I can where I can. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are other editors allowed to improve the topic? Your Talk page comments there, please don't just go ahead and add stuff before discussing it with us first, seems to imply otherwise. There are other sources, including interviews with Sellers, where he discusses the topic. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course. But please be mindful of the FAC and it's comments from the reviewers. We would appreciate any additions going through us first whilst the FAC is in place. This is not an own request, so please assume good faith. -- CassiantoTalk 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew, a further sweep through has taken out much of the superflous detail you mentioned and the personal information that remains is not trivial. I think that with the addition of the film/award list and the additional information in the "Technique" section, the article is in much better shape. Many thanks for your time and suggestions on this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks - lots of subscription and offline sources I don't have, but checking a few:
If you're going to use HighBeam or other subscriber database links, should indicate that subscription/login/whatever is required to view full source
Should now all carry {{subscription}} tags where appropriate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"on the path to international stardom" vs "on the road to stardom" is a bit close for my taste, suggest quoting
Now quoted, and accredited in text to the BBC too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ladykillers was a success in both Britain and the US" - not in cited source
New sourced added to support statement. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sellers had a compulsive personality, and was an eccentric hypochondriac" vs "A compulsive personality and an eccentric hypochondriac" - again, should be quoted
Now cited. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Spike Milligan on Peter Sellers" quote: it's not clear from the cited source that this whole thing is from Milligan - the bit about "madly ludicrous" appears to be by Evans
Quite right too. I've dropped the opening (non-Milligan) line and used a different Milligan quote from the opening paragraph of the article. The ellipsis covers a fair stretch of text, but they are both Milligan quotes in the box now. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN89: link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Odd - it appears to be okay on mine. Are you talking about the Mouse That Roared review? (It's now FN90) A couple of the other NYT links crashed on first attempt, but then worked on the second go: it may just be local disturbance on their servers?
Many thanks for your time and your comments Nikkimaria: they are very much appreciated! - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor question Nikki, an editor has added a rather vague citation in the last paragraph of the lead. I'm not convinced by it as the information is not supported by the citation. (Peter Hall is not mentioned on the page at all, for example). Any thoughts would be welcomed, as spurious quotes from uncheckable television programmes are difficult to prove either way. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about that one: I'm not happy with the quote for a number of reasons and I've replaced it with something more appropriate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! Can I take this opportunity to thank all of the reviewer's who took part in this review. Special thanks goes to the great Dr. Blofeld for all his late additions and the articles chief writer Schrodinger's cat is alive. It's had it's up's and it's down's, but I'm happy to say that it got there in the end. Congratulations. -- CassiantoTalk 14:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get back here in time. The article is greatly improved and I fully support. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all the support votes: it's great to see that the article is seen for being one of the best ones on Wiki. Sellers, for all his flaws, deserves just that. Thanks to all the editors who have built the article up over the years, especially the recent work by Dr. Blofeld and Cassianto. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, on a rare and endangered French draft horse breed, has been a product of collaboration between User:Tsaag Valren (a user who has done amazing work on equine articles on the French WP and has been extremely helpful in the realm of French breeds on the English WP) and myself. Because the breed has a small population even in its own country, and is extremely rare outside of France, the majority of the sources are in French. The article went through a GA review a while ago, as well as a more recent peer review. I look forward to seeing your comments! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Dana boomer. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
What is UFR?
Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
I believe I have addressed these. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (all comments addressed) looks like a comprehensive, well written article. Will try an indepth-check later:
"However", "also" - almost all "however"s and some "also"s are fluff. Please check and remove them, when the contrast or addition is self-evident.
I've removed most of the "however"s and several of the "also"s. Do you feel that more trimming is needed? - DB
"Enthusiast" - usage of opinion statements should be checked. Of the 4 "enthusiastic" observations 2 would be better attributed to veterinarians, breeders, farmers, scientists, authors, ...: "Members of the breed are described by enthusiasts as courageous and observant" (a basic breed feature certainly has a better source) and "Enthusiasts say that more alternatives to slaughter are needed and that the steady decline in breed numbers is proof that the breed is slowly dying." is probably true, but this kind of statement could use a more qualified source.
Comment -- Dana is lead editor, so I'll let her make the call on the actual edits, but when it comes to breed characteristics like "courage" or "good disposition" or "attractive," the problem here is that sometimes this IS the breed standard, fuzzy as it is, and even when it isn't there is no consensus as to what these terms mean other than horse people throw them around a lot and we all "know" what is intended, but no one puts down these specialized definitions in a dictionary very often (and it's worse when we are translating from other languages) -- so if it isn't NPOV to say a horse possesses a certain desired trait, then to say that "promoters or enthusiasts" of the breed describe is as having good traits x, y, and z is about as NPOV as we can get. Am I making any sense at all? --Montanabw
I've done some tweaking on this - has it helped? - DB
Lead "Developed in the [rich] ... grasslands .." ==> "fertile" as a more neutral and specific term.
"The Trait du Nord was also used extensively in mining through a greater part of the 19th century." ==> Not wrong, but main text has a complete duration until 1920 and even later.
Lead second para: repetitive phrasing (production, demand). Also confusing description of causes for breed's decline. Main text has mechanization as main cause with declining meat consumption as "contributing" factor. The lead para does not quite reflect this combination of causes.
"The breed is considered to be endangered [by the French government]" ==> couldn't find the government part in main text.
Dana: if you have trouble finding stats, the new Schleswig horse article has links to the FAO and some Europe-wide sites that might further verify this. --MTBW
I've added a bit from one source that backs this up. I'll also look at a few other sources to see if I can find anything on the all-Europe or FAO point of view. - DB
"The breed currently has a high risk of inbreeding, due to the low number of breeding stallions,[ and is also at risk of extinction.]" ==> couldn't find the extinction part (in relation to inbreeding) in the main text, only as part of an enthusiast's opinion.
The numbers alone speak to the risk. When a breed organization (not known for wanting to mention bad news) says there's an inbreeding risk, you can take it to the bank! --MTBW
I've tweaked this a bit in the article text and added some more from another source, but mainly what MTBW says is true. When birth numbers drop by more than half in under a decade, and there are less than 100 new horses born each year, the breed is at a significant risk for extinction. - DB
Uses - "The first horses was used in the ..." ==> grammar
"Breeders worked to produce a horse that fulfilled the needs of the mines" ==> needs rephrasing, something like "Breeders worked to adapt the breed to mining requirements." (the horse was already there, it needed slight improvements for mines).
Breed preservation - "The Trait du Nord is an endangered breed; the Haras de Compiègne (Compiegne Stud) ..." ==> Compiegne Stud is not mentioned before, please introduce the term ("private initiative" or similar?) at first usage. Also: check for other horsey terms throughout and add a brief descriptive phrase at first occurence. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finding "horsey terms" is something that I always have trouble with, because to me they're just normal language... I've addressed the Compiegne Stud thing (it was a national stud), but would appreciate it if you would point out any other terms you feel should be further explained. - DB
GermanJoe, I'll let Dana make the call on this article as I've done little work on it, but I want to let you know that the question of how to handle horse-related Technical terminology is one that WPEQ has been working with across the board in many articles, and we have a general consensus not to overdo it. You may want to see how we handled them in some of our major GAs, such as Thoroughbred. If I may joke a bit here, I for one find it clunky to say [placing tongue in cheek here] "a stallion (boy horse) was the sire (father) of a filly (baby girl horse) that is bay (a reddish-brown color with a black mane and tail plus black points on the legs and ear tips) and has four hooves (single-toed large digit with hornlike substance enclosing third phalanx [tiptoe])..." when the word can be wikilinked to an article or to Glossary of equestrian terms. However, if there is something particularly specific you are wondering about, feel free to flag it. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree, basic terms with a wide usage need no further explanation (i didn't request that by the way :) ). Anyway, Dana boomer already adressed my point, so it's solved. GermanJoe (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GermanJoe! I believe I have addressed everything above; anything that I didn't specifically reply to I simply addressed without comment. Please let me know if you have any further observations. Dana boomer (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into the comments. The vast majority of the content was clear and comprehensive on the first go. I'll do another complete read soon. GermanJoe (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gros_trait_Hainaut.jpg needs page number and US PD tag
File:Medium_cheval.JPG needs US PD tag. I'm not sure the tag already present is correct - for an image created c. 1900, it's quite possible for the creator to have died less than 70 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! The first one should be good to go (I think I found and added the correct US tag). I've removed the second one and tagged it for deletion; I have replaced it with File:Bambou étalon de 2 ans.jpg. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry that I haven't had a chance to respond to the above comments. I've had some family stuff come up and been online less than I expected this past week. I'll be back online full time Thursday evening at the latest, so I promise to respond to everything at that point or before. Thank you for your patience, and again, I apologize! Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Naming and registration: "According the French National Stud". Is "to" missing from this?
1900s: As a publication, Official Journal should probably be italicized.
"the average weight of the Trait du Nord increase from between...". "increase" → "increased".
1990s and today: 1990s really doesn't need the wikilink.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giants! Stupid typos... All of the above should be good to go now. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – All of my comments have been taken care of, and I think the article meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim just a few queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it became an individual breed with —I'd prefer "was recognised", since it didn't physically change
more minor use —don't need "more"
The Trait du Nord is large... They are...—Change of subject from singular to plural
high risk of inbreeding, due to the low number of breeding stallions, and is at risk—two risks in one sentence
French National Stud and Centre —The rest of the article is in AE
But "Centre" is part of an official name, so wouldn't it be incorrect to change it to AE? - DB
The ancestors of what is now the Belgian draft breeds, the Ardennes and the Trait du Nord were all the same—as what?
breed for the farmers that conceived it,—bearing in mind that "conceived" has a literal use, best avoided in the same sentence as "breed"
One equine author—I don't think horses write books
slaughter are needed and that the steady decline in breed numbers is proof that the breed is slowly dying—again, an unfortunate use of "dying", which has a literal use too, in the same sentence as "slaughter"
Thanks Jim! I think I've addressed everything above, though I've only left a reply to one where I had a question. Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's Haras Nationaux et le Centre de Ressources génétiques, obviously using the the French word, centre. If it has an official English name using "Centre", fair enough, but I doubt that that is the case. You are not copying the French centre, you're translating it, so it should be translated into the AE used for the rest of the article. Anyway, not a big deal, I've changed to support above, and I'll leave you to decide on the appropriate spelling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; done. Thanks for the support! Dana boomer (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate nitpick -- I don't suppose we could find another word for "minor" in the last sentence of the first paragraph, could we? It reads almost like a deliberate pun on "mining" in the same sentence... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I hadn't noticed that. Totally unintentional, I assure you :) Anyway, I exchanged it for "lesser", which I hope works... Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly a Featured Article, Dorset was downgraded to a B Class in Oct 2010. Following a Peer Review and a virtual rewrite it was elevated to Good Article status in August last year. After a further Peer Review, more work and a copyedit, we tentatively believe we are ready for FAN.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One thing caught my eye skimming: "Dorset is unaffected by the more intense winds of Atlantic storms that Cornwall and Devon experience." Is it that black-and-white, intense in Devon and not in Dorset? - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dorset is sheltered from the more aggressive Atlantic winds by Devon and Cornwall, yes. It's why the north and north west coasts of those counties are popular with surfers, and Dorset has a rubbish surf reef! Do you think the sentence needs toning down?--Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to make a recommendation when I've never been to Dorset. The wording does seem a little bit stark. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Dorsetshire continued to be a common alternative name for the county for centuries but has now fallen out of fashion" - source?
The truth is, we didn't consider this sentence to be controversial. The shire suffix has been widely dropped across the entire country, not just in Dorset (see the article on Shire counties). There is a very similar sentence in the Somerset article, a Featured Article, which is also unsourced. However, having said all that, I am prepared to remove the sentence if it means getting FA status.--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check alphabetization of references
Swapped Chaffey and Cullingford. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Publisher given but not visible due to a cite web/cite news template mix up.--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be an excellent article with good referencing. I have a question: Who owns Dorset? Are there rich landowners owning great swathes of the countryside? How much does the Ministry of Defence own? You mention Tyneham being requisitioned during WWII – does the MOD still own the area? Is this contentious? Does the National Trust own a significant acreage? Does the crown or Duchy of Cornwall own chunks of the county? Aa77zz (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot of questions about ownership. Are you interested in buying it? :) The short answer is yes to all. There are a number of large landowners, including the crown, the MOD, the National Trust and private owners. The MOD still owns Tyneham and other parts of Lulworth, Bovington, Blandford, Portland and more besides. It was at one time hugely controversial when the MOD refused to return Tyneham but appears to be less so today. The Duchy of Cornwall owns Poundbury. The National Trust claims parts of the Jurassic Coast, parts of the Isle of Purbeck and Brownsea Island among its Dorset possessions. Much of this information is freely available on the interweb.--Ykraps (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still saving to buy my first piece. The tone of your answer suggests that you don't believe such information belongs in this high level article and that the question of ownership is adequately covered by other linked articles. I'm not so sure. As always it is a question of judging what to include and what to omit but if, as seems possible, a few landowners own a substantial fraction of the total land, then this should be mentioned in the article. Aa77zz (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my tone, I think I was wandering where your line of enquiry was leading. We were sort of following the WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties guidelines which didn't really mention ownership and although I sort of agree that large landowners are worthy of inclusion, I'm not sure whether anyone owns such a significant amount as to warrant special mention. I will give this some more thought however.--Ykraps (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Ref 54 should be BBC Dorset, not BBC
Ref 132 needs date (7 April 2010) and was published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper
Ref 196 published on guardian.co.uk also
Ref 197 needs space between date and month
Ref 205 needs author and is BBC Dorset, not BBC News – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All correct now, I think. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw
Having made some significant edits to Somerset I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a neighbouring county. I think the article is good but have some specific questions and comments
Lead
A 2010 population estimate is included in the infobox - the data from the 2011 census was released today & this should be updated with official figures (start here). This would also apply to the demography section.
Yes, I'd noticed that the first estimates have been published but thought it better to wait until all the information was available, otherwise there will be a mixture of 2001 and 2011 data which I think will be too confusing. The age structure, ethnic groups, religion, economic activity, industry and employment figures appear to be due for release between Nov 12 and Feb 13 [[45]].--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead introduces the topic but I'm not sure it adequately summarises the content - eg limited mention some of the culture, transport etc sections
Okay, I have added a bit more about transport and culture.--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weymouth doesn't appear to be wikilinked on first occurrence in the lead.
Okay, I have done this but it might be irrelevant after the lead has been tinkered with.--Ykraps (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Toponymy
"Dorset derives its name from the county town of Dorchester" links to a dab page - presumably this should be Dorchester, Dorset which is linked in the lead.
Damn, thought I'd checked all links. Sorted now, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
Bokerly Dyke is Bokerley Dyke in the related article
I think both spellings are acceptable but internet searches seem to suggest Bokerley more common so I have changed to match its article.--Ykraps (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is linked in the lead. Does it need a further link or did you miss the first one?--Ykraps (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, and it is linked in the main body, albeit rather cryptically.[reply]
OK didn't spot that
I'm not a grammar expert but the phrase "During the 18th century the Dorset coast saw much smuggling activity" didn't seem quite right to me.
It does sound a bit awkward so I have changed slightly.--Ykraps (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Langton Herring. I have added it but wonder if the sentence isn't a bit clumsy now.--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do gliders "drop" troops?
Paratroopers are dropped, yes.--Ykraps (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the gliders landed and then the troops got out - but I will strike this.
I may be wrong but I believed the borders of the county with Hampshire and Devon, and hence its area, had changed over the years and on a quick scan I couldn't see any mention of this apart from in the lead.
The '74 boundary changes are mentioned in the politics section. Funnily enough, we removed some other references because we thought it had been a bit over-mentioned. I'm not aware of boundary changes with Devon but will look into it further.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the parish of Thorncombe (in Devon until 1836) was transferred to Dorset from the diocese of Salisbury in 1844. Also in 1844, Holwell went from Somerset to Dorset. Also from Somerset, the parishes of Goathill, Poynington, Sandford Orcas, Seaborough joined Dorset in 1896 while Wambrook went the other way. Also in 1896 Dorset lost Chardstock to Devon. Assuming I can find reliable sources, how much of this info do you think should be included, and where in the article do you suggest it is best placed?--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much but some mention of these changes may be useful for readers not familiar with the county, who may have come across references elesewhere to villages/parishes being in one county or another.— Rodtalk 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:BarretB has added this information in the form of a footnote.--16:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Purbeck Marble is a particular type of Purbeck limestone. Are you asking out of curiosity or is there a sentence you think needs clarifying?--Ykraps (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Others like me may have heard of Purbeck Marble but the Purbeck stone article redirects to the Pubeck marble article so might need some explanation or sorting.— Rodtalk 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked Purbeck stone to Purbeck Group. I think this is probably where the re-direct ought to go but I don't want to change that without proper discussion.--Ykraps (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I think that is better as Purbeck Marbvle is already mentioned in the history section.— Rodtalk 19:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth having a sepearate ecology section & I was expecting to see the Canford Heath article linked in the piece on species of reptiles etc - It would also be good if the Dorset Heathlands had an article as it is a SPA & Ramsar site.
Possibly but the county also has its own Geography of... article which I am planning to expand. Might it be better suited there?--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just say Canford Heath is part of wider Special Protection Area & Ramsar site.— Rodtalk 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three areas of heath have Ramsar site status, so I have added a piece to say that.--Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim about "Western Europe's largest onshore oil field" probably needs a citation.
This is supported by the two references at the end of the paragraph but I have inserted a reference after the sentence too.--Ykraps (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rainfall figures appear in this section as well as the subsequent climate section.
Okay, I have removed. I thought it was needed to explain why most rivers are of the lowland type but it probably isn't necessary.--Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the paragrapgh about the Jurasic Coast I would have expected a mention of fossils at Lyme Regis
I have added a bit to say, the first complete icthyosaur was discovered there. Is that sufficient do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demography
I had to read the sentence "Between 1998 and 2004 Poole borough experienced a decline in its population caused by continuing negative rates of natural increase and falls in the level of net migration." three times to work out what it meant - but that may just be me.
No, not just you. Again, this came up at a previous peer review but at the time I thought, "That's just him". :) I have changed this sentence to read "....when there was a fall in the level of net migration".--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
I thought Oliver Letwin's title was "Minister of State at the Cabinet Office" rather than " Minister for Government Policy".
The decline of agriculture not being the largest employer "for many decades" is nebulous, particularly as we are then told it declined between 1995 and 2003 and an increase in the land used for it.
I have changed to "mid 19th century". The service industry became the largest employer some time between the 1841 and 1881 census. Draper points to the mechanisation of farming, that began in the 1830s as a major cause. Fluctuations in labour and land area don't always have an effect on the economy. For example, the increase referred to in the article has been in permanent grass and land set-aside. Land set-aside makes no contribution to the economy and permanent grass makes only a small, indirect contribution if it used for grazing. In contrast, arable land (used for growing crops), makes a significant contribution, and this has been reduced.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism - "Some 3.2 million British and 326,000 foreign tourists visited the county in 2008" and yet in the lead it says " the county receives some 18 million visitors a year" presumably this includes the day trippers?
Yes. I have added hidden text to show how this figure was arrived at.--Ykraps (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The picture caption "Dorset's coastline is a major attraction for tourists" doesn't tell us that Bournemouth pier is shown
Okay, done. I have also included this additional information in the alternative text.--Ykraps (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Culture
Some of the arts venues listed would not, in my opinion, be considered "Major venues for concerts and theatre".
I think the idea was to mention a range of venues across the county but I have removed some of the smaller venues that don't have much 'pulling power'.--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they are all worth a mention you could just remove the word "major".— Rodtalk 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link to The Tank Museum seems to be a double redirect (or something)
The "ands" don't seem right in " Weymouth Bay and Portland Harbour,[186] and Poole Bay and Poole Harbour"
I'm not sure if I've improved that or not. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think this is better, but would it be worth mentioning that these are all on the English Channel? - I know it is mentioned in the lead and elsewhere, but those unfamiliar with the county may not know which body of water they border.— Rodtalk 16:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have noted that the Dorset coastline lies on the English Channel.--Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming Ian Fleming as a Dorset literary figure when he "boarded at a preparatory school seems to be stretching it a bit.
Looking at WP:UKCITIES the guideline suggests more could be included on Religious sites (which get a minor mention in culture) and public services. I think the article is looking good but could do with a little more polishing to achieve FA quality.— Rodtalk 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have pointed to WP:UKCOUNTIES rather than cities.— Rodtalk 07:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have added a section on Religious sites as you have suggested. I'm not sure services are relevant to counties however.--Ykraps (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been away for a couple of weeks and the improvement in the article has continued. I now feel it meets the FA criteria.— Rodtalk 08:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments' - reading through now -will copyedit as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot notes below....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dorsetshire continued to be a common alternative name for the county for centuries but has now fallen out of fashion. - avoid "now" - best way is by finding the approx. date the term ceased being current. I can check OED later tonight, but someone might have a better source.
Finding accurate date and a reference has proved to be extremely difficult. As their have been previous comments regarding this sentence, I have decided to remove it until better sources are found.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of overloading the lead, I would add that it has been an entity since the 7th century.....
Okay, good suggestion, I have done so.--Ykraps (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a sentence about the historical county constituency would prompt an explanation of the historical borough constituencies of which there were (from memory) 7 and these experienced a number of changes. We would like to add all this as a footnote but the real problem has been finding reliable sources.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise - the article is looking promising from a prose and comprehensiveness view. I'll run through the prose again later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions and the copy edit.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments from Jim Lovely county, very good article. I'll support now, but three minor things I picked up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
main railway lines — personally I'd write railway main lines
Roman Legion — why caps? I know it's linked to a specific region, but text should still be lc.
Portland or Purbeck stone — I know it's all relative, but I'm not sure I'd describe any limestone as hard. Not a big deal though
Agreed, I've made those changes, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An attractive article that meets the FA criteria. Aa77zz (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes -- image check plus spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Article: Dorset hosts a number of annual festivals, fairs and events including the Great Dorset Steam Fair near Blandford, one of the largest events of its kind in Europe,[179] and the Bournemouth Air Festival, a free air show that attracted 1.3 million visitors in 2010.[180]
Done
Sources: Great Dorset Steam Fair:Preparations for the 38th annual gathering of steam engines and vintage machinery are gathering momentum. The fair, which takes place at Tarrant Hinton near Blandford, is one of the biggest events of its kind in Europe.[179] Last year the four-day event, now in its fourth year, attracted 1.3 million.[180]
The source refers to 2009 not 2010, which attracted 250,000.
Article: The winning design, which features a white cross with a red border on a golden background, attracted 54% of the vote.[208]
Source: In a poll 54% of the vote opted for the white cross, with a red border on a golden background following a competition run by Dorset County Council to find a new flag.
Article: Two passenger sea ports and an international airport are situated in the county. Brittany Ferries and Condor Ferries, operate out of Poole Harbour; Brittany Ferries provide access to Cherbourg in France and Condor Ferries sail a seasonal service to the Channel Islands and St Malo, France.[216]
Source: Ro Ro passengers...Services from Poole to:...CHERBOURG, France...Brittany Ferries...Fast Craft...May to september Summer only ...Daytime Fast craft -2hrs 15 minutes...CHANNEL ISLANDS...Condor Ferries Fast Craft April to October...Jersey Crossing time 3hrs...Guernsey Crossing time 2hrs 40 minutes
Article: The Wilts & Dorset bus company has a county wide network with frequent services linking major towns and a limited service in rural locations.[223]
Source: Wilts & Dorset is the name for quality bus services in and around Bournemouth & Poole, Purbeck, Salisbury and the New Forest. Our frequent Cross County network also links major towns and cities across the area.
Article: A former river valley flooded by rising sea levels 6,000 years ago, Poole Harbour is one of the largest natural harbours in the world.[84][85]
Sources: .. it covers the period from its formation after the last Ice Age, around 6,000 years ago, to present day...Formerly a river valley which flowed through what are now the main channels of the harbour, the harbour was formed when rising water levels led to a breakthrough between what is now the Needles and Old Harry Rocks. One of the world’s largest natural harbours and one of the most beautiful parts of the British Isles.
Article: The other two major settlements in the county are Dorchester, which has been the county town since at least 1305,[57]
Source: Dorchester has been the county town since at least 1305
Article: Excluding hills such as the Dorset Downs, the average annual temperature of the county is 9.8 to 12 °C (50 to 54 °F).[106]
Source: (This is a annual temperature map of the UK, most of Dorset is 10.2 to 12 °C, some regions are 9.8 to 10.1 °C)
Article: Most of Dorset's coastline is part of the Jurassic Coast, a World Heritage Site, which stretches for 153 kilometres (95 mi) between Studland and Exmouth in Devon. This coast documents the entire Mesozoic era, from Triassic to Cretaceous and is noted for its geological landforms.[94]
Source: A stretch of coastline along the south of England has been declared a World Heritage Site because of its wealth of prehistoric remains. The honour for a 95-mile (150 kilometres) stretch of shore in Devon and Dorset has been granted by Unesco, the United Nations' cultural committee.
No issues except for the one regarding the year. Graham Colm (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now altered. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry to be so late showing up, but I have only just been prompted to look at this article, which I peer reviewed about 20 months ago. It has come on enormously since then and seems to be well on the way to FA standard. I have a rather lengthy list of points, but most of these are small and easily fixable; if the delegates are inclined to promote on the basis of the review so far, I don't think my issues need hold that up, but I do believe they should be addressed if the article is to fully meet the FA criteria:
You need to give more years or year ranges to the first mention of events, so that readers can follow the chronology without constantly resorting to links. Not all readers will know the dates of, for example, the English Civil War, the Monmouth rebellion, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the dissolution of the monasteries, and perhaps other events in British history. I'd even play safe by adding the dates 1939–45 to the mention of the Second World War - you can't be too careful.
In the History section, "Dorset had fallen under Saxon control and incorporated into the Kingdom of Wessex" - the word "been" should be inserted before "incorporated".
Are you sure about the "Bloody Assizes" taking place over 5 days? Jeffreys' ODNB article indicates a much longer period.
Judge Jeffreys presided over more than one assizes. The one in Dorchester, I'm pretty sure lasted five days.--Ykraps (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have "unitary authorities" and "Unitary Authorities". Caps or no caps?
Done - I would say not. I found one instance, are there more?--Ykraps (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid using "plus" as a connector. A comma after (not including Bournemouth and Poole) would make it redundant
Perhaps define more clearly what you mean by "migrants" in "a net influx of migrants contributed to an overall growth of the population by 12.2%" and elsewhere. Not just from overseas, I assume?
No, anyone migrating to and from the county. Clarified now I think.--Ykraps (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You account for the overall growth of the population of 12.2% between 1991 and 2010. I'm not sure what data this is calculated from, since you don't give figures for 2010. What I do notice from the figures, however, is that in the 20 years prior to 1991 the county's population raose by 25%. Do we know the reason for this?
I have added a footnote which I hope explains how the 2010 figures are calculated. As to your second point, Dorset's population increase is primarily due to immigration but why there was such an increase between those years, I'm afraid I don't know.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "ceremonial" occurs in the lead, describing Bournemouth's and Poole's relations to the county, but then we have "ceremonial purposes" three times in the text. That is probably two times too many.
It now appears in the lead and the politics section only.--Ykraps (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It is controlled by the Conservative Party..." The pronoun is insufficient; should be "The council..."
The first two paragraphs of the "Economy and industry" section are somewhat overstuffed with figures and I quickly got confused. For example, in the first paragraph, "In 2003 ... Primary industry produced 2.03% of GVA", but in the second paragraph, GVA for primary industry in 2003 appears to be 4%. Maybe I'm reading it wrongly, but there is confusion.
The first paragraph is an overview of the entire county which includes Bournemouth and Poole. The second paragraph is concerned with the decline in agriculture which is more about the administrative county, as little farming occured in the mainly urban areas of the two UAs; hence the difference between the two figures you mention.--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update the "will be used" and similar phrasing concerning the 2012 Olympics. Incidentally, this information is given in both the "Economy and industry" and "Culture" sections
I have updated both sentences. I understand that mentioning it twice may seem to be labouring the point but it is only mentioned briefly in the economy section to explain why Weymouth received such massive investment recently.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on a fine effort in article enhancement. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check (partial). i have looked at licencing of the photos in the article including, where applicable, checking the licencing of originals at Flickr and geograph. All of these images appear in order. I have not considered maps. The site from which the flag image was sourced states that, to be on their site, "The design must be in the public domain, ie. not subject to copyright". I don't have the expertise to express an opinion about whether a design being free of copyright is the same thing as an image being free of copyright, but assuming that they are the same thing, the flag image is in order. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is an accurate and well-written overview of a (quite honestly) interesting film. It has undergone a GA review by MathewTownsend, a PR by Mark Arsten, and a copyedit by Accedie. I have received permission to nominate "at my convenience" (i.e., before the 2-week period) from delegate Ian Rose (diff) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, between my peer review and subsequent read of the article I think this meets the featured article criteria, in addition to having had one of the most creative DYK hooks in the project's history :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) I still smile at it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - A few prose concerns:
"After undergoing numerous hardships and the deaths of several family members in religious violence, they are able to reconcile and live in harmony" - they are able to reconcile and live in harmony seems a bit strained; could this be worded better?
How's this?
"To ensure harmony, Sun uses special utensils for the preparation of pork..." - harmony with what? That might need to be clearer.
How's this?
I'm not sure I like the use of "ne'er-do-well"; could you find a better word (though that might just be personal taste - see what you think)?
This might be a bit more standard
Towards the end of the third paragraph in the plot section, you start two consecutive sentences with the word meanwhile. Could you vary this?
I removed the first "meanwhile"
"Fearing that the theme of pluralism would be taken as a "battle cry", some investors abandoned their commitments" - are there any specific cases that you could name here?
Doesn't say in the source
You mention the NU a few times, without telling us what the letters stand for.
It's in the lead; I've doubled it lower down.
You've done a great job; most of what I could find were small prose concerns. Let me know when you've dealt with those issues, and I'll take another look. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Replies above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- images are unproblematic; valid FUR for poster plus image licensed under Creative Commons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed; listed here. GRAPPLEX 05:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Joseph Foraker was an Ohio senator of the Gilded Age, who butted heads, often, with such figures as William McKinley and Mark Hanna. But his greatest battle, and probably his finest, was with Theodore Roosevelt in the Brownsville Affair, which was definitely not Roosevelt's finest hour, when Roosevelt dismissed over 160 black soldiers on almost no evidence, and without court martial, and Foraker went to war against him.. A figure who deserves a bit more than his present obscurity. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I downloaded most of them mysefl! Foraker hasn't sold at a premium in years, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Be consistent in whether you abbreviate Ohio
Be consistent in whether you include retrieval dates for GBooks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Did my work at the peer review, where my more significant points were fully addressed - see here. We appear to have different views about how verbatim quotes should be cited from a secondary source (see my PR comment), but I'm not making this an issue. Wikipedia is building quite a reputation as a source for information on the Gilded Age; certainly these articles have informed me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at it. Thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
If you could go through it one more time before I copyedit, Wehwalt, that would help. I'm finding sentences with no period or two periods at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, subject to the usual faults of editing one's own prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting now. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for "which" throughout and saw a lot of problems ... I tackled them in various ways, and I see Coemgenus also replaced some occurrences with "that". Please check the diffs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of my weak spots in writing. I've looked over the diffs and made a couple of adjustments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the typo. Per WP:MOS, "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb". Chicago and Garner's agree. I removed one re-inserted hyphen.
"The Major is never behind-hand with his claims. I tell him he 'wants the earth' …": I don't understand what the quote means. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying McKinley's being greedy by asking for his candidate to be appointed. Due to the great effect both men had on Foraker, I felt it worth illustrating that Hanna and McKinley weren't always a team.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense ... I believe the quote's easier to understand without the "behind-hand'; feel free to revert.
Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take many days to show up on that page.) Wow ... fantastic work, Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both for the kind words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I found no glaring issues and the article reads fluidly. You may want to consider establishing whom is whom from time to time (e.g. 'Walter' and 'Dick') as I found myself having to refer back to earlier sections to refresh my memory. Then again, it could just be my short-term memory playing tricks. Well done. -- The Writer 2.0Talk 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look it over. Senator Dick's name causes problems for better historians than me. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a few language tweaks, but found nothing wrong with the substance. The article is well-written and comprehensive. I'll give it another going-over today, but I don't expect to find much to bother about. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for the review and the kind words from one very knowledgable about the period.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- Minor formatting point: under Bibliography you link two publishers, but it looks like there are other books listed whose publishers could also be linked; not certain of MOS requirement and not fussed personally but really should be all possible or none, for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article at the end of the process of overhauling the article, including providing more in-depth coverage and more complete references. Pedro I was the prime mover in realizing Brazil's independence, and also a significant figure in Portuguese history. • Astynaxtalk 09:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
I'm really enjoying the article. FWIW, I'm fine with "who they only saw" instead of "whom", which is slowly dying even in formal prose.
I take it from "womaniser" and "rumours" (and from your previous articles) that this is BritEng. "north-east" is preferred in BritEng, although I think there are allowances for local variation.
Okay, I see the article is being converted to AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a note on my talk page about one change; what did the sources say, exactly, about his fluency in English, particularly at an early age? - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The English, he learned with Reverend William Paul Tilbury, chapelain of the Military Division of the Police Imperial Guard, and [Pedro I] caused admiration in the widow Graham, to whom he cited several English authors and Scottish novelists" and "He knows Latin and French, translates from English and understands German 'his poor Leopoldina' taught him". This is what the books says. I'll leave the other questions to Astynax, who will be far more able to answer them than I. --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. I'm not comfortable concluding that he could write or speak English (at least, not in the sense that English-speakers usually mean by that), only that he could translate from English. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the author said he could translate, it meant that he could read in English and write in Portuguese, not that he could hear in ENglish and speak in Portuguese. If that was the case he would have used the word "entendia" (understood), which he used for German. In Neill Macaulay's book it says in Pedro's childhood: "Under Rademaker's tutelage he learned to speak passable French and to read English, and was intorduced to some of the important literary and philosophical works in those languages". --Lecen (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in careful writing, that's what "translate" means in English too; "interpret" is used to mean listening and speaking. I think "translate" is the right word here.
"The 19-year-old prince was handsome, a little above average in height, had bright dark eyes and dark brown hair.": Nicely done, except watch the parallellism. Take your pick: "The 19-year-old prince was handsome and a little above average in height, and had bright dark eyes and dark brown hair.", or: "The 19-year-old prince was handsome and a little above average in height, with bright dark eyes and dark brown hair." - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"his daily attire consisted solely of white cotton trousers with a striped, cotton-brimmed straw hat on his head": Just checking ... he wore nothing but pants and a hat?
Good catch. The correct is "white cotton trousers, striped cotton jacket and a broad-brimmed straw hat". It must have been lost somewhere during previous copyediting. I added it back. --Lecen (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"northeastern": same as above. Btw, I just noticed that in Cambridge Dictionaries, unlike in SOED and Oxford Dictionaries, northeast is given rather than north-east, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Portugal signed a highly unfavorable treaty with Brazil": That means the treaty was unfavorable for Portugal, which probably isn't what you meant. One option is to say just "a treaty", since the provisions are covered in the next sentence.
"Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations by the signing of another treaty in which its favorable commercial rights were renewed and a convention in which Brazil was compelled to abolish slave trade with Africa within four years.": I'm not sure which of those words "a convention" is the object of; if this is saying that prohibiting Brazil's slave trade was a gift to England, that doesn't sound right.
"toward": You have two of these, one "afterward", and no cases of words ending in -wards; that's okay since you're consistent, just be aware that BritEng tends to prefer -wards in directional words, while AmEng has a slight preference for -ward. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Emperor's visit to Rio Grande do Sul was brief, and he was already on his way back to Rio de Janeiro when he was told that Maria Leopoldina had died following a miscarriage. Unfounded rumours soon spread through the Brazilian capital that purported that she had died after being physically assaulted by Pedro I." Keeping things chronological is generally a good thing, but several factors argue in favor of moving these two sentences to the beginning of the next subsection (and perhaps rewriting to fit). They're the only two sentences on that subject in that subsection, they fit with the theme of the next subsection, and (in their current position) they require something like what you've done, adding to that subsection title the word "widowhood", which is a problematic word. Most readers will assume it means that someone became a widow; they won't find out till the last paragraph that Pedro I became a widower, which is a possible but less common meaning of the word. The uncommon and unwieldy "widowerhood" wouldn't fix things. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against this last suggestion because we're a following the general division made by Pedro I's biographers of his life. Also, it would make the next subsection unnecessarily large and there is no basis to the theory that "someone" would become a widowhood other than him. The article is about him, the sections are named after special moments on his life. Who else would the average reader think that became a widow? Leopoldina? Domitila? These two are the only charactes mentioned in these subsections other than Pedro. Sorry, but the last suggestion is one I can't agree with. --Lecen (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand both Dank's and Lecen's concern with this passage. The event is definitely connected with the war, but the chronology suffers in the following section because Domitila had already established her hold over Pedro I before Maria Leopoldina's death. I have moved the 2 sentences but added a few words to connect the visit to the wartime trip to Rio Grande do Sul. The death of Maria Leopoldina fits awkwardly into a chronological account no matter in which section it appears, however. If Lecen would like to have it in the "War" section, then perhaps there is a way to do that while making the chronology of the "Second Marriage" section clearer. I have made changes based on Dank's other suggestions. • Astynaxtalk 22:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) Engaging prose. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Several images are sourced to books but lack page numbers
File:Emperor_Dom_Pedro_I_1822.jpg needs US PD tag
File:Pedro_I_Imperador_1823.jpg needs US PD tag
File:CoA_Empire_of_Brazil_(1847-1889).svg needs US PD tag and more specific source
File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Kingdom_of_Portugal_(1640-1910).png: what source was used to create this image?
File:Signature_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.png needs US PD tag
File:Signature_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.jpg needs US PD tag
File:Signed_initials_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.jpg needs US PD tag
File:Signed_initials_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.png needs US PD tag
File:Pedro_II_of_Brazil_by_Insley_Pacheco_1865b.jpg needs US PD tag
File:Duchess_of_Goiás_1843b.jpg needs US PD tag
File:Countess_of_Iguaçu_1852b.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that now we have to tell from what page did we scan the picture. Also, if yo'ure talking about this tag, I'm sorry, but I can't add it. The books were not published before 1923. Lastly, isn't this the Wikipedia in English? Or is the U.S. Wikipedia? You could argue that Wikipedia servers are located in the United States but then that would mean that everys single picture uploaded on Commons would need a US-tag which is not what happens. --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily that tag, but any tag that indicates the copyright status of the image in the US - per WP:IUP: "Wikipedia pages, including non-English language pages, are hosted on a server in the United States, so U.S. law governs whether a Wikipedia image is in the public domain". Commons requires media to be free in both the US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the tags being used right now are fine where? Bangladesh? Ethiopia? Why does Commons uses "PD-old" as its main tag if it's not the correct one? And when did rules changed since my last FAC? The tags are fine, all works (except for the two photos used in Legacy section and the abdication painting made iaround 1890) were painted or drawn in Pedro I's lifetime and are all in public domain. --Lecen (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to ask that at Commons, but DrKiernan has added tags that hopefully resolve this problem (I haven't yet checked). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and custom-made tags added. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Supported below I helped copyedit the first six or so sections a few weeks ago, I don't recall seeing anything of issue there. I'll try to review the rest of the article this weekend. A few small comments thus far:
"Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations" Worse for whom?
"Aware that a reunion of Brazil and Portugal would be unacceptable to the Brazilians and to the Portuguese" Is there a good way to get around the repetition of the countries here?
Some of the text in "Endless crises" seems a bit apologetic on Pedro's behalf, might want to attribute some of it to historians or commentators.
Small issue, but several categories are redlinks at the moment. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "...unacceptable to the Brazilians and to the Portuguese" to "...unacceptable to the people of both nations". Is it better? About "Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations": I thought it was obvious. It was bad for Brazil. The entire paragraph is devoted to show how Brazil was damaged in the aftermath of its independence. And as far as I know there is no bad "reward", so it couldn't be bad for Britain. I might add "Even worse for Brazil..." if you believe it's trully needed. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see your point, what about trying to merge the last two sentences of the paragraph, "Even worse for Brazil's economic interests..."? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what do you regard as apologetic in the text? --Lecen (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the wording of "Regardless of Pedro I's failures as a ruler, he always respected the Constitution" and then the list that follows brought that to mind. Something like, "Historians have noted that..." might work better. Also, in "None of these figures exhibited interest in such issues, and whatever interests they may have shared, there was no palace cabal plotting to abrogate the Constitution or to bring Brazil back under Portugal's control." I'd prefer something like "there is no evidence that..." (Just my opinion, if no one else agrees I'll drop it.) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire section in the article ("Crises within and whithout") that deals with Dom Pedro I's several errors (many of them quite awful). This section is quite long and it's divided in three subsections, two of them ("Portuguese dynastic affair" and "War and widowhood") deal directly with his many misdeeds. I couldn't write solely what he did wrong, but also what he did right. That's where the two last paragraphs of "Endless crises" enter. From this point of view, another person might say that two subsections (one with three paragraphs and the other with four) telling what he did of bad and only two paragraphs saying what he did of good might be unfair to him. If I add "some historians said that he respected the Constitution" I would have to add that "some historians said that he signed a peace treaty with Portugal that harmed Brazilian interests" or "some historians said that he cheated on his wife and made her life miserable" or "some historians said that he failed to notice that his lover was corrupt", etc, etc... Would that improve the article? If I'm not being clear enough, please let me know. P.S.: I removed "always" in "Regardless of Pedro I's failures as a ruler, he always respected the Constitution". --Lecen (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Ok, I'll table this for now and re-read it along with your comments after I finish making my way through. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small quibble, but refs should be in ascending numerical order (i.e. ".[219][220][188]" should be ".[188][219][220]")
"Surprisingly, he had no more affairs and remained faithful to his spouse" I'm not sure about the use of "surprisingly here, perhaps "Uncharacteristically" would be better?
" A large crowd, incited by the radicals, gathered on the afternoon of 6 April and demanded the immediate restoration of the fallen cabinet." Where did the crowd gather? It's not of crucial importance but might be nice to note.
"Although the title should have belonged to Maria II's heir, which he certainly was not, his claim was met with general recognition" I think you could probably do away with the parenthetical comment here.
I'd consider using a block quote in the War of restoration and Legacy sections.
"Pedro sailed to the Atlantic archipelago of the Azores, the only Portuguese territory that had remained loyal to his daughter. After a few months of final preparations he embarked for mainland Portugal, entering the city of Porto unopposed on 9 July." Just a thought, but you might consider adding a map around here. Also, this probably doesn't need to be in the article, but I'm curious why the Azores stayed loyal. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Changed "surprisingly" for "Uncharacteristically". 2) The crowd gathered in the Praça da Aclamação (Acclamation square) in Rio de Janeiro downtown. I added the latter. 3) This small bit of information about the Duke of Braganza is needed because as you can see in "Titles and honors" section ("Nobility" subsection to be more precise) it says that he had the title of Duke of Braganza when he was the heir to Portugal. "Did he kept the title even when he became King?" or "Did he usurped the title?" will come to the mind of the average reader. Try to imagine if Edward VIII of Great Britan had claimed the title of "Prince of Wales" after he abdicated. 4) Is the block quote really needed? I'd consider weird seeing "John of Doe said:" followed by a block, then "Steve of Whatever said:" also followed by a block. But this is just for me a matter of personal taste, of course. If you believe we really need to add the block quotes, we'll do it. 5) Maps should be used in the appropriate article: Liberal Wars. Or else, I would need to add maps for the War of Brazilian Independence and the Cisplatine War (remember that Dom Pedro travelled a lot during both conflicts). I do have plans to improve "Liberal Wars" so all that will be needed is a click in the near future. Is that okay to you? Also, when Dom Miguel usurped the crown in 1828, the Portuguese liberals attempted to counter-attack, but were easily defeated. Some went to exile in Great Britain and others kept a hold in Azores, which Miguel was never able to conquer (he never actually tried). --Lecen (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Astynax fixed the problem with the refs. --Lecen (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations above. I was impressed by the article, a very thorough, well written collaboration, good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I am reviewing the article today, this may be the best article regarding Brazil and Portugal so far, excellent work. I have one recommendation for the Independence or Death section. It would be great to clearly mention that on September 7 by the Ipiranga river in the city of São Paulo he declared Independence, he stayed in São Paulo after this episode and was informally proclaimed “King of Brazil” by the local leaders in the city theatre, an episode that may be worth mentioning as he was very popular among the ruling class and gave an emotional speech at the same night. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already over 100KB. This is why a lot of important stuff were not mentioned, such as his notorious fight with the Marquis of Barbacena in 1829, his affair with Domitila's sister, etc, etc... I will, however, talk about his acclamation as "King" of Brazil in São Paulo, and other details, such as the Bernada, in the most appropriate article: Independence of Brazil. After I'm done with the Count of Porto Alegre, the Brazilian independence will be my next project. --Lecen (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Dom Pedro had a very tumultuous life. Your proposal to add it to the Brazilian Independence article is reasonable. Paulista01 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am done with my review, I found no problems with the sources and the historical information regarding Dom Pedro I. Thanks Astynax, Lecen and DrKiernan Paulista01 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much Paulista. FAC requires occasional "spot checks" of some of an article's sources, to make sure the text reflects the sources without copying them word-for-word; are you saying that you've looked at several references, and the text is faithful to those sources? - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dank. Yes, I checked some sources in Portuguese and English. I didn't check all of them, since I don't have access to every book mentioned in the article. Paulista01 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checks: Note to delegates: I have no information other than the information just above ... hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes
Dan, re. spotchecks, given Paulista's endorsement plus the fact that all three nominators have had acceptably clean FAC spotchecks in the past year, I'm satisfied on this count.
First sentence: Dom Pedro I (English: Peter I; 12 October 1798 – 24 September 1834), nicknamed "the Liberator", was the founder and first ruler of the Empire of Brazil. As King Dom Pedro IV, he reigned briefly over Portugal, where he also became known as "the Liberator" as well as "the Soldier King". -- I think "also" and "as well" in the same sentence is a bit much. I gather what we're saying is that he was known in both Brazil and Portugal as "the Liberator", and in Portugal alone as "the Soldier King". Since "the Liberator" is being applied up front and generally, I think we could simplify by recasting as: Dom Pedro I (English: Peter I; 12 October 1798 – 24 September 1834), nicknamed "the Liberator", was the founder and first ruler of the Empire of Brazil. As King Dom Pedro IV, he reigned briefly over Portugal, where he also became known as "the Soldier King".
Dr K. will recall from a recent FAC that I'd expect an Ancestors table to have its content cited like any other part of the article; can we do so in this case as well, seeing as not all those in that section appear to be discussed/sourced in the main body? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: First sentence: There is a distinction that the first 2 sentences, however awkwardly, was trying to preserve, i.e., that Pedro I/IV was hailed as "the Liberator" on 2 occasions and for different reasons: the first time as liberator of Brazil and founder of its independence, and the second time as the liberator of Portugal from the reactionary usurper Miguel I. I have changed the second sentence slightly to read: "As King Dom Pedro IV, he later reigned briefly over Portugal, where he again was accorded the epithet 'the Liberator' and was also known as 'the Soldier King'." Does that address your concern? • Astynaxtalk 06:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Astynax is correct. He became known (after death) as "the Liberator" in both countries for different reasons. DrKiernan added references to his ancestors as you requested, Ian Rose. --Lecen (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to all who have taken the time to review, suggest, and in some cases copy edit. Your improvements are appreciated. • Astynaxtalk 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Back in the early part of the 19th century, a British army officer who had served in India left a small fortune to the University of Oxford to create a professorship in Sanskrit, of all things. His plan was that the professor would help convert the heathen masses of India to Christianity by teaching Sanskrit to would-be missionaries and administrators of British India. The 1860 election (and, yes, it was a proper election, with manifestos, bitching and adverts in newspapers appealing to the 3,700 electors) was a clash of two philosophies: one candidate represented scholarship for the sake of scholarship, the other represented evangelical Christian zeal. The Times supported one, other papers backed his rival. Special trains had to be laid on to cope with the number of graduates returning to cast their ballot. The defeat of the better scholar in the election has been held up as an example of all that was wrong with Oxford at that time. It's a topic about which I knew nothing until I stumbled across it writing Boden Professor of Sanskrit for WP:FLC, but there's a surprising amount of material out there in contemporary sources and modern analyses.
Canadian Paul reviewed it for GA, and Brianboulton commented at the peer review; both helped improve the article. I've not been to FAC for some years so will be due a spotcheck on sources: some are accessible through JSTOR or online newspaper archives etc, and I can provide PDF scans of others if needed – hurrah for 1p + postage Amazon offers and Paul Barlow who had access to a book that I needed. So, what do you think? BencherliteTalk 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness.
Lede
" The election came at a time of public debate about Britain's role in India particularly after the Indian Rebellion of 1857" I think this phrasing needs a tweak, somewhere around "particularly".
"Although generally regarded ..." this sentence could use dividing.
Background
" Christian missionaries required a licence to operate. In practice, most could work without a licence, " Perhaps "prosthelytize" for either "operate" or "work".
"There was also a debate about the potential role of Sanskrit studies in assisting the administration and conversion of India within the Empire." It is difficult to understand what this means, and it doesn't seem to be tied in fully to the rest of the paragraph.
Candidates
"Sanskrit–English dictionary " too clunky to use twice in a sentence.
"as chiefly a means to the missionary conversion of the Hindus rather than as an end in itself" Is this Williams saying this or is this someone else?
Subsequent events
"He published more translations of plays and grammatical works." More? What is the comparison to?
"Revisions to the statutes of Balliol College at the same time provided that the Boden professor was to be a fellow of the college." Does this mean that he is to be appointed from among the fellows of Balliol or that he becomes one upon appointment? And why Balliol in particular? There seems to be no previous relevance mentioned to the Boden professorship.
Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick support and comments. Just one response: "Sanskrit–English" dictionary isn't used twice; the first instance is "English–Sanskrit dictionary", so they are two different beasts. If you can think of a better phrasing I'll gladly take it. Apart from that, I've split a couple of my long sentences (spot the lawyer!) and tried to reword other points to meet your comments: diff of my changes for your reference.
As to why Balliol in particular, my recollection is that the commissioners wanted to make sure that the professorships were all attached to colleges so divided them up. The current professor commented in his inaugural lecture that "the college affiliation of the professorship was captured by Balliol, when that college was at the height of its imperial ambitions, under its master Benjamin Jowett"; I've not found anything else along these lines. I can try and work this in but it seems like a little too much detail for this article at least. BencherliteTalk 10:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The only other thing I can think of is that you might want to make it clearer who presently (or at least, subsequently to the 1880s), elects the Boden Professor.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And one more. Your pipe from Indian Office is to, not surprisingly a US department that deals with Native American affairs, perhaps India Office?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to image and source clearance: Another of my peer reviews. I really enjoyed this article, which broke new ground and was a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Evison or Evision? Van der Veer or Van Der Veer?
FN72: work and publisher are backwards
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done, done and checked (there aren't any that I can find, that is). Damn! I was hoping for a clean bill of health from you first thing, but those three minor typos eluded my eagle eyes (though not yours). BencherliteTalk 06:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now on images. Several files require US tags, including File:Monier Monier-Williams.jpg. FA nominators would be wise to check this because it comes up so much. The tag on that particular file is non-standard (but acceptable for the UK). {{PD-old-100}} and {{PD-1923}} are typical US tags for older works. File:Samuel Wilberforce by Mowbray of Oxford.jpg on the other hand, needs a tag for the UK if made here - and I don't see a reason why it wasn't (a trip to America or something). Moving to en.wikipedia is an option if not. If you get a second, and I know you're interested in Oxford, File:Oxford - Balliol College - geograph.org.uk - 1329613.jpg needs some categories. This is obviously not an FA thing. (I suggest you ping me once this is done, I might not notice replies.) Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories added to the Balliol image; beyond that, you've lost me, so I've asked on your talk page for more detailed instructions! BencherliteTalk 06:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: only File:Max Muller.jpg is still problematic as no author for the photograph has been identified. If the file were just hosted on en.wikipedia, you'd have a good PD-1923 shout. Unfortunately, it isn't and the country of origin is unlike to be the US, meaning knowing the author is essential. If you cannot identify the author then I suggest nominating it for deletion on Commons and uploading it locally. (There might be a way to automatically request this on Commons.) Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 11:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. The picture appears at page 268 of Muller's autobiography (published 1901), and in the portrait index it is said to be Muller aged 30 (ie 1853 or 1854); his ODNB entry says that that particular picture was taken by Walker & Cockerell. I have added this information to the Commons page. Will this do? BencherliteTalk 12:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Walker and Cockerell are Emery Walker and Sydney Cockerell, so they couldn't have taken the original photograph as Walker was 3 and Cockerell wasn't born yet. They are presumably the printers or engravers or the creators of a derivative work from an earlier work. If my identification is correct, and they really did own the copyright (which is unlikely), this introduces a complication since Cockerell died in 1962, less than 70 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that the work is public domain as it is clearly published in New York before 1923, however, you might like to consider using File:Max Muller taken by Lewis Carroll.jpg. Showing both candidates in photos taken by the same photographer has a kind of appealing symmetry. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the ODNB can be right in crediting Walker and Cockerell, then - perhaps they took over the studio that took the original photo? Anyway, now that you've found a date (thank you!) for the Lewis Carroll photo of 1857, which puts it slightly closer in time to the election than the other one, I've swapped the images per your suggestion. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 11:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off on holiday for a week / ten days on Saturday, though I might be able to pop in from my iPhone if I have a signal where I'm going. I hope this nomination can tick along in my absence. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 19:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice; nothing to say for once. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the time you've taken to read and comment, it's much appreciated. As you can tell, alumni JSTOR access is coming in very useful now - must remember to download shedloads of stuff before the trial year runs out or it'll be back to WP:REX for me... BencherliteTalk 22:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- as the nominator noted above, spotcheck of sources required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotcheck
I've examined 16 out of 80 (20%) of the footnotes:
2: fine for all information in the paragraph preceding the footnote identifier.
7: fine.
14: fine in all particulars, though "closed in the wake of the Indian rebellion" might be considered too close to "closed in the wake of the Indian mutiny" by some (but not me).
17: personally, I would move the footnote identifier for 17b to after the semi-colon in "..after three years as the deputy professor;" as the final sentence of that section is not covered by the source (it's presumably covered by the other one).
52: fine.
55: covers the quote from the ODNB; the earlier quote in the sentence is presumably from the other work; again, personally I would separate the identifiers so that they are next to the individual clauses.
60: fine.
61: fine after my correction.
70: fine.
71: fine.
72: fine for everything except the parenthetical comment, which is supported by reference 7.
73: fine.
74: fine.
76: fine, but it can assume other roles assigned to it by the Congregation
Thanks for the check. As per your suggestions, I have reworded #14 to "closed following the Indian rebellion" out of an abundance of caution, moved the footnote identifiers to mid-sentence for 17 and 55, and added ref 7 alongside ref 72 for clarity. BencherliteTalk 11:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Benea (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, after undergoing a substantial and thorough A-class review here, I feel this article fulfils the criteria for FA class. As one of the wooden walls of England, Bellerophon was a more storied ship than most, serving at three major fleet actions as well as participating in the more routine duties of blockade and escort duties. She had a long and active career that eventually ended up, like many others, as a converted hulk, before her breaking up. Typical of the third rate ships of her age, she is also one of the few to have been given book-length treatments. Using the detailed histories of the ship and her period, I believe this strikes the right balance between encyclopaedic value, and completeness. Benea (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. No changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (If no edits are showing, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Winfield title differs between citations and reference list
Fixed
How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author?
Alphabetical order of their titles.
Roberts: Wellington & Napoleon or Napoleon & Wellington? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I'm aware dismasted is not a hyphenated word, unless with reason of course. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all criteria, except sources and media rights, which I have not reviewed. Suggestions:
The article contains over 60 uses of the personal pronoun "she", often within sentences, and at the start of successive sentences or clauses. More variation would read better.
I agree with question above on "dismast*". Is "dis-masted" in current use? Kablammo (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked this, I don't know if dis-masted is wrong, but dismasted is used in my sources, so I've made the change. It would have been my natural preference, but for some reason my spellchecker kicks at it, and probably in a crisis of confidence, I foolishly went along with it. Benea (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rotate between the ship's name, "the ship" and "she" to avoid overusing either the name or the pronoun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Was Cumby commended for commanding the ship after Darby was disabled during Trafalgar?
Why do we see HMS Bellerophon used after the first appearance?
Link yard, flagship, grenade, musket. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes, yard was already linked though? I assume Cooke rather than Darby? I've added a note on Cumby's promotions. He'd also have shared in the financial grants and awards made, but none of the sources say this explicitly or how much he received. His position was also a little anomalous, a first lieutenant, but one who had captained a ship at the battle, so I'd be wary of simply applying either the sum given to lieutenants or that to captains. Benea (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks: Benea's last FAC AFAIK was this one for HMS Temeraire; spotchecks were done by Winfield, the author of one of her sources. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with two comments
I rarely venture into FAC reviews, so feel free to ignore the comments. However, a great article. Very nicely put together, well referenced, seemingly comprehensive, a nice and relevant number of illustrations—and an interesting read too.
"£30,232.14.4d." Is there any way to give a conversion that doesn't involve OR?
"At 6 am on 28 May". GMT or elsewhere? If the sources don't clarify then that's fine, although I may be tempted to put in a note that it's unclear which time zone it was in.
Aside from those two very minor points, which may not be possible without straying into unwanted waters, then great work. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both are fair points, but as you say probably venture into OR. Certainly it is very difficult to compare big capital projects like warship construction over different time periods, and the position taken at my previous FACs has been not to attempt a conversion. As to the second point, the sources unfortunately don't say. I'm sure it can be calculated and is implicitly known what time this related to by those who write these books, but I haven't seen a detailed explanation given. Benea (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes
Two things re. the lead:
Personally I'm more inclined to "and was the ship aboard which Napoleon finally surrendered" rather than "and was the ship Napoleon finally surrendered aboard", but I won't push it if everyone prefers it as is.
I note Kablammo's comment above re. the repetitive "She" to begin sentences. This is particularly noticeable in the second para, with five instances in a row; I'm sure we could mix it up with the occasional "The ship" or "Bellerephon", and perhaps even a bit of sentence restructuring.
Looks like we still need an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to address these. As to the image review, a comprehensive review was carried out at the A-class review here. I'm away for a couple of weeks from tomorrow, so I'll probably be unable to address any further issues until after my return. Benea (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the above, I think the review has been open long enough and we have the consensus to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
To the best of my knowledge this article is complete, having gone through GA and an A-class review. Disclosure: While I took the article through GA and the A-class review that took over a year, User:NE2 (now semi-active) wrote the majority of the article. Rschen7754 09:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and would be happy to see its promotion. It is complete, well-written, and well-illustrated. Dough4872 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupported below Starting a review, will make some copyedits as I go. Feel free to revert them if they don't seem to be improvements. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"SR 57 is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System through Brea Canyon, between SR 90 and SR 60,[7] though it has not officially been designated by Caltrans as such." Might want to add a brief explanation of the Scenic Highway system here.
I'd suggest putting an "and" instead of a dash here "the connected San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the second issue. I see your point on the first; thinking about the best way to do this. --Rschen7754 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first point addressed. I didn't explain the nomination process further since SR 57 did not complete the process successfully, and since Caltrans would not post online why SR 57 failed, or if it even started the process (the state is not in a good place financially right now). --Rschen7754 05:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I've heard. Ok, fixes look good thus far.
Sorry for the delay, I finished my read through. Overall this is pretty well written, just a few small comments on prose.
You have "Also in [year] a couple times fairly close proximity in the History section, I'd suggest rephrasing one.
"At the time of the 1964 renumbering, when the entire route, except Route 240, which was still part of I-210, was redesignated SR 57, none of these proposed freeways had been built;" Could this be rephrased a little to use less punctuation? I feel like the 5 commas here are a bit too much (I'm often guilty of overusing commas myself).
There's some repetition of the word "portion" in the third paragraph of the history sentence, is there a good way to avoid that?
Not a big deal, but is there a good way around the WP:PLUSING here? "with the entire project costing $950 million." Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, this looks to me like it meets the FA criteria in terms of prose/MOS etc. I'm not familiar with the specific conventions of the roads project, but as long as they are satisfied I think this is good for promotion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness.
I've taken a look at 13 and made a fix - is this what you wanted? As far as 21 and 31, I did not add those to the article, and I've tried Newsbank and Proquest and came up short. I'll leave a message for NE2 and see if he has anything. --Rschen7754 23:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—I did one as part of my comments in the ACR late last year, and all images used in the article are unchanged since then. Any issues were resolved at the time. Imzadi 1979→ 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—as I mentioned above, I reviewed this article for its ACR earlier this year. I see no reason not to support its promotion at this venue. Any issues that might exist are minor, and I'm confident they can be resolved satisfactorily. Imzadi 1979→ 03:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes
Speaking as a non-American, I don't think you need to say "the U.S. state of" California, better to just link California.
"The final portion of the Orange Freeway that has been completed was not built until the early 1970s" -- can we trim to "The final portion of the Orange Freeway was not completed until the early 1970s"?
Doesn't look like this had a spotcheck of sources in earlier reviews, so like to see one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed (added present-day to the second one since technically, part of SR 57 isn't completed; I have my doubts as to if they ever will complete it though). --Rschen7754 07:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will be out of town starting this evening until Sunday (Pacific time) and unable to reply. --Rschen7754 19:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks—I'm picking five non-map sources at random that are available online to verify information and paraphrasing. (Our prose descriptions based on a map, being our editor's own words can't really plagiarize/close-paraphrase a visual medium like a map.)
For fns 7 through 9, the statutory reference in the Streets & Highways Code for the Scenic Highway System checks out, as does the second that confirms its not listed as such. No close paraphrasing here. (These three were done together as they jointly cite a single sentence.)
Fn 14, the Official Automobile Blue Book Volume Eight, checks out for both V and CP.
FN 29, the statutory route definitions enacted in 1963 pass both V and CP checks.
FN 38, the Los Angeles Times article from 1986 checks out for both V and CP for the information it supports. (I will AGF that fn 39 is only needed to support the proposed extension to SR 73 as the rest of the sentence is fully supported by fn 38.)
FN 41, the Los Angeles Times article from 2003 also checks out for V and CP. In addition, fn 42 from the Orange County Register is good as well. (jointly checked)
In total, I've checked 8 sources and all pass the expectations for verification and plagiarism/close-paraphrasing that I've experienced here at FAC. I did apply a few minor updates to some citation formats for consistency-related issues, but all minor. Imzadi 1979→ 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because, obscure though Muckaty Station is, it is of special interest, at least for a year or two yet, as Australia's only (and controversial) proposed location for a nuclear waste repository. The article is short. Until the waste repository proposal, it was simply one piece in the vast patchwork of the remote Australian outback. Even now, very little has been researched or written about the place. If, during review, anyone identifies sources I've not included, please let me know. Though semi-retired long-term, I will be active around this nomination and one or two other projects at present. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missing bibliographic info for Shepherd 1996
damn. Um. Not sure... This may take a while to track down. Don't know what i did there... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know why article has had to wait so long for attention; it can't be its length. Anyway, I have read it through and these are my observations:
Lead
There should be an indication in the lead of the total area of the land known as Mukaty Station
added.
Is there a distinction between "Australian Aborigines" and "Indigenous Australians"?
Yes, but it is a bit fraught. "Australian Aborigine" and related terms are generally ones of legal significance, as you can see from the way the two WP articles are distinguished. I used it in the first occurrence in the lead, because I was trying to draw attention to the legal context of the land tenure. It didn't work very well. I have changed the structure of the link, and directed it to Native title in Australia, which I hope is better. The whole issue is becoming more complex again in Australia, as many Indigenous Australians are now abandoning the term "Indigenous", which has been the preferred word for around two decades. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to avoid describing Mukaty Station as a pastoral lease in both the first and second sentences.
History: (I must say I found this section a little confusing)
I re-read the history section after your comments, and decided I had, in fact, done a rubbish job. It was embarrassing. It is now completely restructured and expanded. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful to know roughly how many indigenous Australians were on the land when development started in the 1870s, and whether this population increased or declined in the ensuing years.
I have added what I have been able to find. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "a pastoral industry"? Sheep farming?
What does "sealing" mean in the context "but was not sealed until 1944"?
Must be a regional english thing. It means "bitumenised", a word I hate, but which does have the advantage of being less ambiguous. Changed.
The third paragraph includes the sentences "The first pastoral lease was granted in 1872" and "The Muckaty pastoral lease was created in the late 19th century". Are these saying the same thing?
No, the "first" refers to first in the Northern Territory, for which we have a definite date. Regarding Muckaty we know only that it was late 19th century. Will tweak. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary parentheses around "lack of"
Removed.
We seem to be missing something between "By the 1940s the lessee was a Mr Fred Ulyatt.." and the 1980s.
Unfortunately, we are not missing anyting per reliable sources - there is no information available. Have made this explicit in the text.
Inappropriate italicisation: "Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976"
It is universal practice, to my knowledge, to italicise the full name of legislation. Am I missing something here?
Don't know where you got that idea from. Look at the linked article, or indeed any WP article dealing with a piece of legislation. I think the italics convention relates to actual legal cases, e.g. Roe v. Wade or Dred Scott v. Sandford, but not to legislation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some overlinking, e.g "dreaming" linked twice. The link on "Australian government" is unhelpful.
Removed.
Geography
Title should reflect that the section discusses geology as well as geography
Done.
"Mucketty mine" and "Muckaty station": any explanations for these names and the slight difference?
None in the sources.
It would be a good idea to include in the History section the information that the origins of the Muckaty name are unknown and that there are local variations. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would. I did that, but an editor removed it on the grounds that it isn't notable to note what we don't know. ;-) I will reinstate a version of that sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of the history of names, of course it is valid to say that the origin of a name is unknown. To simply say nothing is to invite queries. I can't, incidentally, see where you have reinstated a version of the removed sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in footnote 2. I tried keeping it in the text, but felt it interrupted the flow of other information.
People often don't read foonotes. I don't think it would disturb the flow if you extended the existing parentheses to read: "(and often referred to as just "Muckaty", though the origin of this name and near variants such as "Mucketty" is unknown)". That way, the curiosity of people like me would be satisified early on. I'll leave this with you, though. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True - have tried a modified version of your suggestion, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why use the word "overstory" instead of the better-known "canopy"?
I think I must have just used the term in the source from which I worked. Changed.
Radioactive waste facility
Minor prose point: "amongst" → "among"
Changed.
"...political party the Australian Greens are opposed..." Very clumsy order of words
Changed.
I understand from the first paragraph that in September 2007 the government accepted the nomination of Muckaty Satation as the site for the waste facility. But in paragraph 3 we have "In 2009, the Australian government received a consultant's report that examined Muckaty Station as one of three possible sites for a nuclear waste facility" - can you clarify?
On this last point, the text after "never consulted..." is a quote from the source. This needs to be made clear, thus: According to a June 2012 report in The Age, some indigenous owners "will testify they were never consulted, while others [will] say that they were not properly consulted and never consented to the nomination".
Ah yes, I see. Quite. I have adopted your formulation, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will attend to more points later. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent amendments have largely dealt with my points and have certainly improved the article. However, I don't think my point about the origin of the name has been fully addressed. Also, in the references I noticed several hyphens in page ranges; these should be changed to dashes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of the changes which have been effected since my review. The few outstanding points are mainly a question of judgement. I'm glad to see you have downgraded your "retirement" to "semi"; perhaps this article will pave the way for a cautious reentry to regular editing? Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian. I've been busy contributing to reviews here and improving the biography of a favourite artist, but unfortunately have been slimed, so may have to retreat soon to recover! hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of good work has been done to improve this article in recent weeks and I support its promotion to FA. Johnfos (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - reading through now on prose and comprehensiveness..no deal-breakers outstanding...Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Johnfos and Cas, appreciate the kind words. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- image check and source spotchecks performed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Muckaty station or Station? Captions don't match article text
you were right, and some were wrong in the text as well. I'm terrible with consistency of caps. Have now fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the images used have appropriate licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks by Fayedizard
Spotchecks for Muckaty Station using revision [55].
There are roughtly 55 cited sentances and we choose 8 randomly
This is the problem with randomly selecting sentences and defining a sentence as anything between two references... the sources support the text though...
4 "Throughout the history of Australia's pastoral industry, Indigenous Australians were a major part of the workforce. In 1928 for example, 80 per cent of Indigenous people with jobs were employed on the stations, including Muckaty, with many living on and travelling across the pastoral leases.[24][25][26]"
The online sources support everything but the 1982 part. I'm happy to assume that the book covers that... :)
5 "In 2009, the Australian government received a consultant's report that examined Muckaty Station as one of four possible sites for a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory.[27]"
It's a bit of a primary source... but I don't think it would be controversial (be great to have someone look over my shoulder on this...
The primary nature of the source is not so much an issue in this case but I'd have thought we could narrow things down to a page or two to support the assertion in the WP article text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source says: "flora and fauna species, especially ground fauna, are more typical of a desert
environment than the Top End." the list of species is also supported. :)
7 "The Tomkinson Group includes layers of coarse sandstones and conglomerates, with some claystone and siltstone, deposited in a fluvial to shallow marine environment. There are also Cambrian basaltic rocks, particularly near the homestead.[29]"
Source supports.
8 "As Aboriginal Freehold land it is inalienable communal title, and cannot be bought or sold.[30]"
Source says: "This means it is privately
owned under a special freehold title. It is inalienable (cannot be bought, acquired or forfeited) and is granted as a communal title. " :)
All spotchecks look good :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment - Could the nominator please address the comment regarding the page ranges in the source spotcheck. Graham Colm (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this reference is that it IS the consultant's report referred to in the sentence. It is just a reference to say "here is the report", as proof it exists, as it were. However, I will give a page ref for the cover page that shows the date it was delivered, and the first page, that states that it is a consultant's report for the government. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I gathered that, and if the report focussed solely on Muckaty, I'd not have brought it up; however with it being one of four possible sites, and the report being quite detailed, I think we need to be pointed to a page or pages clearly and succinctly making the connection between Muckaty and the nuclear waste site proposal. Citing the report is not just to provide evidence of its own existence, it's to provide evidence of Muckaty as a possible nuclear waste site -- no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see what you're getting at now. Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Olmec colossal heads are an iconic form of ancient Mesoamerican sculpture. This article recently passed GA and I am comfortable that it is a comprehensive overview of the topic with no major aspect missing from the article. I've had an off-wiki subject matter expert look at the article, and recommended changes have been incorporated where possible. My last article to be spot-checked was Spanish conquest of Guatemala, in March. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SULAIR is actually defined in the last of the references as "Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources (SULAIR)" Simon Burchell (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Where possible I've dealt with this in the refs. There are still one or two instances of ".)." that seem to be an artefact of the cite template (e.g. Coe and Koontz). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think all states have full names now. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary comment Looks very thorough as usual, but I won't I think be able to read through fully for 2 weeks. Might one squeeze in a dimension to some of the pic captions, or even a photo with a person for scale? They are truly big, & it's worth driving that home. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod - I can see a decent enough photo on Commons of a head with people next to it (the head doesn't yet have a photo in the article). I'll trim it a little and include it when I get a moment. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, I suppose some may object without model release forms or something, especially with the kid. In the one with the guy lying flat he is not very identifiable & this could be an alternative. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have the sculpture in the current pic, since it is not included in any other photo. How about if I white-out the people so just the size comparison is left? Simon Burchell (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, take a look now - I've anonymised the pic, and I got through the OTRS ticket for San Lorenzo 10 this morning, so that's up too. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are goo. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's still here! Sorry!
Maybe rearrange the 1st 2 sentences to make the connection emerge sooner: from:
"Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica.[1] The first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture were carried out by Matthew Stirling at Tres Zapotes in 1938, spurred by the discovery of a colossal head there in the 19th century." to:
"Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica,[1] which spurred the first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture by Matthew Stirling at Tres Zapotes in 1938, after the discovery of a colossal head there in the 19th century." or:
Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica,[1], and the discovery of a colossal head at Tres Zapotes in the 19th century spurred the first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture by Matthew Stirling in 1938."
Roughly how wide/large is the area within which the heads are found? The map is later, I know, but something in the text earlier would help.
The 17 (is it) heartland heads all come from 4 sites, which I don't think is said early on.
This is actually mentioned in the first paragraph of the intro: Seventeen confirmed examples of stone heads are known, all from within the Olmec heartland on the Gulf Coast of Mexico, in the states of Veracruz and Tabasco.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant something like: "Seventeen confirmed examples of stone heads are known, all from four sites within the Olmec heartland on the Gulf Coast of Mexico, in the states of Veracruz and Tabasco, an area extending some 150 x 50 miles". - or whatever it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the approximate geographic extent of the Olmec heartland. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved this from the intro into the new "Olmec civilization" section, near the beginning of the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...due to the movement of many from their original context ADD in Pre-Columbian times or since the Conquest". maybe?
I've added prior to archaeological investigationSimon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... dated to the Early Preclassic ADD Period" (or period)?, and to any others on first mention, or at least get it in the sentence once, as you do in "Dating".
Sentences 2-4 of "Characteristics" repeat the end of the lead verbatim or nearly so, with only a short paragraph in the intervening section. Maybe try to expand & rewrite some, or merge into the 2nd para here.
I think I copied and pasted straight into the intro. I've rephrased there. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does "recarved" need a hyphen? I think so. Not "reworked" though.
Done - except in the references, where I've maintained the original article title as written (Porter). Simon Burchell (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose gets a bit clunky at the individual details, eg: "San Lorenzo Colossal Head 2 (also known as San Lorenzo Monument 2)[34] was reworked from a monumental throne.[27] The head stands 2.69 metres (8.8 ft) high and measures 1.83 metres (6.0 ft) wide by 1.05 metres (3.4 ft) deep. The head weighs 20 tons. Colossal Head 2 was discovered in 1945 when Matthew Stirling's guide cleared away some of the vegetation and mud that covered it..." Some "It"s and merged sentences needed maybe. Repetition in Tres Zapotes Monument A section.
I've smoothed out the prose in the invidividual heads sections, and merged the repeated info in Tres Zapotes Monument A. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Olmec has more detail than here on the "African origin" theory, which may well all be nonsense, but here should have the longest account.
The main article on the "African origin" is Olmec alternative origin speculations, linked from the article. I don't really see any need to give undue weight to these theories here when an article already exists dealing specifically with the subject. African origin theories are not much touched upon in the literature, and I've done quite well getting as much in as I have in order to balance the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick para near the start summarizing the Olmec cultural and artistic context would help.
I've added a short "Olmec civilization" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added a para to it, plus a pic, as discussed. But let me know any further issues. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more later, Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back! I'll try to work through your comments this evening. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the above resolved, so happy to SupportJohnbod (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, the added paragraph, and the support! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments.
Under "dating" the article says "Estimates of the time span of head production vary from 50 years to 200 years". Then later it says "the whole project may well have taken years from beginning to end". If the lower limit of estimates is 50 years then "may well have" is not correct: it definitely did. Is there a disagreement betwen sources behind this variation in language?
There is no disagreement but I'll need to clarify what I mean. The 50-200 years is the estimated period during which heads were produced; "the whole project" refers to the production of an individual head. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Manufacture - Is it possible to clarify from the sources whether the boulders were transported before or after carving? As currently written it appears the boulders were first transported, then carved, except the text later says "The flat backs of many Olmec heads would have facilitated such transport", which implies carving first, then transport. Do we know which? I think it would be good if the section could be reworked to have a para that directly addressed the relationship between transport and carving, including the various scholarly speculation on the matter. At the moment, it appears a bit fragmented across the "manufacture" section, and not always consistent.
I've rephrased and reordered the section. Is it any better now? Simon Burchell (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For "Tres Zapotes", is there any summary available of how these two heads differ stylistically from the rest?hamiltonstone (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence or two at the beginning of the "Tres Zapotes" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. This is a very interesting piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving those issues. I'm a support, but do have a terminology suggestion / query. The article refers to the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, but the map refers to the "Tuxtla Mountains", which are the same thing. Perhaps there should be a bracketed alternate term, either in the lead, or in additional text in the caption of the map, that makes it clear that these are interchangeable terms? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - I've clarified the map caption. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment – It's a fascinating topic and the current content is outstanding, so I'm strongly leaning toward support. However, after reading it through, I was left with a couple of questions answered:
There is nothing to suggest how the particular skill and style of the artists were derived. Are there earlier examples of Olmec art that show a progression of skill improvement, or has none of that survived?
The most naturalistic Olmec sculpture is the earliest surviving sculpture, it emerges fully formed into the archaeological record. I've added a couple of sentences to the "characteristics" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. Thank you for the addition and clarification. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How were these rocks carved? Basalt is a very hard stone; it can reach a 6 on the Moh's scale. How then were the Olmec able to sculpt them using primitive tools? Have they found any examples of these tools?
The "manufacture" section does mention the use of basalt cobbles as hammerstones, and the use of abrasives, but I'll see if I can find anything else. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, you're right. My eyes must have skimmed past that part. Sorry. RJH (talk)
Even if it were speculative, some information about these points would be useful. Thank you for the interesting read. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and the support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLeaning support: I have spot-checked this article, as Diehl's 2004 book, Coe and Koontz' 2002 book, and of course the online PDFs were available to me. All the pages I checked support the article text, and although some of the article's wording is a little closer to that of the sources than I would write, nothing I checked rises to the level of close paraphrasing. I do have some nit-picks, though.
The referencing for the lead—where the entire first paragraph has inline citations and the other three don't—feels strange. I think it would be better if the lead were cited throughout or uncited throughout. Everything in that paragraph is supported by text in the body, negating the need for citations, except (I think) the sentence about how the 19th century discovery inspired Stirling's excavations. I think that fact is worth including in the body, too, probably in the entry for Tres Zapotes Monument A.
Removed all but one of the cites, and shuffled some of the info down into the Olmec civilization section; I also put the bit about Stirling's early excavations into the Tres Zapotes section. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
actually I just read today Stirling's own interesting account, online at the start of the Olmec conference PDF here, pages 2 & 5, which says he began his excavations at the Tres Zapotes head, but following up an interest already several years old, begun by small jade pieces. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link - I'll have to read that! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Olmec civilization" should probably have {{main|Olmec}} just under the section heading.
I think a little more detail about the purpose of these heads is needed. I'm well aware that the Olmec had no writing and are therefore very mysterious, but not all readers will know that, so it's probably worth mentioning in the "Olmec civilization" section. And in "Characteristics", it says scholars now think the heads represent rulers, but not why they think that.
I'm afraid I can't find any explanation of why they are believed to represent rulers, just statements to that effect in the sources. I've added a little to the Olmec civilization section, about the emerging evidence for Olmec writing. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"…José Melgar y Serrano described a colossal head as having "Ethiopian" features and African origin speculation resurfaced in 1960…" Maybe change "African origin speculation" to "speculations that the Olmec had African origins", or something like that. I know that's long for a phrase with a link, but the meaning is clearer that way.
The discovery of Tres Zapotes Monument Q is a little unclear. Was it discovered when the machinery stuck it, or at an uncertain point before that? If the former, how do they know how it was found but not when it was found?
The precise date isn't known because it was not discovered and recorded by archaeologists. Sometime , estimated to be in the 1940s, the hill was being cleared for agricultural reasons and machinery struck the head. This was probably remembered by locals and reported to archaeologists later. I've gone back to my sources and there isn't much else I can put in - the discovery of the head was poorly documented. I'll add another sentence about when it was first described in print, but that's about it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the second paragraph on La Cobata (stating that it may be different from other heads just because it's unfinished) is awkward, and the point it makes is rather redundant with the earlier sentence about Norman Hammond's objection to the late dating of the head. Maybe move the second to last sentence, saying the head might depict a deceased ruler, before the sentence about Hammond and his unfinished-head argument.
I've made the changes as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you can find any information on why members of an evangelical church would try to carry out a Pre-columbian ritual. But it does leave one wondering, so if you know why, it might be worth including. A. Parrot (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found that particularly bizarre myself, but I haven't been able to find an interview with the vandals anywhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've responded to each of your points. Many thanks for the review. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- Believe we're still waiting for an image check here. On this subject, the side-by-side images in the first section of the main body cause, on my screen, severe sandwiching of text between themselves and the second of the lead images. Any reason the side-by-side ones should't be one above the other, using the vertical multiple image parameter? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the images to vertical, as suggested. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article is very strong, have been watching the progress since the GA, leaning support. One thing, the opening lead sentence does not work for me -
Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica,[1] and the discovery of a colossal head at Tres Zapotes in the 19th century spurred the first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture by Matthew Stirling in 1938. I ve re-arranged slightly, but am not married to the edit. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Mexico.Tab.OlmecHead.01.jpg free,
File:La_Venta_Monument_4.JPG released by holder to GNU
File:Olmec mask 802.jpg released by holder to GNU
File:Olmec - Infantile Figure - Walters 20092064 - Three Quarter.jpg permission via OTRS
File:Cabeza Colosal nº1 del Museo Xalapa.jpg GNU
File:La Venta Colossal Head 3.jpg PD, rights waved
File:Olmec Heartland Overview v2.svg GNU
File:San Lorenzo Colossal Head 2, from Veracruz.jpg CC2.0 generic (not sure what that means) uploaded by nominator unclear as to copyright owner
File:San Lorenzo Monument 3 crop.jpg CC2.0 generic ex flicker
File:San Lorenzo Monument 4 crop.jpg CC2.0 generic ex flickr
File:Tres Zapotes Monument A.jpg GNU
File:Takalik Abaj Olmec sculpture 1.JPG OTRS.
All ok, 'cept three ex flicker Im unsure about, not being an images guy. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
After a helpful copyedit from User:Juliancolton (and I invite him as a co-nominator, as I will be somewhat busy over the subsequent few weeks), I would like to nominate a recent article that I worked on - Typhoon Chataan. It caused torrential flooding across the western Pacific, and it was retired due to its impact. I used a variety of news sources, government reports, and websites to make it a comprehensive article, and there are a variety of interesting images. I hope you enjoy it and find it as worthy of being called a featured article as I believe it deserves. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as the nominator said, I made a few slight edits to the article's text, but that was the extent of it; the content is solid and presented in a favorably non-showy way. The many applications of data present contribute to a very complete understanding of the typhoon's nature and effects, and the base of sources is indeed broad and well-rounded. Excellent job! Juliancolton (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is very good, but I have some comments about the articles wording, and I think that a little bit of some tropical storm-related terminology needs to be translated:
" In the day before the storm affected the island, the storm dropped " - this is a bit repetitive
"High winds downed power lines on Chuuk.[10] High surf destroyed seawalls and buildings along the coast." - two short sentences in a row is a bit choppy
"Property damage across Micronesia, mostly on Chuuk, was estimated at $100 million, and another $3 million resulted from crop damage" - the 'and another $3 million resulted from crop damage' is a bit awkward (especially as it's on a slightly different topic to the rest of the sentence)
"Initially the death toll was unknown, possibly amounting to several hundred." - should this be "Initially the death toll was unknown, and it was feared that hundreds of people had been killed." or similar?
"The Red Cross shipped various relief supplies, including jackets" - given the climate, you should replace 'jackets' with 'raincoats' as used in the source
Thanks, heh, I didn't want to go too direct, but that works too. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"United States President George W. Bush declared the island as a disaster" - should the last words be 'to be a disaster zone' or similar?
Meant to put area, ack. Thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This was six days after FSM President Leo Falcam sent the disaster declaration to the US president;" - this wording is a bit awkward, and the rest of the sentence ("however, because the FSM is in a Compact of Free Association and the initial declaration was not legally binding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could not provide immediate assistance") is unclear. I'd suggest separating this into a couple of sentences.
Is that better? I split and emphasized that it was Falcam's fault, sorta, of the delay. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"11,328 meals that were ready to eat" - do you mean "11,328 Meal, Ready-to-Eat" here? (which could also be expressed as "11,328 MRE rations" given that MRE is the common name)
"Before the facility reopened, the Guam Waterworks Authority rationed by distributing water to all homes at various times of the day" - this is a bit unclear
Changed to - "Before the facility reopened, the Guam Waterworks Authority distributed water to the island at differing times of the day to ration the limited supply." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"However, by a month after the storm, residents continued to boil water as a precaution" - did they need to?
"$10 million in housing checks" - should this be "housing cheques"?
I don't think so, since it's an American agency. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of Chataan's death toll and damage, the name was retired and replaced with Matmo" - what does this mean?
Just that the name was removed (retired, if you will, like baseball numbers), and replaced with a different name. Same with below. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The name PAGASA gave to Chataan while active – Gloria – was replaced with Glenda in 2005" - likewise, what's the relevance of this? (does it mean that the records of this storm were altered?).
Can anything be said about how this storm is remembered in the FSM, and the progress of the rebuilding effort there? The extent of the damage and casualties must have been traumatic for this very small country. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bad sign that this is the only hit on Google news. I'm looking for some more though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit more aftermath. Unfortunately, several typhoons affect the country each year, so it's hard to get long-term impact. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that all looks pretty good. However, the bit on the Typhoon's name being 'retired' needs to be explained, as it's a bit obscure (I presume that names of Typhoons can be re-used, and they're only retired if the typhoon causes a significant amount of damage, or the name could be confused as being some kind of statement? If so, A sentence explaining this would be good). Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I explained that typhoon names get retired if they cause a lot of damage. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments have now been addressed, and I'm please to support its promotion; great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
FN7, 49: what kind of source is this?
I changed it to a publisher instead of "agency". I hope that wasn't the wrong way to do it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers/newsmagazines
I think I am inconsistent, so I asked for User:Hylian Auree to assist in getting the sources standardized and up to scraps. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use consistent italicization
None of them are italicized now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he JTWC assessed that Chataan had reached its peak intensity of 240 km/h (150 mph 1-minute sustained) about six hours earlier;" seems a little odd to me. YEPacificHurricane 04:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On August 7, President Bush also declared Rota as a disaster area, which provided funding for debris removal.[53]" kinda odd as it's own one sentence paragraph. YEPacificHurricane 04:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Heber, whose name is all but unknown in the 21st century, was a significant Anglican presence in the early 1800s; had he lived longer he may have become one of the Church's leading figures. As it is, overwork and the the Indian climate did for him at the age of 42. He was highly regarded in his time; if you doubt this, see the size of the memorial his chums had built for him in St Paul's Cathedral. This article is part of my (very) occasional "forgotten figures" series, dealing with people whose personal mark has been largely obliterated by history (see also Talbot Baines Reed, Peter Heywood etc). There could be more... Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A really good article which makes everything very clear and seems comprehensive. A few minor points, which may be more about personal preferences, but none affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He also wrote hymns, of which a few subsequently became staples in church hymnals for several generations.": A little heavy here, perhaps. Maybe: "Several hymns that he wrote subsequently became staples in church hymnals" as I'm not sure "several generations" is necessary, but I'm not too sure about "hymns…hymnals". Compositions?
I've adopted your suggested wording and lost the "generations". A hymnal is simply a book of hymns Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"practical conditions" seems a little vague; maybe "living conditions"?
"Modern commentators assert that although Heber's example and writings inspired many of his own and future generations to devote their lives to the mission fields, his paternalism and imperial assumptions appear outdated and generally unacceptable in the modern world.": Unless I missed something, the inspiration of others does not really come across in the main body, and the more negative aspects only seem to refer to his hymn writing, rather than life in general.
I need to consult the sources again, to get some clarification here. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but do we know why his father married twice?
"Heber's brother Richard was currently a fellow of the college": Another minor one, but not sure "currently" is the best word here. I always prefer "at the time" as currently seems to suggest the present. But not really a problem.
the 17th century cleric Jeremy Taylor": Should something here be hyphenated?
"the singing of hymns in churches, other than metrical psalms, was officially disapproved": Probably worth specifying here who constitutes officialdom as it may not be clear for everyone.
"Heber, according to the poet John Betjeman, was…": As it is not immediately obvious, maybe say in what context Betjeman commented here, otherwise it is not clear why the poet would be an authority on Heber.
"In the modern world the words of this hymn seem patronising and insensitive to other beliefs…": Editorial voice?
No, it's Betjeman again; I've made that clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the critical paragraph about his hymns, could some examples that Betjeman and Watson use be included? Or is it not worth it?
By "examples", do you mean quotes from the hymns? I'm not sure what they would add; besides, the full text of "From Greenland's Icy Mountains" is available via an external link, and "Holy, Holy, Holy" has a WP link. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"including that of Abdul Masih, an elderly Lutheran whose reception into Anglican orders incurred some opposition." Opposition from who? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. These are all good points to which I shall attend a little later today. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Later: all above done, except per comments. I still giving attention to one. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support had my say at the PR. Excellent article, well worth promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Wehwalt. I great little article and a complete joy to read. -- CassiantoTalk.
Thanks to both of the above, who were significant and helpful contributors to the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - enjoyable and easy read. Interesting too, btw. A few very tiny nit-picks: Christmas is linked but Easter not; Ganges should be linked I think; M.A. with punctuation but DD not. Not much else to say, except job well-done. Oh, I wondered about the children; he was married for a long time before the first child was born, and I wondered whether the sources mention anything about that or even if it's relevant. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the support. The minor fixes, links etc, are done. As to children, yes, 8 or 9 years was an unusually long interval in those days between marriage and first child, but none of the sources give any reason for this. Miscarriages were extremely common then, so maybe one or two of those? But that cannot be verified. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN80: formatting
Sometimes it helps if you indicate the problem. Then I know whether I've fixed it or not!
Where is Worthing?
Check for doubled periods caused by templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - as requested, I have looked at the images used in the article and they are all freely licensed, being either PD through age (published in the early 1900s) or freely licensed images of places taken in modern times. I did not have a chance to carefully read the article (yet). Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure of that, Ruhrfisch. Well, OK, I am, but the documentation on File:Reginald Heber - Project Gutenberg eText 18444.jpg may need fixing. I'm not sure but I think the country of origin will be the UK and so the file should be tagged appropriately. No idea of the country of origin of File:GreenlandsIcyMountains.jpg either, but possibly either. It's taken from the web, which also doesn't identify it I don't think. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 22:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear that I did my proper due diligence at the time of my review, the Heber portrait (first image) is from an edition of the book that was published in New York (USA) in 1906, while the hymn (second image) is clearly identified as from a book published in Philadelphia in the US in 1899, which makes both PD US, which makes them both free for Wikipedia. I will clean up the Heber portrait documentation further. Ruhrfisch><>°° 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, one was my error and the other you've now documented (it should be possible to verify the copyright licence from the file description). No concerns remain. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 12:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the service history of the main type of fighter aircraft the Royal Australian Air Force has operated since the mid 1980s. During this period the RAAF's F/A-18s have been deployed around the globe, and took part in the Iraq War in 2003. However, they're starting to wear out, and the Air Force is hoping to replace them by the end of this decade.
I started this article as an experiment to see if it was possible to write a detailed article on this kind of topic, and have been pleased with the results. The article was assessed as a good article in April, passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review a couple of weeks ago and has since been expanded and improved. As such, I think that it should now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) One bit I don't like, have a look please: "To avoid pilot fatigue, additional aircrew were posted to the Middle East from Australia. However, the number of sorties dropped to between six and ten per day ...": I'm not sure if the "however" means "however, the new aircrews were not needed" (or used). And fix my "pilot fatigue" tweak if that doesn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Dank. You're right about that 'however', and I've just removed it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images: unsurprisingly for a military article with US resources to draw on, images are fine copyrightwise. I'm unsure about the statement "Hornet A21-3 in August 2010. The aircraft is carrying a LITENING targeting pod and ASRAAM missiles as well as training bombs and external fuel tanks." is that obvious from the photograph? is it in any way controversial? is it possible to cite it in some way? address the issue on the file description page? Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those comments. In regards to that photo, it's obvious from looking at the aircraft and the date the photo was taken. The missiles on its wingtips are clearly ASRAAMs (the alternative, the Sidewinder missile, has a quite different appearance), the targeting pod appears to be a LITENING based on its appearance and practice bombs are always blue (the real things are always green). Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review, having found prose, structure, coverage, referencing and supporting materials more than satisfactory; went through changes made since and happy with those apart from a few very minor things I copyedited -- well done!
No source spotcheck per se on my part but I'm pretty familiar with this topic and the sources, and am confident the story's been faithfully rendered.
Minor suggestions:
The Upgrades and maintenance section includes a pretty big paragraph on armament, so perhaps adding "ordnance" or "armament" to the section header is in order.
I'm assuming you're redlinking Bob Richardson in part at least because he rose to two-star, so consider referring to him as "Wing Commander (later air Vice Marshal)". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. I've added that note about Richardson, and created a new section for 'armament' (which, happily, provides room for an extra photo). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Supported below very interesting, well written article, glad I reviewed it. Just a few small comments and then I'll likely support.
"with the last aircraft leaving service in the early 2020s." I'd suggest "and the last aircraft will leave service in the early 2020s."
Done
"At about the same time, the RAAF rejected an offer of F-14 Tomcats that had been ordered by the Iranian Government but not delivered due to the revolution in that country." I'm a bit confused here, was it that they thought it wasn't safe to deliver them with the revolution ongoing, or that they didn't want to arm the new leadership?
From memory, the source specify why, but it would have been the latter (the US obviously didn't want to hand any more high-tech weapons to an unfriendly government, and didn't allow several arms deals to proceed). I've tweaked the wording a bit. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try to be consistent about date commas, i.e. "In 1973, a team of RAAF" vs " In November 1978 the F-15 and Tornado were removed"
The first comma was used because the sentence is long and a bit complex, so it needs to be broken up a bit. The second sentence is very short, and I didn't think that a comma was necessary. I'm happy to defer to your judgement on this though if you really think that a comma in the second sentence would help. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A21-42 crashed, killing the unit's commanding officer, and the other aircraft was damaged but managed to return to base" I'd suggest a semi-colon instead of a second comma here.
Try to be consistent with the use of the serial comma, i.e. "squadrons rotate between four-month training "blocks" focused on air-to-air combat, air-to-ground tactics, and Australian Defence Force support tasks." vs "the Hornets' computer systems, navigation system and radio were replaced"
Fixed (the first instance was, from memory, a hangover from this sentence being even longer) Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider abbreviating a few of the "United States" as "US". Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked once instance of 'United States' to 'US Government', but 'US' would look a bit odd occasionally sprinkled through the text in what's a pretty Australian-focused article, particularly as in most instances the article is referring to the country itself where this is used (I'm not going to claim cross-article consistency though; in Air raids on Japan I mainly used 'US', but this is a fairly American-centric article so it's not jarring - I think!). I hope that this is OK, but again I'd be happy to defer to your judgement if you think that this change should be made. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport Alright, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations, good wook! I enjoyed reviewing this. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
Thanks again Mark Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check alphabetization of references
Done (Davies 2011 changes halfway through the title of the paper. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frawley or Fawley?
Frawley; fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No citations to RAAF 1995. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; I've just removed this. Thanks for your comments Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Gnangarra
at the end of the Selection section it finishes with This led to a complicated arrangement whereby the aircraft were ordered by the US Government, delivered to the US Navy upon completion, and then transferred to the RAAF once initial flight testing had taken place.[14] The process worked well in practice, however, and was cost effective.[16] can these be rolled into one sentence.. something like a This led to a successful cost effective though complicated arrangement....
I also think that the delivered to the US Navy upon completion,.. upon completion is redundant
I agree with you on the second suggestion and have made that change, but incorporating the first suggestion would lead to what I think is an overly complex sentence: "This led to a complicated, but successful and cost-effective, arrangement whereby the aircraft were ordered by the US Government, delivered to the US Navy, and then transferred to the RAAF once initial flight testing had taken place". I think it's clearer to have one sentence about how the arrangement worked and another sentence about it proving successful. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not convincd that this The process worked well in practice, however, and was cost effective. is good prosed, I find it difficult unnatural wording. Gnangarra 08:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point: I've removed the 'in practice', which is unnecessary, and tweaked the rest of the wording. How does this look? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is there a info box that can give the specifics of the Australian service as info boxes appear in almost every article probably every military article this one looks incomplete without one.
That's a good suggestion. There's no infobox that's designed for this purpose, but I've adopted the generic infobox fields. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of that a very interesting read and filled gaps in my knowledge of the life of these craft. Gnangarra 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this at Milhist ACR and having reviewed the changes that have occured since then, I am confident that it meets the FA criteria also. I have one suggestion:
I wonder if this shouldn't be clarified slightly: "which was vulnerable to attack and damage from cyclones". Perhaps, "which was vulnerable to damage from cyclones that are prevalent around the coast of northern Australia and also to attack due to its proximity to the nations to Australia's north". Admittedly, though, that might be just making the readers suck eggs. Anyway, good work as always, Nick. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've tweaked that wording to a new sentence which reads "Until this time the squadron had been stationed at RAAF Base Darwin which, due to its location on Australia's north coast, was vulnerable damage from cyclones and difficult to defend during wartime". Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the most collaborative bird article collaboration I can remember for a while. Lots of folks have helped out and I think it's polished up pretty nicely. I find some genus- and family-level articles tricky as one has to be selective about material to be used, so am interested to hear from folks on content as this has been less straightforward than other articles I've been used to bringing here. Still, it was fun working on it and I think we're in striking distance of FA quality, so help us out and have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting (if any). Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
I will try very hard to avoid silly limericks. Skimming ... it looks great. More later. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen minutes till the first Pelican jokemy mistake, you specifically stated you wouldn't make one....not bad.... ;) Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"frigatebirds, cormorants, gannets and boobies, and tropicbirds": Any objection to "frigatebirds, cormorants, tropicbirds, and gannets and boobies"? Done
"The supposed Miocene pelican Liptornis from Argentina is a nomen dubium, being based on hitherto indeterminable fragments.": I'm a bit dubium myself; can you reword for clarity?
Clarified parenthetically though I doubt the necessity given the phrase is linked. Maias (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does "being based on hitherto indeterminable fragments" mean? Needs attention. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"they are relatively light", "They are among the heaviest flying birds": ?
Reworded relevant passage to avoid jarring, though both statements are correct. Maias (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"can be as little as 2.75 kilograms (6.1 lb), 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) long, and can have a wingspan ...": can be no more than 2.75 kilograms (6.1 lb) and 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) long, with a wingspan
"at up to 15 kilograms (33 lb), 1.83 metres (6.0 ft) long": at up to 15 kilograms (33 lb) and 1.83 metres (6.0 ft) in length
"once reproduction commences": My layman's understanding is that "reproduction" is a long and not clearly defined process; would "mating" work?
No; "mating" is more specific. Reproduction covers the reproductive cycle from courtship and nest-building to feeding the chicks. Maybe "once the reproductive cycle commences..." Maias (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reworded to "once females have laid eggs", which is aligns with the source Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing. "The male brings the nesting material, ground-nesters (which may not build a nest) sometimes in the pouch ...": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nesting material for the ground-nesters, which may not build a nest? Needs attention. - Dank (push to talk)
Aha, this refers to the two subgroups of pelicans, known as "tree-nesters" and "ground-nesters" - the text is assuming too much familiarity so will reword have reworded. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The newly hatched altricial chicks are pink and naked; their skin darkens to grey or black within 4–14 days before developing a covering": 4 to 14 days after hatching, or 4 to 14 days before the covering develops?
I got this one ... I took a guess, check it. - Dank (push to talk)
The Persecution section isn't entirely about persecution; another word would be better. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Culling...as that is the topic discussed (i.e. reduction of population by killing) Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got another "persecution" in the text. - Dank (push to talk)
"in Peru in spring 2012": Peru is just below the equator; it would be better to name the months.
This is tricky - I changed it to, " In May 2012, Hundreds of Peruvian Pelicans were reported to have perished " - as I know when the reporting was but can't say whether the pelicans died in April or May..... Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"fish at the Salton Sea": Not sure what that meant, so I changed "at" to "from".
"Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge named for the religious festival nearest the date of their establishment, and one of each carried this feasts' name and symbol.": I'm confused on several points here, and it seems partly redundant with the following sentence.
Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) I've marked a few things as needing attention above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A study of the parasites of the American White Pelican..." - source?
Fixed, a long sentence became split across paragraphs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
should be unspaced initials in refs. Fixed all now (I think) Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations, and if so what info is included - for example, you sometimes include UK for London and sometimes not
Unable to vocalise, adult pelicans rely on visual displays and behaviour to communicate, particularly using their wings and bills. ... Conversely, colonies are noisy as chicks vocalise extensively. - how come chicks can vocalise and adults can't at all? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good question. I have no idea as I haven't found an explanation. If we can find something we should definitely add... Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to update, I've been looking and this I can't find this being discussed in the literature thus far... Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it's more a matter of don't vocalise, rather than can't. Many seabirds, for example, are noisy when breeding, but silent at sea. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something along those lines, I mean if their larynxes atrophied it'd be pretty significant and discussed somewhere....?? Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File details on Commons enhanced. The red link and a few other problems was due to old vand, which I have reverted. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this suggests the correct permission finally came through, but despite this, I think we can lose as this section packed with images and I think others are more striking or integral to the article, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, #Mythology and popular culture is a wall of images. Perhaps you should trim some. #Pre-Columbian America is really not long enough for its own section. Any further info? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes I was thnking this section might need some reorganising or adding.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Air sacs should be spaced under "network of subcutaneous airsacs" and "internal airsacs in their bones" Lemonade51 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section "taxonomy" - introduction text uses family members (Herons, Ibises, ...). Cladogram uses family names (Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae). ==> Is it possible to include either the mentioned members in the graph or the family names in the text to provide better context between the two? Not an error by any means, just a bit confusing for the layman. GermanJoe (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good point. cladogram fixed to mention common names and make it more accessible Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Most of my concerns were addressed. It's a good article and I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Nice work! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's looking good with perhaps a handful of areas that could use a little more coverage. Here are my nit-picky observations:
I'd like to see the multiple images in the 'Etymology', 'Breeding and lifespan', and 'Mythology and popular culture' sections be grouped together using {{Multiple images}} templates. This gives a nice layout and eliminates the white lines.
Removed as rendered redundant by "was".... Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see an explanation of why adults don't vocalize. Did I miss it?
Annoyingly, I can't find any discussion of why this is so, only that they don't... Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement I keep seeing during a search is that pelicans "rarely" vocalize when they are away from their nesting sites, but are capable of low grunts.[61]
Hmmm, that's blocked for me here in Oz :P ....I'll look for some grunts elsewhere...Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
update - have found refs for 7/8 species stating the adults grunt in colonies and in breeding season and are generally silent elsewhere. The one I've not found is the Peruvian...Added now Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of skimming behavior (through the use of ground effect), nor why they do it.
I'm not finding anything to this being a behaviour specific for pelicans to date (in fact, can't find anything much discussing pelicans skimming).....so haven't added as yet. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's blocked for me as well here in Oz :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[63][64][65][66][67][68] There's even a Boeing design based on the same effect.[69] "By flying low, the Pelican, like its name-sake, exploits the aerodynamic benefits of a well-known phenomenon called ground effect."
Okay, added something now - nice find.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it becomes tricky figuring which info about a species to use etc. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a mention of the effects of DDT on the Brown pelican population?
How good are their senses? I'd guess they have very good vision as they are mobile predators. Probably color vision as well, since their body hue changes.
Err, most birds have good vision, and AFAIK they all have colour vision. I'm not finding anything specific on pelican senses/sight/vision to date.....so haven't added as yet. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What appears to be a relatively unusual feature of Pelicans (and some other diving birds) is their ability to modify their eyes for underwater vision. RJH (talk)
They eat discarded dead fish. Can they smell fish like some types of seabirds? Snowman (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Monotypic", "remiges" and "Agonistic behaviour" is unlinked jargon.
Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first statement is problematic for me Pelicans are a genus of large water birds in the family Pelecanidae. It makes it sound like the genus is one of many in the family. Pelicans are a a family of birds, as well as a genus, and the first sentence should be reworded to reflect this. I'll take a longer look at this soon Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should we call it a family consisting of a single genus of eight species then or something..... Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked wording. Maias (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding the pelicans in New Zealand, the source is old and doesn't reflect modern thinking, which is that the sparse number of pelican fossils recovered represent just vagrant birds (Worthy and Holdaway, 2002). Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "... with very long, terminally hooked bills". This seems vague to me because it does not say clearly if it is the upper mandible, lower mandible, or both mandibles that are hooked. See File:Pelican with open pouch.jpg, which indicates that the hook is only on the tip of the upper mandible.Snowman (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree this needs rewriting. I know it, I just need a source which describes the bill in that detail. Shouldn't be hard but late here and I am going to sleep in a minuteCasliber (talk·contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I have reworded it to clarify where the hook is and its shape from the source. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: File:Pelikan Walvis Bay.jpg. One wing tip is not included in the image. This is currently the infobox image. I like this image including its colours, but we generally show photographs in the infobox that show all of the bird. Is it suitable for the infobox image of an FA article?Snowman (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a shame part of its wing is missing. My feeling is that it would be nice for the photo to be of the type species (onocrotalus) and it would be nice to be in the wild, but this might be trumped by another species if something really good turned up. Do you have any suggestions of all the pelican photos you've seen? I think we are all open to ideas on this. My idea was for it not to be one just sitting in the water as I like how we have all eight species in the water which I think looks really good, hence some contrast would be prudent. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be difficult to find a better photograph for the infobox. I have seen a good photograph of a Brown Pelican flying, but brown birds may not be particularly photogenic to most non-ornithologists. Any other suggestions. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through alot without a great deal of candidates - the Australian Pelican seems the most photogenic, maybe this one...? Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a pelican next to a familiar object, so its huge size is apparent. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are always looking for better images. Perhaps, a better image for the infobox will turn up sometime. Snowman (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fe: "Although they are among the heaviest of flying birds, they are relatively light for their size because of air pockets in the skeleton and beneath the skin enabling them to float high in the water." Readability could be improved a lot, perhaps by expanding at least three of the concepts included in this complex sentence. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think I agree with you on this one and will see what I can find Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit uneasy that the reference about the air sacs is from 1939 and that only two birds were dissected. In humans air can get under the skin pathologically. Are there any more recent references? Are there any illustrations of air sacs? Do any other birds have air sacs under their skin or is this only for pelicans? Excuse me, I am a stickler with anatomy. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Air sacs are widely mentioned in material on pelicans, and this paper has been mentioned as a reference in some of them. I have been surprised there is nothing in anywhere near as much detail published since (that I've found). I will go back to the paper to see. I have not heard of other birds having these air sacs but wouldn't be surprised. I typed in alot of keywords into google scholar and jstor and came up with little. If anyone else finds anything I would be happy. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re; "... if its internal organs (viscera) change shape." I am mystified by this.Snowman (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. after a meal or carrying fish. I will go back to the source and look again to see if I can add anything which it says.Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are "protuberances due to contents of the intestinal tract" the only explanation for changes in the shape of viscera? I doubt if eggs that are almost ready to be laid are protuberant, but I might be wrong? Snowman (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "internal organs changing shape" sounds odd and I think is needs re-phrasing and explaining. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says, "the maintenance of body contours and the compensation for changes in the size and position of the viscera. The maintenance of these contours is most essential to most perfect flight." I have rejigged to, "and also to keep the bird's contours as aerodynamic as possible when flying". Is that any better? I am finding it somewhat tricky to reword and keep meaning without paraphrasing. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at the source and extracted some information from it for the wiki article. Snowman (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "^ The US Government has not accepted the elevation of the two taxa into separate species." Presumably, this should be referenced.Snowman (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's the paper which gives the total BP population -I'll add it in the morning if someone doesn't get there overnight 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I tried adding the ref into the footnote, but it messed up the coding. I is the Fish and Wildlife Service ref (currently FN 70) Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could use the template {{efn}} together with "notelist" for explanatory footnotes, if you don't mind the different template. It definately can handle nested citations in explanatory footnotes. GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I did not know that one, thanks...It works! Great/thanks! Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"stragglers from Australia": Is "stragglers" the wrong word? This suggests that pelicans go on a journey and some are left behind.Snowman (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the odd usage, but I have seen the word frequently used for "vagrant". Given the latter does not have the ambiguity, I will have substituted the word.Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to show a photograph of the nobs on the pelicans bills, since this is featured in the text and there are photographs of them on Commons.Snowman (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this and this are good for the hook but I want to avoid over-using one species images in the article Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For balance, I think the article would be better if the article showed a photograph of a nesting colony (or nest) of a ground-nesting species.Snowman (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have showed a photograph of Am White Pelican chicks in a nest on the ground. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction: I think that the introduction should make more of the large pouch of pelicans and also their large size, large wings, and that they are one of the largest birds to fly. I think that some sections of the text are minimally represented in the introduction. Is the introduction a bit short? Snowman (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the intro might be a bit short - as we embellish the other bits I'll see what we can add. lead embellished now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Description of juveniles is usually in the description section and not the breeding section, so I have reorganised and moved some text, but it was not entirely clear which in-line reference to copy. The information on juveniles is rather sparse in the article. Juveniles after the downy stage are not described in the article. Is there anything common about the colours of beaks, feet, eyes of juveniles in the pelican species that could be added to the article. How old are pelicans before they look like adults?Snowman (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had other jobs come up urgently so haven't had time to look at this and other questions above in too much detail tonight (or last night for that matter). Will look in the morning Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a last thing, the change has preserved the referencing correctly...now I really need to sleep. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to find a little on immature plumage - but it is hard to find information generalisable to the genus as a whole. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the breeding section: "They are mature at three or four years old." Does this imply that they breed at age three or four years? Is this referring to adult morphology that should be in the description section? What does a one or two year old pelican look like?Snowman (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always take it to mean (and I've always seen it mean) ability to breed and raise young. When talking about plumage generally texts will talk of adopting adult plumageCasliber (talk·contribs) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Its metaboliteDDE ..."; Is DDE the result of metabolism of DDT in fish (or other pelican food), or in pelicans, or both? I am asking this, because the article does not make it clear and I think that the readability and prose of the whole paragraph could be improved if this was explained better. The article says that DDT accumulates in fish; however, this may be an oversimplification if DDT is metabolised to DDE in fish. This article explains some aspects of DDE and DDT. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to get too technical about the biochemistry. If anyone reading the article is that interested they can follow the links and chase up the sources. If it is already too technical, cut out mention of DDE. Maias (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biochemistry is part of the article and we are aiming for FA standards. The article says that DDT accumulates in fish and also that DDT is metabolised to DDE, but it can not be both. Snowman (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly can where it is not 100% metabolised immediately; it can be stored in fat and then metabolised as the fat is drawn upon as an energy source. Maias (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can not be 100% both. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not claim so; all it says it that DDT may be accumulated and, that when it is metabolised, DDE is a product, one that is toxic to pelicans. If this is not clear, then please amend it. Keep in mind, though, that the articles focus is on pelicans, not on toxicants and metabolic pathways that affect many other animals. We could put in all kinds of toxicological stuff about domoic acid or endrin or heavy metals, and exactly how they affect pelicans, but it might be better to keep such detail to articles about the toxicants concerned and provide links to them. Maias (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is repetition about DDT in the "Poisoning and pollution" and "Populations" sections. Snowman (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a challenge to minimise as much repetition as possible. Do you think we can minimise it further without disrupting the flow? Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image layout - after all the great work put into this article i would be glad to support, but image usage should be re-checked:
Breeding and lifespan- gallery (WP:Galleries). WP:Galleries has some (relatively) clear rules for galleries and i don't see, how this gallery complies with them. A gallery should a. not be replacable with separate, interspersed images (it is), b. should not contain repetitive images (first and second one are a bit repetitive) and c. should have a clear and comprehensive theme (if "nesting habits" is the theme, a gallery is not needed for just 2 distinct habits). The section has enough text to handle atleast 2 images, maybe even all 3. Also, the images should be displayed a bit larger, layout and details of the nesting areas are hard to see in this size.
Deepwater horizon oil spill - multiple images (WP:NPOV). The images are nice, but present the topic in an overly emotional construction (polluted birds -> enthusiastic helpers -> happy, free flying bird) with unencyclopedic captions. I am for environment protection just as much as the next guy, but Wiki articles aren't meant to spread "messages" in that manner. Suggestion: Keep the first 2 images, split them in separate images and add neutral, un-involved captions (like "Brown pelicans, covered with oil, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010" and "Volunteers (they are volunteers?) wash an oiled Brown Pelican at a rescue center in Fort Jackson, 2010").
another editor rejigged as a gallery the other day, which I meant to fix, and have now done so. Also rejigged the other image as suggested. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support after another read-through, meets all FA-criteria. Two Three final comments:
description of distribution ==> lead has "though they are absent from much of interior and southern South America", main text is "they are absent from polar regions, the deep ocean, oceanic islands (except the Galapagos), and inland South America, as well as from the eastern coast of South America from the mouth of the Amazon River southwards.". These descriptions seem to differ slightly (the mouth of the Amazon River is not in "interior and southern South America").
Description - "The tail is short and square, with 20 to 24 retrices. The wings are long and broad, suitably shaped for soaring and gliding flight, and have the unusually large number of 30 to 35 secondary flight feathers." ==> Lots of information and the end of a paragraph, a source (or duplication of existing source, if the next para has the same source) should be added.
found ref, though no idea where retrices number comes from (not in that one). have commented out number for the time being until a source is available Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Breeding - "Parents of ground-nesting species sometimes drag older young around roughly by the head before feeding them." ==> any information, why they drag them like that? Also source for this observation? GermanJoe (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS for images, shouldn't the picture of Queen Elizabeth I face the text (perhaps by left aligning it under the Christianity section)? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that but was concerned it'd interrupt the headings on the LHS. An image is also not supposed to go directly under a lvl 3 header....if you want to rearrange I am open to this.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How if it was moved left over the paragraph starting with "The self-sacrificial aspect of the pelican was reinforced". Then it would not be directly under the header? It would interfere with the "Heraldry" header, but the video further above also interferes with the "Breeding and lifespan" header. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it now. We can just see how folks feel in general.Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks alright to me, though I'm not sure anyone else would notice... FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that made me wonder is the "knob" on the white pelican, had never heard of it before. Does it have any other function than display? Could maybe be good to mention what the function is, as it features prominently in the article, both in an image and in the text. Do both sexes possess them? FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See I thought the placement of the mention (among bright skin in pre-breeding time) indicated it was to do with courtship. Will look tomorrow. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understood that, but I was wondering whether it was only used for display during courtship, or perhaps more than that (something physical between mates or competitors), but perhaps it is too much detail in an article about pelicans in general? The article about the species itself isn't to much help though, the general pelican article has more detail about the knob. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. It's a short former business route in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, but the roadway's history back to the city's founding is here. Enjoy! Imzadi 1979→ 20:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I have a few concerns with the article before I can support it for FA:
In the route description, you use "stoplight" and "stop light". Can this be made consistent?
"stop-sign-controlled"., I don't think there's supposed to be a hyphen between the first two words.
The route description has both the present tense for the current road and past tense for the former business route. Can this be made consistent? Dough4872 01:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
Done.
Yes, it's a compound adjective.
No, it can't. The business route designation is in the past, so I can't use present tense with it. The streets still exist under their street names, so I can't use past tense with them. The only way to "fix" this is to lose the variety of ways to reference the roadway. Imzadi 1979→ 02:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article looks good now. Dough4872 02:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I read the article before its FAC nomination and was thoroughly impressed by the depth of research it represented. The history section is particularly rich, with details and applications that go far beyond standard requirements. I also like the relevant and high-quality illustrations. Certainly an example of outstanding work by the author. Juliancolton (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment - Please change "was" to "is" in the section titled "Major intersections". I think this thoroughfare is still existing, right? 89119 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Never mind, just checked the article which proclaims that the route's number is now defunct.[reply]
Comments: Supported below Great to see a well written short article at FAC, much easier to review than combing through 12,000 words. I spotted very few issues--just some comments on the prose. It looks pretty good though, and will likely support soon. I made a few copyedits to the article, feel free to revert them.
"Those two streets originate with the early founding of the city in the middle of the 19th century. Jurisdiction over the two streets was transferred to the city" Some repetition of "two streets" here.
"The widest street in the city at 100 feet (30 m), Baraga Avenue was intended to be the city's main street when the city was originally laid out, " Some repetition of "city" here.
"The western terminus of former BUS US 41 is the west end of Washington Street" I'd suggest "The western terminus of BUS US 41 was the west end of Washington Street"
"The founding fathers arrived in Marquette on May 18, 1849, to settle the area" I'd suggest avoiding "founding fathers" here for clarity, maybe "Marquette's founding settlers arrived in the area on May 18, 1849,".
"In the last survey in 2004 from the department, there were 10,272 vehicles per day" potentially ambiguous, how about "In the department's last survey, conducted in 2004, there were 10,272 vehicles per day"
"As a part of these maintenance responsibilities, the department tracked the volume of traffic that used BUS US 41. These volumes are expressed using a metric called annual average daily traffic" Not a big issue, but you switch from past to present tense here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, copy edits have been applied. Please let me know if additional changes should be made. Imzadi 1979→ 23:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fixes look good, glad to support this article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes
Not that taken with the opening sentence as it is now, i.e. Business US Highway 41 (BUS US 41) was a state trunkline highway that served as a business loop off US 41 and M-28 in the US state of Michigan through the city of Marquette along Washington and Front streets. -- as an Aussie I appreciate the thought of clarifying that Michigan is a US state, however I gathered that from the article title and three previous instances of "US" in this very sentence. Suggest better to drop that "US" and just link Michigan. You could even trim further and render as Business US Highway 41 (BUS US 41) was a state trunkline highway that served as a business loop off US 41 and M-28 through the city of Marquette, Michigan, along Washington and Front streets.
Image check, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:MarquetteMI FrontSt 1909.jpg - Public domain in Florida (that's all we need, right?); not PD in Mexico or Colombia however (3 years to go for the latter; 23 for the former)
File:Marquette, Michigan, 1927.jpg - Public domain; released without copyright in US between 1923 and 1977 (1927); author not given so I'm unsure of its status in other countries which don't implement rule of shorter term based on year of death. As above I believe our requirement is simply that it's PD in Florida, however.
If I understand our requirements for free imagery then everything here checks out alright as free and properly used. GRAPPLEX 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise the image review is spot on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the information/licensing for the map. Unfortunately the source link has gone dead as the online exhibit at The Henry Ford has ended. Imzadi 1979→ 03:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question: is the underlying map from a webprogram or drawn on your own? Open Map is free, but Google isn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[72] has it. (I searched for "P.DPC.071274" in Google, and that came up. ) It appears then that The Henry Ford didn't end the only exhibit, just reshuffled things online. Imzadi 1979→ 03:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The USRD project uses freely available GIS data from the various states to generate its maps. Imzadi 1979→ 03:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article now meets the criteria. One of the main issues in the last nomination was the prose, the article has recently had a copyedit and hopefully these issues have now been resolved. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Not a big fan of what your copy-editor did by linking England and Great Britain in the lead. Such well-known countries really don't need the extra links.
"The UEFA Cup Winners Cup was inaugurated in 1960, created for the winners of domestic cup competitions." The re-wording has revealed a little redundancy; "was inaugurated in 1960 for the winners..." would be tighter than what's there now.
First two words can be removed from "in order to intimidate the Italians."
In the 1981 Intercontinental Cup summary, the score needs an en dash. The copy-editor should have caught that one.
"A 6–2 aggregate victory up a tie against Auxerre of France in the second round...". Missing "set" before "up".
Conflict between singular and plural tenses here: "This proved the club's most successful campaign since its return to European competition, as they reached the semi-finals, where they were eliminated 3–2 on aggregate by French team Paris Saint-Germain."
"but victory in the 2011–12 Football League Cup ensured Liverpool a place in 2012–13 UEFA Europa League." Missing "the" before 2012–13?
Did we ever establish LFC History as a reliable source for FAC purposes? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done all the above. Regarding LFC History, it is a statistical site which provide the official stats of the club. This is evidenced by the sixth paragraph on this page. NapHit (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"...having conceded the fourth place needed to qualify for the Champions League to Chelsea on the final day of the previous league season" the sentence suggests that Liverpool were in pole position for fourth place, but in actual fact Chelsea were there since January 2003. Could be rephrased.
Agree, it wasn't the best wording, had a go at rephrasing it, should be more clearer now. NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Juventus won the match 1–0, Michel Platini scoring" replace comma with semicolon
"Liverpool faced six-time European champions Milan in the final at the Atatürk Stadium in Istanbul." would be nice to include when – the specific date perhaps.
"Liverpool entered the 1983–84 European Cup as 1982–83 Football League champions" any reason why that Football League season is wikilinked and the others aren't? Moreover, to avoid ambiguity, they won the 'Football League First Division' – Football League refers to the entire group of teams. Perhaps you can rephrase the sentence to something like "Liverpool entered the 1983–84 European Cup as league champions for the fourth time in five seasons" so it would be more inline.
done as suggested NapHit (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"German team Hamburg, who had just signed Keegan." could do with a citation.
"Their first match, in the UEFA Cup, was against Finnish side Kuusyi Lahti, which they won 6–1." also could do with a ref. Managed to find the match report from the Guardian archive (Stephen Bierley is the author) should you wish to use it. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cited this and sentence after as well, not sure if you're supposed to include the link, when its an archive, but done it anyway can always be removed if you're not supposed to. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed. Happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strikes the right balance between maintaining comprehensiveness and avoiding undue weight, which in the case of a club who have played in Europe as often as Liverpool is no easy task. Football-wise its looking solid as I read through it. Just a couple of nitpicks: "KR Reykjavík" suffers PIN number syndrome syndrome. Not keen on the single word easter egg link to 1973 UEFA Cup Final, perhaps it would be better if "second European final" was the linked term.Oldelpaso (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, have fixed the two nitpicks you had. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the fourth paragraph of the lead, Cup Winners' Cup ought to be written as UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and wikilinked.
"Shankly was the first Liverpool manager to win a European trophy" - full stop needed.
"following relegation from the First Division during the 1953–54 season" - they were relegated after the season, not during it.
A few instances of WP:OVERLINK; First Division and Intercontinental Cup are wikilinked in the History section despite already being linked in the Background section.
"The club won the match 3–1" - I think team would be more appropriate than club in the context of a match.
"Liverpool were eliminated in the second round by Bayern Munich of Germany, 3–1 on aggregate" - feels like there's a word missing before the score. Perhaps "losing 3–1 on aggregate"?
"they qualified for the European Super Cup against the winners of the Cup Winners' Cup" - perhaps "they qualified for the European Super Cup and played the winners of the Cup Winners' Cup" or something similar? At present it seems a little abrupt.
Very nitpicky, but penalty shootout ought to be penalty shoot-out.
"Juventus won the match 1–0; Michel Platini scoring from the penalty spot" - tense change to "Juventus won the match 1–0; Michel Platini scored from the penalty spot".
"the FA Cup, and the League Cup" - superfluous comma. Same with "Dutch team PSV Eindhoven, and Chelsea".
Not a fan of the use of red in the tables; could a neutral colour be used, as is done here on the corresponding Arsenal article?
I also like this on the Arsenal article; any chance of having one here too?
As is done here on the corresponding Manchester City article, I'd retitle the present Notes section to References and then retitle the present References section to Bibliography with a level 3 heading.
Thoroughly interesting read and as has been said it's very well balanced. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Matty, much appreciated. I've addressed all your comments. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. A few follow-ups.
The key refers to F and A as denoting Goals for and against, but the tables themselves use GF and GA.
The By season table doesn't have a source.
I'm not sure we need the date above the By competition table, since none of the other tables use one. I'd remove it and place the ref after "Liverpool F.C. record in European football by competition".
In the footnote I'd use East Germany rather than German Democratic Republic, and there should be a "the" before Soviet Union. The sentence needs a full stop too.
The key ought to explain what is referred to by GD.
Thanks for the comments Matty, addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a fusspot here, but the new ref doesn't provide goals for and against in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup or the UEFA Super Cup and doesn't include any details for the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, the Intercontinental Cup or the FIFA Club World Cup. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I can use the link to this, all the information is there, although you do have to click though a few things to get there it is there, does that suffice? NapHit (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that being used, although for the reader's benefit I'd add something like "Access to record in each competition via relevant links" to the reference after the cite template, in this fashion. However, the club's season-by-season record in the Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup are not included in this link, so they'll need citing from somewhere else. Also, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is given no mention at all. Perhaps one of your Liverpool books could come in handy for the older competitions? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled across this, which should do the trick for the European competitions.One of my books does have info on the Intercontitnental Cup, which I'll use, got a ref for FIFA Club World Cup, so should be alright now. NapHit (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those look grand. Hope you don't mind that I've slightly rearranged their composition. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with a hatnote like Main article: Heysel Stadium Disaster at the beginning of a section dedicated to summarising the topic, but it does look a bit odd in the middle of a section. In this case I'd expect the main article to be linked in-line, e.g. piping it to "caused a retaining wall to collapse" or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree about the hat note, have changed as you suggested. Regarding the image check, should I ask someone to do one, or wait and see if is done? NapHit (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check I've run through all the images, and their copyright status is fine (File:Bill Shankly statue.jpg appears in line with the UK's freedom of panorama laws as explained at Commons, and the information provided for the release of File:Amicizia.jpg by its creator looks fine to me). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is FA quality and deserves to be considered as a Featured Article. The first nomination was closed with very few comments, so User:GrahamColm has issued an exemption so that this article can be re-nominated before the customary two weeks pass. Sycamore (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a fellow Greek (ATΩ), I found this article interesting as while my school has a chapter of KKPsi, I have not known a lot about them other than it is comprised of mostly band majors (and work with TBSig). Anyways, as a Greek organization, have you found any totals on how much KKPsi has raised nationally for any philanthropies or charity events (or maybe give an example of some of the biggest fundraisers KKPsi has done)? I know you mentioned something about blood drives in the article, but I cannot imagine that is it for them. I would also expand the 2011 incident where alumni was expelled from the former FAMU chapter to say why they were expelled (and also several members were made alumni due to this closing too, which wasn't noted). I would also and try and link Colony in its earliest instance in the article (under Membership pins). I would also put a photo of the badge, even if you have to claim fair use (since I know a lot of fraternity and sorority badges were put up for deletion on the Commons) unless there is something about Ritual that prevents the badge from being displayed. But other than those comments, I like the article and I would like to see it become an FA. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you cannot display the badge, I suggest putting a photo of a lettered shirt in that section. I know you have SVGs of what the blocked letters look like (Mega Greek font IIRC, since I had to use the same font for ATΩ shirts) so I would put it on a shirt or something. If you cannot do this, I can. If you prefer a real shirt, I suggest Flickr or if you are a KKPsi Brother, then take a photo of your own shirt and use it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a picture of the badge (the Commons version exists but is still nominated for deletion), wikilinked "colony," and clarified the issues you mentioned with the FAMU chapter. KKPsi differs from most fraternities in that we don't have a national philanthropy, so it would be difficult to track down the philanthropic efforts by individual chapters. Generally, KKPsi chapters fundraise for the university's band program or for members of the band (purchasing/repairing instruments, offering scholarships, etc.) but how chapters do this is up to them. It would be difficult to get that kind of a number without a national survey by Headquarters. I can say for discussion purposes here that my chapter raises and spends around $2000 annually for projects that we do for our bands, but I don't know if that's a high or low number relative to other chapters. Because of this, I tried to include a variety of projects by chapters that had received media attention. Sycamore (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand about the lack of national philanthropy, ATΩ is in the same boat (but each chapter picks their own). I was just curious, since dealing with philanthropies was one of my main things I did as an ATΩ. I can see what I can do since Arkansas Tech has KKPsi and maybe ask around to compare. But what you did was fine and I really liked the article. SupportUser:Zscout370(Return Fire) 02:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these issues have been fixed. FN36 I do not have a page for; all information I have about the source is included in the citation. Regarding FN13, this came up in its GAN and while I realize master's theses are not generally considered reliable, the thesis cites all its material and includes an appendix of many early fraternity documents and items of interest. I would contend that its existence as the only comprehensive history of the fraternity by an outside party makes it influential. All items that cite this could be backed up by the primary Fraternity documents Jameson cited, but I would have to negotiate access to them from Headquarters. Sycamore (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With FN36, that same information was covered by another source so I think it could be safely removed. For FN46, I would put it as Cover or A1 and I can do that right now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 02:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted an interlibrary loan request for FN36. I'm fairly positive the page number is 1 but I want to make absolutely sure before I change it in the citation. Sycamore (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Have you managed to fill the interlibrary loan request you mention above? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page number has been added to the citation. Are there any further comments? Sycamore (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comments
I'm in favor of it making FA, these comments are tweeks which may or may not be userful
I only found one duplicate link (for Colony), but the links are quite some distance apart so I'm fine with it.
I linked Santa Fe Railroad in the header, just seemed right.
Went looking through Google News, not much out there prior to 1995 at all...
I didn't notice the duplicate link to Colony. I agree that it's far enough apart, but if someone disagrees I don't have a problem removing the second link. Google News doesn't have a whole lot of useful material, but your link and query about the NIB inspired me to look at OSU's library, and sure enough they had archived the OAMC paper that discussed the first NIB concert. I might be able to gather up enough information on the NIB to spin off a new article, but that's secondary to this. The Eta Eta revocation didn't get very much media attention and didn't result in a lawsuit like the Theta Delta situation, and since I haven't been able to find a modern source that discusses chapters with no music department, I hesitate to add something like that to the article. Thanks for the comments and support! Sycamore (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the source saying that "The Purdue band is the only band to have a chapter of Kappa Kappa Psi without having a music school", I don't think that's the case. As far as I can find, the University of Cincinnati (Upsilon chapter installed 1928) didn't have a music school until the Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music became part of the university in 1962. It looks like Georgia Tech (Iota chapter installed 1924) didn't even get a music department until 1963, which only became a school of music in 2009. That's two, with just a few minutes searching; a more in-depth search could probably turn up more. cmadler (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_Crest.svg: I'm assuming KKP holds copyright to this? Should say so explicitly. Also, why the doubled licensing tag?
File:National_Intercollegiate_Band_1947.jpg: use of this image doesn't meet the criteria for "unique historical image" fair use, particularly given the deficient "purpose of use" statement
File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_recognition_pin.png: when was the pin pictured created? Same with File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_prospective_pin.png and File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_Badge.png
File:KKPsi-TBSigma_District_Map.svg: what base map was used to create this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the badges--I assume you mean when the physical badges were created? The badges were designed in 1920, and these badges were purchased from the jeweler between 2010-2012, but none of them have jeweler's marks denoting their creation date. The dates on each image are when the pictures were taken. The Coat of Arms and District Map issues have been fixed, and I am waiting for a reply from the National Executive Director about releasing the NIB image under a free license. Sycamore (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the prospective member pin, recognition pin, and badge all survived a recent deletion discussion on Commons, where it was determined that the underlying works were all created in 1919-1920 and are unchanged since then, therefore PD. The same is true of the crest.cmadler (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after thinking about it, I think the crest/coat of arms has not changed at all, but the fraternity primarily uses a different image. As with traditional heraldry, a specific image of the crest is copyrighted (by the image creator) but the blazon (description) is not, and a new free image can be created from that description. Perhaps a participant at commons:Commons:WikiProject Heraldry could create a free version? In this case it can be based on a written description as well as any PD images (pre-1923 or published without copyright notice). cmadler (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the coat of arms (and any version that could be created from its blazon) is trademarked and it would make the most sense for us to use the actual image that the fraternity uses so we don't confuse people or misrepresent the fraternity, especially when they're talking about developing a brand (as was mentioned at this year's NCD convention). Sycamore (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it has changed significantly, the text underneath if nothing else, and there are other changes which appear to be significant to me...Naraht (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The National Executive Director has told me that the NIB photo is actually in the public domain due to its publication without copyright notice. I have updated the file's licensing information to reflect this. Sycamore (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, upon a thorough search through copyright records and fraternity documents, I can't find any evidence that the Coat of Arms image currently in use was ever registered for copyright or published with a copyright notice. It was first published well before 1977 and I have therefore updated its license to reflect its status as PD-US-no notice and transferred the file to Commons. Sycamore (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Could you update the image description pages for the pins/badge to include the approximate design date, rather than the upload date? Other than that, images look good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-check and comments – Checked seven sources and found a few issues, namely with refs 23, 43–45 (over districts), and 53. A couple of them may be my lack of familiarity with the topic, to be fair. Also noted a few other things I saw in the process.
Ref 23 is dead, so I couldn't check it. That will need to be dealt with in some fashion.
Ref 31: "The national chapter of Kappa Kappi Psi closed its FAMU chapter because of hazing and uncertainty." Article: "After the conclusion of both the police and fraternity investigations, the national council closed down the chapter because of its violations of fraternity policy and the uncertainty of the future of the FAMU band program." The source also mentions "uncertainty over the leadership and direction of FAMU's music department", so that part's covered.
Ref 31 again: "28 members of the fraternity have been expelled. That includes all undergraduates and pledges from the spring of 2010." Article: "As part of the chapter's termination, twenty-eight members, including all active and prospective members in spring 2010, were expelled from the fraternity." No problems here.
Ref 32: Covers the same material as ref 31. Neither ref 31 nor 32 mentions the investigations, but there are two other sources covering that sentence that I didn't check. Maybe one of them has that covered.
For refs 43, 44, and 45, I don't see a mention of districts X and XI. Is that the same as Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma?
Ref 45 covers the second sentence it sources adequately, with no close paraphrasing concerns. The third sentence it sources must have material from page 4, which I don't see on Google News. I assume good faith that this is sourced adequately, based on what else I've seen.
Ref 53 says that the caboose was purchased by the director of Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma, not by the group itself. Also, it mentions a museum, not a history program, although perhaps they are one and the same. I haven't read enough of the article to know that.
While I'm here, ref 25 needs a publisher and access date.
Still needs those things. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ref 33 needs the publisher (Tallahassee Democrat) italicized.
Last word of the Early 21st Century section heading should be decapitalized, as that isn't a term that should normally be capitalized.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23: I have found a copy of the original article at http://www.insidehazing.com/headlines.php?idno=685&headlines2Page=4. Would this be acceptable as an archived version of the original article in lieu of a Webcite archive? The archive from Archive.org does not seem to be working.
As a rule, I'm leery about using non-official websites like this for archives. That makes it dependent on how reliable insidehazing.com is. Is an offline cite possible? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I can't find a reliable archive anywhere and don't have access to an offline copy. I have removed the section in question for now but if I can find an acceptable archival copy or get a physical copy through interlibrary loan I'll readd it. Sycamore (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 32: As you guessed, refs 33 and 34 refer to the investigation.
Refs 43-45: These sources refer to the "Atlantic Coast Intercollegiate Band" performing at the "First Annual Atlantic Coast Convention" at the University of Virginia in 1958. That sentence also cites ref 18, which clarifies that this was at the District X and XI Convention: "Both Districts agreed to meet together for Convention in 1958." "1958 District X and XI Convention held the first ever District Intercollegiate Band." "Convention Site: 1958 University of Virginia (Districts X and XI)". I'm not sure why the newspaper references refer to an "Atlantic Coast Convention" rather than Districts X and XI because there has never officially been an "Atlantic Coast District" of KKPsi or TBSigma. I hope this is adequate. As for the Google News problem, I tracked down page 4 which was mistakenly included with a future issue here. What would be the most prudent way to include this link?
I'd pipe it to page 4 in the citation's page numbers. That way you don't have to make another reference and split the cites up. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 53: The caboose was purchased by the fraternity, but Col. Bonner is the specific person who, as executive director, made the purchase. I think putting that Bonner purchased it in the article would be splitting hairs. The museum and history program are essentially the same.
Ref 33 and Early 21st century: Fixed. Sycamore (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't strike the spot-checks, to keep them visible, but I'm satisfied that the concerns have been taken care of. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article looks good enough and satisfies the FA criteria. Keep up the good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. From the bad old days when state legislatures elected senators comes this tale of pressure politics, money, and influence starring Senator Mark Hanna and men putting themselves and their careers on the line to give or deny him another term. And, perhaps, their money. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to source and image issues. One of my recent peer reviews; all my concerns were addressed and I am now happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image and technical check and Support Wow. Superb initial submission. Images check out except the McKisson photo needs an author. You can list unknown if that's the case. Consider a support when source check complete and that author is added. Technical aspects look outstanding. PumpkinSkytalk 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've noted that the author on the McKisson is not known.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Support on prose. Interesting read although it is probably one of Wehwalt's shorter articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to consider all the circumstances. It is a master's thesis, yes; however, it is thoroughly footnoted, it is cited as a source by William Horner's book, which I've used extensively per here, and Warken went on to be a published historian, see his obit here. The policy is not hard and fast, but depends on the circumstances. It's higher quality than a lot of stuff we work from, it's cited to proper newspapers and to the then current biographies of the principal actors, and I have no issue with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for caring enough for digging that deep.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article refers to policy debates about "free silver versus the gold standard". Then at some later point the article refers to "Silver Republican" and "Silver Democrat". But the two are not explicitly linked. I'm assuming that the term "Silver Republican" refers to republicans who favoured free silver, but that needs to be explicitly stated. Also, given that the issue is a recurring theme in the events described by this article, I don't feel wikilinking "free silver" is enough - without visiting that article, I had no idea to what it referred. Furthermore, I note that the "free silver" WP article says that supporters were referred to as "silverites", yet the Ohio 1898 election WP article refers to them as "Silver". This could use a tidy-up. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put in a bit when discussing the 1896 election. I don't think "silverite" was a formal term. I'll also put in a hatnote, perhaps, to Cross of Gold speech#Background, which contains thorough background on the silver issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now. Silverite is a term for a silver supporter, but it is not the only such term. I hope this is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have obviously no previous experience with the subject dealt in this article, but the fact that I was able to read it from top to bottom and fully understand it reveals that it has been well written. I believe it's a great choice for a new FA and I can only wonder how much work Wehwalt probably had doing it. It was certainly worth the reading. --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the good words and for the support. It took about a week to write.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes:
Wehwalt, is it standard for such article infoboxes to duplicate candidate name/party links under "Senator before election" and "Elected Senator"? If so, leave them; if not, looks like blue overkill.
It's consistent with all other Ohio Senate election articles, though none are featured, example. The only other featured article on a Senate election, United States Senate election in California, 1950, did not involve an incumbent gaining re-election, however, the victor in the race, Richard Nixon, is of course named and linked in the candidate information below his picture and above his vote total. So I would say that it's consistent with existing articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian and PumpkinSky, can you clarify whether your requests for source checks have been met by Nikki's review, or were you after spotchecks for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with Nikki's review. No other checks required. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with Nikki's review too.PumpkinSkytalk 22:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been working on this article for a little while. It was listed as a good article in March this year; I've since had it peer reviewed and had additional feedback from other editors. I feel that it is now ready to be nominated as a Featured Article. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 13:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definition
There are at least two other meanings of "Religious language" that this article doesn't seem to cover. 1. "a language used in worship in a particular religion (e.g. sanskrit, latin, classical arabic etc.)" 2. A speech register of any that is reserved for use in religious functions. This article treats one particular definition of "religious language" found in analytical philosophy as if it were the only meaning of the phrase. I don't even think it is the most common one - at least not within linguistics where the two other ones are the only one's used. I know of several books that use "religious language" in one of the previously mentioned senses. I think that if this article wants to treat only the topic that it currently treats it should be moved to Religious language problem or something like that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to religious language problem (and slightly changed the lead to fit with the page move). I think you're right about the scope of the article, and that title seems to better fit the topic. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a 'problem' though? The problem isn't necessarily in the language itself but in the interpretation of it. When faced with, say, Ayer's views of religious language (and metaphysical and ethical language too), the orthodox believer need not conclude there is a problem with religious language but rather that there is a problem with Ayer's presuppositions! I'd be very cautious about suggesting something is a problem in the title unless it actually is widely acknowledged and described as such in the sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean. I was hasty in changing the name last time, so I'll wait for further discussion. Tom, I think I agree with your view about the word 'problem'; however, as Manus said, I religious language on its own is to broad in scope. Would a religious language (philosophy) be appropriate in this situation, do you think? ItsZippy(talk • contributions)
Not at all sure. 'Religious language (philosophy)' might be okay, or indeed 'philosophy of religious language'. I'd probably have to be slightly more familiar with the sources to know. Maybe even 'Philosophical accounts of religious language', although that's a bit of a mouthful. Perhaps WikiProject Philosophy and/or WikiProject Religion might be able to help. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is normally phrased as a problem of logic and semantics. I don't think the "philosophical accounts" works.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy of religious language might work: the topic falls under the wider scope of philosophy of language, and is specified to the religious aspect. I'll leave a note at the Philosophy WikiProject (though they tend to be slow to comment on things). I'm wondering if it's worth continuing the FAC or withdrawing it, resolving the name issue and renominating it in a month. As an irregular here, advice would be appreciated. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 14:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're convinced of what the name should be, move it and continue the nom. If you're not, open a RfC/RM/whatever to get more input, and in the meantime withdraw and renominate once the name issue is resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer reviewed this a month or so ago, and all my comments were dealt with. The subsequent edits seem to have improved the article further. This is a tough subject, but I think the nominator has done a commendable job with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose I tried to read this article but my brain was hurting in the middle of the first paragraph. I think at least the intro needs to take a step back and be more engaging to a casual reader if this were to be a FA. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked again, and I noted that the lead does seem to be longer than most articles of its length. Perhaps trimming it down could help its readability? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially reduced the length of the lead, and also attempted to simplify and clarify some of the more complex bits. Does that look alright, or does it need further work? ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 17:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better but to be honest I think you should aim to trim another quarter of what is now (3 para instead of 4?). Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just read the lead and I think it is perfectly clear and appropriate. Before reading it, I knew nothing about the topic. Leonxlin (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nervous of taking too' much out of the lead, because I don't want to over-simplify the issues. To me, four paragraphs seems much more appropriate than three (and I think it breaks up the lead nicely into: an outline of the problem, classical and alternative explanations, challenges, and language games/parables). What do other people think on the length and clarity of the lead, since I shortened it yesterday? Nergaal, are there any specific parts which are less clear or overly long that you think I could work on? ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply, but I agree with the changes to the lead, looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: I set out to verify every seventh note. I ended up verifying items 7, 14, 21, 35, 42, 49, and 56, using Google Books preview and Amazon's "Look inside". These features were not provided for item 28 (Singh 1990). For 63 and 70, the specific pages cited were not available, but the sections those pages were in fit the context.
Overall, pretty impressed. Often the article has clearer language than the sources themselves. Leonxlin (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose concerns
The parenthetical "lacking substance" gloss for incorporeal is somewhat patronizing since the word is nontechnical. Though I wouldn't want it changed if editors have come to agree on its being there.
Religious language is a philosophical problem because of the difficulties in accurately describing God: May I suggest arising from in place of because of?
For example, God may be described as incorporeal or ineffable (without substance and indescribable). This sentence is a bit odd. First, because God's being incorporeal has just been identified as a problem, and now it is being touted as a solution to the problem. Second, it says God may be described as ... indescribable. Perhaps this was intentional.
Reading through the article, I don't see any obvious problems.
Support, per above. Leonxlin (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support. Leaning (and not full) support because I was not able to read the full article. On first reading, the lead seemed difficult to me (I am completely naive about the topic). However, as I went on to read the text, the concepts gradually cleared. There is no doubt that it is difficult to summarize such a difficult and vast topic in the lead. The author has done a good job.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Leonxlin, I have resolved those three issues. For the last one, I used the source to cite the definition of the via negativa, then found a better one as a source for the example I gave, which is now clearer. Dwaipayan, thanks for your support; is there anything I could do to further improve the article? ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 14:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly speaking, I do not know how to suggest further improvement in this case. Admittedly the article is difficult for casual reading; it needs rapt attention. The topic is difficult, and I do not know what to suggest to make it more lucid. However, on repeated readings, the text gets easier to grasp.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Hare described a madman" - Perhaps a term more technical and less slang than "madman" would be more appropriate.
"Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed a 'calculus' theory of language" - I suggest losing the "scare quotes".
"Wittgenstein believed that religion is significant because it offers a certain way of life" - "a certain way of life" seems vague to me.
"Peter Donovan criticises religious language for failing to recognise that religion..." - This paragraph contains eight references to "religion" or "religious". Perhaps something can be done to break-up the redundancy.
"Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein" - This author is introduced twice this way in relatively close sections: "Logical positivism" and "Analogies of games" just below. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment Why you state that it talks about "a deity" and then you mention God. You need to clarify if this is about monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Since I don't think this article is about paganism you need to change it to "talk about God", otherwise it is confusing. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for that; I've dealt with all the concerns. With Hare's madman, I've changed the word to lunatic, which is what the sources use. Similarly, I've changed a 'certain way of life' to a 'particular way of life', which is used in the source. For all the rest, I have done what has been suggested. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 14:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ItsZippy has done an excellent job with a very difficult subject. I think the article reads particularly well considering the material and it appears to be quite comprehensive (though I do not claim to be an expert on the subject). The article is well-written, researched and is quite neutral. Well done, great work and thanks for this fine contribution to wikipedia! ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Marshall Applewhite was a soldier, singer, and teacher, but is best known for his role as the leader of the Heaven's Gate group. In 1997, he organized their mass suicide—the largest to occur inside the U.S.—expecting to be transported onto a passing spaceship. I've found him to be a fascinating individual, simultaneously racked with guilt over his sexuality and convinced of his status as the chosen messenger of the Kingdom of Heaven (which he believed to be an actual kingdom on another planet). Quite a bit has been written about Applewhite, but after a lot of reading I think I've used nearly all of the high-quality sources. The article is a GA and has been copy edited and peer reviewed by a number of helpful editors, so I think it's time to take it to the "Next Level". Mark Arsten (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I took part in the peer review a few weeks back and found this to be a well written and very engaging article. -- CassiantoTalk 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very funny and interesting article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was another participant in the peer review and thought it was in very good shape for FAC. Given my comments have been addressed since then, I would be happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reviewed this one for GA, I felt then it was ready to move up here and the subsequent PR has only improved it further. GRAPPLEX 01:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images - File:Ottheinrich_Folio289r_Rev6B.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, I've added the tag on Commons. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great article and I'm glad to support its nomination. I read through the peer review and I agree with what the editors above said. --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I probably don't need to comment here... but anyways,
Be careful of overlinking, I had to nuke a link to occult
"It is the largest group suicide that has occurred inside the U.S." - That might be better near the end of the paragraph
"(Most of the dead had been members for about 20 years, although there were a few recent converts.}" - Do you really need the parentheses?
I did a copyedit (mostly non-breaking spaces). You should double check.
Support - none of these are deal-breakers, but I expect it to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've really been slacking on the nbsps lately, huh. I like your suggestion about the lead and parenthesis and have done both; I could go either way on linking occult and capitalizing "theosophy", but I'll leave them unlinked and lower-case. Alright, thanks to everyone who has supported the article thus far, and Nikki for the image review, I'm glad to hear that you all like it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going based on the article (Theosophy uses the lower case "t" in-sentence). I left one link to occult but removed a second one which occurred about 2 paragraphs down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see about Occult now, I just picked off another dupe link. To muddy the waters a bit on the other issue, our Theosophical Society capitalizes "Theosophy" in each occurrence. Will think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fun fun. As it isn't a proper name nor is it derived from a proper name (unlike Calvinism, for example), I'd expect it to not be capitalised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember asking for it to be lower-case at GA ("Theosophical Society" probably treats it as a proper noun because it's part of that group's title, much as USAF would use title-case Air Force when referring to itself), or did I miss that? GRAPPLEX 01:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you remember right, you did say that on the GA review (I just checked). I think Accedie or Lfstevens capitalized it afterwards. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I also peer reviewed this article, and feel like the others do that it is a very high-quality piece. The article is well worth the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Following Grapple X's successful nomination of "Squeeze", I present, "Triangle". This episode is regarded by many as one of the best entries the series ever produced, as well as one of the last great episodes created. "Triangle" recently underwent a peer-review and was already promoted to GA status, earlier this year. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, and the page has sections for filming, themes, broadcast numbers, and critical reception. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, and one video, to demonstrate the episode's unique filming style. To anyone who would like to do a spot-check, I'd be willing to email scans of the books and articles in question. Thank you for looking at this and considering it. Gen. Quon(Talk) 03:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am known as the "X-Files Guy" around my friends, as I own every single season and the movies on DVD. While I personally feel that X-Cops is the best all around episode, if for no other reason than the acting and camera work were absolutely superb, I agree that Triangle is in the Top 5 best the series has to offer, and should be treated as such. Upon my reviewing of the episode in question, I agree that it is some of the Wikipedia community's best, and deserves to be featured. - User:Haon 2.0 (talk)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the pages consistent, fixed the dash/endash problem, and removed the dubious sources. If anyone is interested, I can send scans of the books over.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 18:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I totally forgot to mention that during the Peer-Review, the reviewer did a sourcecheck/spot check because she had the books.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 03:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I copy-edited half the article to cut down on redundant wording etc.
The guest actors list in the infobox is excessively long—it is not intended to be replacement/replica of the end-credits of the episode.
I haven't ever seen this episode so the first part of the Plot is completely unclear to me. Mulder is found unconscious in the sea—on a boat/raft? In what year? If the ship is commandeered by the SS, why do they suspect him of being a Nazi spy?
"Carter designed the episode in a style similar to Alfred Hitchcock’s film Rope." why does this need three refs?
Great video: but, in the spirit of minimum use, could it be shortened as the key bit comes only at the end of the thirty seconds?
I fixed some of the plot issues and removed the three refs. I'll try to shorten the video when I have a bit more time later. As for the infobox, I just matched it, stylistically, to all the other X-Files episodes, including "Squeeze", which recently became a FA. Are there certain individuals that should be removed?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Squeeze's cast is only a third as long, so I didn't notice it during my review. My problem here is with listing extras (First Mate onwards); Wikipedia is not IMDb.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The sailor, however, turns out to be a German spy, and a man strongly resembling Kersh takes control of the ship and steers it back towards Jamaica. Mulder tells them to turn around and go back to where they came from, but he is taken down to the ballroom by Nazis." — I'm not sure what the connection between the sailor being a German spy and '30s Kersh taking control of the ship is. Who is Mulder telling to turn around and go back where they came from — Kersh, the Nazis (it's not made clear Kersh is a Nazi)? Wouldn't "turning around" involve taking the ship back to Germany?
Series creator Chris Carter developed the idea for "Triangle" while working on fifth season episode "The Red and the Black."[2] For the latter, Carter had used more film than any other director but Kim Manners. The crew made Carter a mock trophy, which inspired him to write an episode that featured continuous action as a way to minimize film usage.[3] — Used more film than any other director of the series, correct? Needs to be made more specific, otherwise it sounds like he used more footage than any director of all entertainment or something.
"Triangle" was filmed in one continuous shot, so that when the actors entered the stage elevator, the set that they would move onto had to be constructed behind the closed doors. — This statement contradicts the rest of the article and common sense. It clearly was multiple shots that were edited together; how else did they cut from Scully to Mulder? This needs to be cleared up.
Davis was given the cassette two weeks before schedule; he noted that the method "seemed to work pretty well—at least to non-German-speaking people! It was a little more challenging because there were some real German speakers on the show, which I thought was a little unfair."[11] — Unclear what the thrust of this is; did he use the cassettes to learn his lines phonetically? Did they dub him?
Tried to clarify and fix this.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 18:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, when the episode aired, it was shown letterboxed, the first X-Files episode to receive this treatment. Carter reasoned that this method would allow for more action to be viewable in each frame.[8] — This doesn't really make sense without context. Was the episode shot with anamorphic lenses? If it wasn't, then letterboxing would be losing visual information from the 35mm stock (in essence cropping the image).
It doesn't say in the source. What I assume is that the episode was filmed like a movie, so probably with with an anamorphic lens. Then, instead of cropping it like was normally done, they just left it.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 18:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: they filmed it in "movie format", and then instead of cropping it to fit TV, they left it. Thus, it was letterboxed. How's it look now?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of showing them as "real Nazis"—as portrayed in third season episodes like "Paper Clip"—this episode portrays them as "dream-nazis". The following sentence suggests that what they mean is that they are deliberately more hokum, comic-book or exaggerated caricatures, but this sentence doesn't really make anything clear. The passage should be clarified.
I stole your "more hokum" as I feel it fits perfectly. Does it seem better now?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine, but if the source doesn't describe that as nonsensical or cliched characters, you can't really call them that yourself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source does call them that, thus the whole "dream-Nazi" and "comic book nasties" thing. I just reworded (by stealing your line) what they were saying.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if they didn't explicitly say that, it's original research. I think using language like that is going beyond what can be common-sense understood from the passage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this to "deliberately exaggerated", though I also considered "stereotypical" and "stylized"; those wordings to me seem more in line with the sources and I'm happy to use any of them depending on what reads best. GRAPPLEX 18:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all reviews were so positive; Alan Sepinwall, noting it as the episode "that turned out to be a dream", called "Triangle", "technically impressive but dramatically murky".[27] Before, you said there was only one exception to the positive reception. Which one is it?
I removed the "one exception" line.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 18:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I think you've done a compelling job in the article for including the video clip (it's interesting to see the proliferation of these things since when it was uncharted territory back when I started :D), there's much less of a defense for File:XFiles-Triangle-screenshot.jpg. The difference of character's appearances is not that important to the article, is already described in text, and applicable comments about characterization are not evident from the screenshot. I'd say it should be lost.
I've struck addressed comments, left one inline above. I think the prose still needs some work so I'm going to go through it myself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried to fix the remaining issues. What do you think now?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After confronting Assistant Director Alvin Kersh (James Pickens, Jr.) and Agent Jeffrey Spender (Chris Owens), Walter Skinner (Mitch Pileggi) provides Scully with information from the Pentagon and Scully leaves with the Gunmen to find Mulder. - So Skinner confronts Kersh and Spender, or does Scully confront the aforementioned and Skinner is the one who finally gives her the information?
The sailor, however, turns out to be a German spy, and a British sailor strongly resembling Kersh takes control of the ship and steers it back towards Jamaica. Mulder tells them to turn around and go back to where they came from, in order for the ship to pass back through the time warp and bring them back to 1998. Mulder, however, is taken down to the ballroom by Nazis. Ok I'm still a little confused. Mulder tells the Nazi what they're after, that I get; but why is that connected via semicolon to a (presumably Allied) British guy taking back control of the helm? And does he lose it again, or are the Nazis only in control of the ballroom?
Ok, I tried rephrasing the section. Mulder tells them to turn around and they remain in control. To be honest, the episode is kind of logistically fuzzy, so I'd assume they stay in control, but we're never told.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 03:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support—I've gone through and done another pass, and I think most of the issues I have are addressed. Indopug brings up a good point about the "later reception" section, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
I think this article is good to go, but for "Later reception", which needs a rewrite. It's a rather dull read and needs to be made more compelling. There are endless variations of how the episode is "one of the best/highlights of the season/show"; there's no need to include a review just because it exists, try to make sure a review contributes to your narrative of why it is so good, even after so many years since its release. With this mind, many sentences—namely, the declarations of the episode's awesomeness from DVD Talk/Journal/etc—can be culled outright. Further, I think the section can be structured better: separate the reviews about Carter's unique direction, the kiss etc.
Also, prose: the section uses the word "episode" 32 times.—indopug (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on this tonight. Hopefully will be better tomorrow.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm working on it in my sandbox as well speak (type). It should be up by tonight.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much re-written the last section, and organized it according to: general praise, comments about directing, comments about conceit, and finally, the kiss. I also cut down on the use of "episode" and tried to make the prose better. Tell me how it looks now!--Gen. Quon(Talk) 01:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Good job.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not sure how much weight this carries as I'm an active member of the relevant wikiproject but I feel that the article meets the criteria; I'm glad to back its promotion. GRAPPLEX 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- didn't see an image check above but from my own scrutiny the licensing appears okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Like many other Americans who founded religions, Clarence 13X is a very interesting character. He was a gambler, a community activist, and the founder of the Five Percent Nation. Although he is not well known today, the group he founded, though often controversial, has survived and prospered. I think this is a well-researched, balanced account of his life, thanks in large part to the help of Crisco 1492, The Rambling Man, and Acdixon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. Stellar work as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help, glad to hear that you like it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supportwith one comment. The article notes that Clarence 13X had two sons with Willieen Jowers, one son with a follower named Gusavia, and "several sons" with Dora Smith. It further notes that Gottehrer said Clarence 13X offered to let him sleep with his teenage daughter. Where did the daughter come from? All we have mentioned in the article are sons. Otherwise, the article has been improved substantially since I peer reviewed it, and it was in pretty good shape then. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 20:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough peer review and stopping by to support. Funny about the daughters thing, I recheck the page about his sons with Dora and it said they had daughters too. I must have overlooked that because the page was mostly about his thinking that sons were better than daughters. Hopefully this was one of those teachings that his followers adjusted over time. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope so. Switching to unqualified support, as the issue above has been addresssed. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Just a few nitpicks from me—overall, this is a well-done article.
"and also disagreed with the NOI's teachings that Wallace Fard Muhammad was a divine messenger." The "also" is redundant to the previous word, and can safely be removed without altering meaning, which would make the sentence a shade tighter.
Early life and Nation of Islam: "In 1946, he moved to New York City with his mother, where they settled in Harlem." "where" is modifying "mother" with this positioning, not the city as is intended. Moving "with his mother" to before New York City should fix this little issue.
Founding the Five Percenters: The last four sentences of the section refer to Clarence 13X as "he", and three start with "He". A little more variety in both aspects would be good.
Death: "and the mayor later visited the Five Percenter's school to express condolences." "Percenter's" → "Percenters'"?Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the read, those are great comments. I think I've taken care of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I made one spacing fix while checking the responses. With that and the above out of the way, I'm satisfied that this meets all of the FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^"Revolutions". Vibe. 15 (3). VIBE Media Group: 214. March 2007. Retrieved 2012-04-22.
^Cite error: The named reference Wright was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Musician1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Upscale was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Kot was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference WhoSampled was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference SacBee was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Bailey, Tamisha; Sommerlatte, William; Adams, Lischele (November 21, 1993). "KIDSDAY TALKING WITH Tony Toni Tone". Newsday. Melville: Times-Mirror Company. Part II section, p. 1. Retrieved 2012-05-04.
^"Top Albums/CDs". RPM. 58 (3). Walt Grealis. July 31, 1993. Archived from the original on 2012-04-22. Retrieved 2012-04-22.
^"Top Albums/CDs". RPM. 58 (10). Walt Grealis. September 18, 1993. Archived from the original on 2012-04-22. Retrieved 2012-04-22.
^"Top Albums/CDs". RPM. 58 (2). Walt Grealis. July 24, 1993. Archived from the original on 2012-04-22. Retrieved 2012-04-22.
^ abCite error: The named reference Gonzales was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
![[17]](http://www.weebling.com/artefact-pages/images/Musket-balls.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://www.colchestertreasurehunting.co.uk/M/musketsballs.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://images.ourontario.ca/Partners/llhm/LLHM071686.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://www.neaca.com/images/Musket_Balls_8_Rev_War_.JPG){kind=link}
Watchmen?—indopug (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
_(bird)_in_Mo_(by).jpg){kind=link}
_feeding_a_juvenile_in_Garapadu,_AP_W_IMG_5362.jpg){kind=link}
_map.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
