Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Exhumation of Richard III of England

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article in advance of the reburial of Richard III on 26 March 2015, an event which is certain to attract huge interest around the world. It has recently been through a GA review which it passed without any particular difficulties, so I'm confident that it's in good shape and is ready for consideration as a featured article candidate. Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please check for dead or broken links; Refs 88, 91 and 102 for example. Graham Beards (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I missed that in my GA review. Sorry.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by 3family6

[edit]

- Lead

  • The opening paragraph is a single sentence. That might be acceptable, I'm not that well versed in the MOS, but I think it should be expanded or merged into the following paragraph.
  • There is a citation in the lead for the injuries to the skull. Per WP:LEADCITE, I think this is something that could be better explained in the article, and thus a citation is not needed. The second citation in the lead I think is okay, considering it is supporting a direct quote.
  • I've taken out both citations. The first isn't really needed as the injuries are already covered in sufficient (sourced) detail in the article. As for the second, the direct quote doesn't really need to be a quote at all - it's already attributed. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Looking for Richard

  • "...which she envisaged as 'a proposed landmark TV special'." - this should have a citation, since it's a direct quote.
  • " Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story'.[28][18] Its objective was stated as being 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29] - the prose seemed slightly repetitive here. Perhaps re-write as "Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story',[28][18] with an objective 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29]"
  • University of Leicester Archaeological Services is given as a redlink in the lead, but is not linked in its first appearance in the article body.

- Citations

Support, now that changes have been carried out.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Richard was killed fighting Henry Tudor in 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last major battle of the Wars of the Roses. The Welsh poet Guto'r Glyn gave the credit for Richard's death to Sir Rhys ap Thomas.": I don't know how to weigh the credibility of the second claim here, and I can't tell if it contradicts the first claim or not.
  • "contemptously": Typo? If it's accurate, you don't need a sic, I think.
  • "Dissolution": use consistent capitalization
  • It's correct as it is. "Dissolution" with a capital D refers to the overarching event of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, while "dissolution" with a lower-case d refers to individual dissolutions of individual institutions. Thus "the friary's dissolution" is correct as this was an individual event while "the Dissolution" is also correct as this was the overarching event. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "geneticist Turi King continues to pursue a link": Whether this is okay depends on how you interpret the exception in WP:DATED for "current events". In general, it's better if you can give some kind of date, for instance "In 2015, geneticist Turi King was still pursuing a link ...", if that's true (but if it's not true, then the present tense is wrong, too).
  • "The reburial will take place": In-text attribution would be a little better ... that is, "X has scheduled reburial ..."

Support by Karanacs. This is an excellently written article, and very informative. I've watched some of the documentaries and read many of the newspaper articles, and you've done an excellent job of distilling the information down to an understandable level. Note that I did not check images. A few minor quibbles:

  • several instances of quotes without a citation at the end of that sentence
  • Two different names are given for the journal of the Richard III Society - The Ricardian and the Ricardian Bulletin
  • There are two journals - The Ricardian appears to be the major one for the big articles, while the Ricardian Bulletin is a smaller one for news and updates, published at more frequent intervals. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A table tomb was both the choice of the Richard III society in polls of Leicester people" - is that supposed to be "and" instead of "in?

Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close to a support. As others have said, lots of really good work here. A few minor comments on the prose from me:

  • "The dig was led by the..." would it be better to put this as "The archaeological dig..." in the first instance of its use? (or "The archaeological excavation...") (it felt a bit informal to me)
  • " show that £50 and £10.1s were paid to two men " - I couldn't quite work out if this was supposed to be two payments to both men (i.e. both got £50, and then £10), or if one got £50 and the other £10. Might just be me, but I'd have expected "£10 1s" or "£10/1s"rather than "£10.1s".
  • "Although Richard's monument had evidently disappeared by this time, it was still known where his grave was." - I wasn't sure who this was referenced to. It seems to be Halsted, writing in 1844, in which case the best we can say now would presumably be that they believed they knew where the grave was; we don't actually know if they'd placed the monument on the same location where we've now found the grave.
  • "Around when Herrick's pillar was erected, the cartographer and antiquarian John Speed wrote in his Historie of Great Britaine (1611) that local tradition held..." unclear if the "around when" is the date of Speed's book (i.e. 1611) - or if this bit refers to "local tradition held" and is an earlier date that Speed is commenting about. The article doesn't give the date of the pillar being erected, so its hard to tell from reading this paragraph.
  • "The coffin certainly seems to have existed" - as written, this gives the impression that the coffin in question was Richard's, which turns out not to be the case later in the paragraph. I'd suggest "A coffin..."
  • "the possible location of the king's grave" - the MOS would have this as "the King's grave"
  • I presume this bit: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases: [...] When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II." Is that what you were referring to, Hchc2009? Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Note -- Anyone prepared to sign of on sources for formatting and reliability? If no-one puts their hand up, Prioryman, pls list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll do so on Sunday, if nobody's volunteered before then. Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will do the source review. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Resolved source review from —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:*@Cliftonian: Thanks for taking this on. Replies below. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent regarding locations for sources. Some have locations given and some don't.
  • Halsted: "Volume 2" should not be italicised. Also do we have an OCLC for this?
  • We have "History Press" and "The History Press" in the bibliography. Be consistent
  • Why is the 2010 book by Ashdown-Hill listed after the 2013 book? My impression is that where you have more than one book by the same author in your bibliography, the earlier book should go first.
  • OK, I've swapped the order.
  • Why do you list the two Ashdown-Hill books in full in the source notes, when you could just put {{sfn|Ashdown-Hill|2010|p=x}} to get "Ashdown-Hill 2010, p. x."? Also, these two footnotes (7 and 53) are missing page numbers.
  • Footnote 1 (desk-based assessment) seems to be a full sentence but lacks a full stop.
  • Many of the web-based footnotes lack access dates (footnotes 27, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 55, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 86, 90, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 111)
  • Footnote 72 is to a book but has no page number
  • Perhaps a little quotation then so the relevant passage could be easily found if one wished to verify? Or alternatively look in the Amazon preview for a paper edition to find the page number? —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 76 throws up a distracting formatting error because of the "March/April" date; suggest trying to fix this
  • Footnotes 87 and 110 need page numbers as no web link is provided
  • Be consistent regarding formatting of BBC News
  • Be consistent regarding date formatting (footnotes 97 and 99 are out of theme)
  • Publisher/location for fn 103 (Military History Monthly)?
  • Ref 108: "Greig" spelt incorrectly as "Grieg"
  • Ref 58: Rachel Ehrenberg: first name and surname mixed up
  • Ref 54: Be consistent regarding how names are rendered (first name first/last name first)
  • Ref 75: The New York Times is a work, not a publisher
  • Ref 81: "Press release" is not necessary
  • Be consistent regarding initials: some have no full stop after, some have, some with full stops are spaced (X. Y. Zebedee), some are not (A.B. Carter). See refs 66, 91 and Rees in the bibliography
  • I've standardised on not using full stops or spaces - not the way I like it, but as I don't have any control over how some of the references are autogenerated from DOIs, that's the only way I can be consistent. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 69: "Anon" not necessary
  • External links: say from where this podcast is

I hope this is helpful. Cheers and thanks for all your work on this important article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capped resolved issues above. Just one more thing: the 2010 and 2013 Ashdown-Hill books don't seem to be used anymore, but are still in the bibliography. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support: A very interesting and well-prepared article. The prose probably needs a final light ce, as I noticed a few instances of clumsy phrasing, but nothing serious is amiss. I have a few relatively minor points:

Burial site
  • Para 2: A few more dates would be welcome. When did Herrick acquire the site? When did he erect the monument recorded by Wren?
  • What do you mean by the description an "independent" historian? And we don't use prenominals as in "Dr. John Ashdown-Hill"
  • Independent as opposed to affiliated with a university. It's pretty standard terminology. I've taken out the prenomial. Prioryman (talk)
Greyfriars project and excavations
  • I'm a bit puzzled by the final sentence. It reads as though they restored the car park before the identity of the discovered bones was known. That seems extraordinary – is it the case?
  • Yes, it is. It was a working car park and a condition of the dig was that the car park was to be restored when the excavation work finished - which as you say was before the skeleton was identified. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DNA evidence
  • I don't see the point of the quote marks in the first line. It's a statement of mere fact, not opinion or interpretation.
  • You have "matrilineal line" and "matriline" in the same paragraph. Do they mean the same thing? If so, the latter is less cumbersome.
  • "Four living descendants of Gaunt have been located.." Only four? The entire British royal family is descended from John of Gaunt, for starters.
Bones
  • "exposing the brain" – I'd say "which would have exposed the brain" as the organ has long since rotted away.
Identification of Richard III and other findings
  • You describe Michael Ibsen here as "a direct descendant of Richard's sister, Anne of York". In the earlier DNA section you rather obscure the issue by describing Ibsen's mother as "a 16th-generation great-niece of Richard's". The latter explanation is much clearer.
  • "Richard III is thus the first ancient person..." I'm not too keen on the description "ancient person", which might easily be misunderstood
  • I would place the paragraph dealing with the TV programme at the end, rather than in the middle, of the section.
  • ...but on the other hand, I'm not sure of the relevance of the last paragraph to this article.
  • It's essential archaeological context. The 2013 excavation was a direct continuation of the 2012 dig and was treated as such by the archaeological press (note the source - number 86). Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plans for reinterment
  • "...Leicester beating York by some 3,100 votes". What was the nature of the poll that produced this result?
Reactions
  • I'd keep the Buckley bit in, but I don't think I'd kick the section off with it. Perhaps at the end, as a wry conclusion.

I look foward to supporting and seeing the article on the main page next month. Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said earlier I thought the prose probably needed a little titivation. Now I see that Eric Corbett has been copyediting, and I'm inclined to trust his judgement over prose, so I've moved to full support. A worthy FA. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close to support A good article which I would like to see as TFA if the following can be addressed:

  • The copyright of the main image is in dispute and its use under UK law would clearly be a breach of the photographer's copyright. How does its use here fit the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria?
  • I think that's a dubious premise - as long as the image is regarded as OK under Commons (and more importantly Wikimedia Foundation) policy then we shouldn't be second-guessing its status as individual editors. The question of NFCC doesn't arise since it's not treated by Commons or WMF as non-free content and as far as I know there is no requirement to utilize NFCC criteria for such images. If you can point to such a requirement then I'll be happy to run up an NFCC statement. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my point - I'm not second guessing. It says on the image page "As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant or other countries may be regarded as copyright infringement." Does this make it free content or not? - I don't know. It may be that displaying this on the main page will precipitate a court case. One way to reduce that possibility would be to use a cropped image just showing his face as the do here.
I've been looking at this and the situation seems clear enough. The dispute was 6-7 years ago; there doesn't seem to have been any developments since then. Erik Moeller of the WMF has clearly stated the Foundation's position regarding such images here and Mike Godwin has done so here. The WMF position is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes." This particular image is a scan from a book. Commons policy is that the use of the PD-Art template is OK for a "Photograph of an Old Master scanned in from a recently published book", as in this case: "The WMF takes the view that as long as the reproduction is a faithful reproduction of the original it falls into the public domain." [4] This all seems to be quite clear and explicit - the position of the WMF and Commons is that it is free content and there is no suggestion anywhere that I can find that it should not be treated otherwise for licensing purposes. I'm really not inclined to attempt to change policy on the fly, especially as I'm not a lawyer (and nor, I would guess, are any of us on this page). Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Richerman (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead it says As a condition of being allowed to disinter the skeleton, the excavators agreed that, if Richard was found, his remains would be reburied in Leicester Cathedral but it says nothing about this in the article - where does it come from?
  • See the first sentence of "Plans for reinterment". It was part of the excavation plan which had to be approved by the Ministry of Justice, as it involved the disinterment of human remains. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says there it would be "normal archaeological practice" to do so, not that it was a condition they agreed to which sounds like something more out of the ordinary.
OK, I see what you're saying now. I've added an extra ref to clarify this. Actually it's not out of the ordinary at all, it's a standard condition of archaeological licences for exhuming human remains. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Looking for Richard second to last paragraph In February 2009, Langley, Carson and Ashdown-Hill teamed up with two Richard III Society members – Dr. David Johnson and his wife Wendy – to launch a project with the working title Looking for Richard: In Search of a King, which she envisaged as "a proposed landmark TV special" There are five people mentioned who does 'she refer to? Also it doesn't sound right to envisage a proposed landmark TV special - you would envisage it as a landmark TV special or possibly you may envisage producing a proposal for a landmark TV special.
(added) Sorry, I missed your first point here. "She" refers to Langley - I've clarified this in the article. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the Analysis of the discovery section seems to have the citations in the wrong place as citation 46 doesn't support the sentences before it although 47 and 48 support a lot of it. Where it says there was severe scoliosis of the spine, possibly making one shoulder higher than the other (to what extent would depend on the severity of the condition). I can't find any support for the bit in brackets, and surely the pathologist could tell from the extent of the scoliosis how severe the condition was?
  • In the second paragraph of Bones it says The wounds were made from behind on the back and buttocks while they were exposed to the elements, consistent with the contemporary descriptions of Richard's naked body being tied across a horse with the legs and arms dangling down on either side. This appears to be synthesis as I can't find anything about it in the citations - only that they were possibly humiliation wounds inflicted post mortem.
Yep, that's fixed it. Ironically the Royal Armouries’ curator says "My narrative that follows is a synthesis, based upon various elements from the historical accounts. Well, they can synthesise all they want :-) Richerman (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 71 is a dead link
  • Under Plans for reinterment it says the litigation cost the defendants £245,000. Who were the defendants exactly?
  • From personal knowledge, the University of Leicester and the Ministry of Justice; unfortunately the source doesn't say that explicitly so I can't state that in the article without straying into OR. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have this on the front page around the time of the reburial as proposed. I wonder if anyone have raised this possibility at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. I know it can't be proposed properly until it's an FA but time is short as they are looking at proposals for that time period now. If they were made aware on the talk page that this one is going to be proposed, they may be willing to leave a tentative slot open for it. Richerman (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for addressing those points - happy to move to support. Richerman (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Shepseskare

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Shepseskare, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, the fourth or fifth ruler of the Fifth Dynasty (2494–2345 BC) during the Old Kingdom period. Shepseskare lived in the mid 25th century BC and probably reigned a few months at the most. This article includes virtually everything that is known about this pharaoh and is part of an effort to improve all articles pertaining to pharaohs and pyramids of the 5th dynasty. It is my first FAC, all comments welcomed! P.S: the article has been promoted to GA on February 7th, 2015, I do not know why the GA icon does not show up.

Support. I reviewed for GAN and thought then that this impressively comprehensive article was suitable for FAC. Rereading it I remain of the view that it covers a little-known figure about as thoroughly as is possible; the prose reads admirably, the sources are wide-ranging and well cited, the balance is fine. This article far surpasses anything I can find elsewhere on the web, and I am happy to support. I imagine a spot-check of sources will be wanted if there is a consensus for promotion, and as I am going to the British Library today or tomorrow will carry one out. (Iry-Hor: the GA symbol shows all right on my machine: try clearing your cache.) Tim riley talk 07:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks I now see the icon. Let me know if you find anything new on Shepseskare during your British Library trip! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should simplify the Reign column of the infobox to something like "Uncertain; likely for less than a year or seven years in the 25th century BC". All that detail and citation doesn't belong in an infobox; move it to a footnote or two.—indopug (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done! This indeed clarifies the infobox. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the FAC instructions and avoid using transcluded "done" templates-- they cause problems in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check: I checked a 10% sample: refs 6a–b, 12, 26, 28a–c, 31a–b and 50. All absolutely fine. I haven't done the general source review as I find others are better at that task than I am. – Tim riley talk 14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RHM22

[edit]

This is a nice article with much useful information about a very obscure subject (my favorite kind). It's nearly there, but I do have a few comments which I think are important to the quality of the article.

  • Lede section: "...and is likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." This isn't really correct, since Shepseskare has been dead for over four millennia. Maybe change it to something like "...and was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." or "...was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..."
Ok! Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede section: "Fifth Dynasty" is used in the lede, while "5th Dynasty" is used in other parts of the article. Additionally, the capitalization varies throughout the article; sometimes "dynasty" is capitalized, and sometimes it's not. This needs to be standardized throughout the article. My suggestion would be to Capitalize, based on our article on the subject and the various Egyptology templates used.
I agree, it should all be capitalize now, as in "Fifth Dynasty". Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical sources: "...Remarkably, Shepseskare is..." I'd probably remove "remarkably" here.
Ok I have removed it. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duration: This is worded strangely: "...had a reign of only between one to two years." First, "only" adds a bit of awkwardness before "between." Second, "to" would normally be "and" in this context. I suggest "...only reigned between one and two years."
Corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pyramid: This section describes Verner's team as "Czechoslovak archaeologists," while he is himself referred to as a "Czech Egyptologist" earlier. I know that Czechoslovakia existed at the time of the 1980 expedition, but it might be a good idea to reword it a little bit to make that clearer to readers who might be familiar. Something like "a Czechoslovakian archaeological team...", linking "Czechoslovakia" for the unfamiliar reader.
Good point, I have updated the sentence with a wikilink to Czechoslovakia. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments: Nowhere in the body of the article does it say that Shepseskare was a pharaoh. Keeping in mind that the lede section is a summary and not an introduction, it is essential that everything in the lede be found also in the article. Once you've gone past the lede, the article seems to assume that the reader knows who Shepseskare is. Also, the lede and infobox are the only places in which the era of his reign (the 25th century BC) are given. The century doesn't need to be wikilinked, by the way.
I agree, I have added a small section "Identity" with references about him being a pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that I found on my read-through, other than a few typos and such that I've corrected.-RHM22 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm changing to support, as all of my concerns have been addressed. I would consider integrating the 'Identity' section into one of the two succeeding sections, as it is a bit small. However, as it is, I think it meets our standards of quality. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the "Identity" subsection in the "Contemporaneous sources" one. It is now the first 2 sentences of the subsection. This looks better since there is little to say about his identity. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks excellent. Very well done.-RHM22 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article. I also learned that Memphis is not where I thought it was... Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot

[edit]
Source check

I've spot-checked the citations to every source available to me, including Shaw 2000, Clayton 1994, and the linked online sources. I found several irregularities.

  • The link for Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005 is a duplicate of the link to Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000.
Yes it is a mistake, I don't have an url link to "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005". I had copied the entry of "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000" and then filled up with the details of the 2005 one when I wrote the article but forgot to remove the url. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the link for the Kratovac source lead to a video of an AP report that doesn't involve Kratovac? Shouldn't it link to this, or something similar, instead?
All the AP report came out the same day and the same day as the video with Kratovac as the author so I put her up. I thought the video was nice to keep but I have now replaced the video by the link you provided. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Clayton citation should be page 61 rather than 60, unless the pagination of your copy is somehow off from mine by one page.
Well I have the book as a pdf and it is clearly p. 60 on the book. Note that it shows up as p. 61 in the pdf reader. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. It's definitely 61 in my copy, but if it's just a pagination difference, it doesn't matter. A. Parrot (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the page number for the Redford 2001 citation?
Unfortunately I have not noted it when I had the book. However the book is an encyclopedia organized in articles and the articles are rather short. This one is a couple of pages long and, with the title, would be easy to find for any reader with the book. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article title is missing. Which one was it? I suggest specifying the article's author, as well. The Morkot citation template in Eye of Ra is an example, if you're not familiar with how to specify chapter and author in an edited book. A. Parrot (talk)
This was due to an error of formating in the sfn template, so that the article name was not showing up. I have corrected this, the location is now visible, being the article "Fifth Dynasty" written by Hartwig Altenmuller. I have also located the page numbers and I have added those. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner 2000 transliterates but doesn't translate the inscription on the serpentine seal. (I can recognize the words "beloved of the gods… beloved of Hathor" in the transliteration, but my knowledge of Egyptian is so limited that I couldn't say with certainty that that's what it means.) Because translation of Egyptian requires such specialized knowledge, it would be preferable to find a source that does translate the text, although I know that may not be practical.
Yes Verner does not translate and I know of no source which does. The text is extremely simple, being a few words long, so I did the translation. I don't think this constitutes original research since the text has only four words that anyone with a bit of Egyptian can understand. Feel free to remove it if you prefer, but I think this would be a loss for the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll let it be. A. Parrot (talk)
  • The Lehner citations are kind of mixed up. Citation 30a (in the caption of the illustration of Abusir) should refer to p. 142, not 148. 30b and 30c should probably be consolidated with the current Citation 52, as they all belong in that 146–148 page range.
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find support in my copy of Verner 2003 for Citation 33. Page 58 is nothing but a photo. More concerning, I can't find mention of Khau-Ptah anywhere in the book, so 33b needs a substitute ref. The sentence supported by 33a ends with a direct quotation that I assume is from 34, so it's probably best to have only one citation at the sentence's end.
Again it is a matter of edition: my page 57 is a photo but the p. 58 (i.e. probably your 59) is text, as in the Goog books version here. About 33b, I had put it for "his reign must have been very short" for which it provides a reference. I realize that this is in the context of the tomb of Khau-Ptah, however refs 43 and 44 both already indicate that Shepseskare's name is omitted in the tomb, thus referencing the first part of the sentence. I have reorganized the refs for the sentence but I have kept it. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The second-to-last sentence in the paragraph still concerns me, though, as it's not supported by a reference and isn't quite as obvious as the sentence that follows it. I'd be more comfortable if it were removed. The paragraph would still imply that Khau-Ptah's biography supports a short reign, without slipping into original research. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A. Parrot Sorry for the delay, I have removed the sentence as you advocated. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences at the ends of paragraphs lack citations (the first paragraph of the Historical sources section and the second-to-last paragraph of Duration). I realize they're rather obvious statements, but it's best to have a source at the end of every paragraph.
Done, except for the second-to-last paragraph of Duration, I actually do not know what to put here: while we have refs stating that Shepseskare is not listed by Khau-Ptah and that Neferefre is, I don't have one reference stating that this Five-Dynasty account is more accurate than Manetho. Yet it is quite obvious. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. That sentence can stay. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check over your other sources again, to make sure all the links go to the right place and that everything is cited to the right page. I know it's easy to make mistakes because you think there's something in the sources that isn't there, or is actually somewhere else. I had to re-check the citations for Eye of Ra about three times.

A. Parrot About Eye of Ra, you have 6 problems with the sfn template for refs 10, 14, 18, 22, 25, 28. You can see these thanks to a special script for this, see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm afraid I don't have time today to look over this article again, but I'll have time on the 16th to reply to you in detail. A. Parrot (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other points
  • Should the lead section mention the alternate spelling "Shepseskara"? It's not a major difference, so I don't think it's absolutely necessary to include, but I thought I'd bring it up, especially as Verner uses it some of the time.
Done, I agree, I have added the alternate spelling in the lede. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that Verner's views are going to predominate in this article, as he's done the most recent and detailed work on the pyramid site, and that attributing his hypotheses to him is better than omitting his name and treating them as fact. Nevertheless, the frequent mention of his name might give the reader the feeling that it's slanted toward his views. To avoid that impression, I've made some edits to avoid the repetition of his name, and I toned down some of the language about his disagreements with Kaplony (here). See what you think of my changes, and consider whether you might want to do more along the same lines. Not a necessity, just something to consider.
Good point and well done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can support this article if the referencing flaws are cleared up. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've looked at the new references for the image, and they all check out. Good work. A. Parrot (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

Nikkimaria Sorry for the delay. The image is entirely similar to the plan of the Abusir necropolis given by Miroslav Verner in the following source[1]:

Verner, Miroslav (2000). "Who was Shepseskara, and when did he reign?". In Bárta, Miroslav; Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000 (PDF). Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. pp. 581–602. ISBN 978-80-85425-39-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) See in particular p. 602. I added this ref to the picture caption. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added this info to the map's image as well for future re-users. Ideally all maps, graphs and other images depicting data should have source information (in theory at least). GermanJoe (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Verner 2000, p. 602.
It looks like everybody is supporting this as FA, so what next? Iry-Hor (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor: Once consensus is achieved, one of the FAC coordinators will come by and promote it. However, the process often takes quite a bit of time, so that plenty of consensus can be achieved. The reviewers might also request an image (already completed) or source review prior to promoting.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am discovering the FAC process so I wasn't sure what to do next. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Bramshill House

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most important Jacobean country houses in England. The current house was built in the early 17th century by Baron Edward la Zouche of Harringworth, but was partly destroyed by fire a few years later and subsequently redeveloped. The Italian Renaissance, which became popular in England during the late 16th century, is evident in its design. Some of the interior tapestries are quite remarkable pieces. It became a Grade I listed building in 1952, after which it became a police college.

This underwent vigorous research a while back, involving myself, Yngvadottir and Drmies, and Eric Corbett helped copyedit it up to beyond GA standard. It's been sitting for a while but I've recently checked to see if it is all there and it really appears to be very comprehensive. Thanks to a pretty decent peer review it has been further improved to the point I believe it is now ready to be nominated. Cheers.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – as one of the pretty decent peer reviewers I thought this article of FA standard then, and think so now. Meets all prose criteria, in my my view, and though I don't generally comment on images, being daunted by WP's arcane rules, the article is most pleasing to the eye. Seems to me to tick every box for FA. Tim riley talk 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Tim for some excellent comments during the review and your support! Yes some of the external images are very good but unfortunately I couldn't get hold of free interior images to show off the wonderful tapestries. I did contact the college. The black and white ones in the commons I checked and aren't free.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, without any reservations. Eric Corbett 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Eric for your support and the copyediting work you did at an earlier stage which has really paid off in getting to FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well researched article about an important building.--Ipigott (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Ipigott for your support and recent copyedits!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aa77zz

[edit]

Ref 77 "Borrell & Cashinella 1975" is not in the Bibliography. A google search finds Crime in Britain Today which seems a strange source for the area of the lake. Aa77zz (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accidentally removed it during the peer review earlier today. I've restored it, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my peer review of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per my peer review. Excellent article; well done to all concerned - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated Schro, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All done, cheers Nikkimaria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I gave this article a long peer review, during which numerous issues were raised and resolved. I have only a handful of further points:
  • The peer review needs to be properly closed – this has only been half done so far.
  • The captions for the two floor plans should be dated (to the 1880s I think). I imagine that the current floor layouts have been updated somewhat.
  • I am slightly disappointed that you haven't taken up my suggestion that Shaw's error in describing the house as Elizabethan rather than Jacobean be rewarded wih a well-deserved ((sic}}, but I won't press the matter.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton:, many thanks for your support and excellent comments during the peer review which much improved this article. Admittedly I spent quite some time trying to find the Elizabethan remark to address what you said and for some reason couldn't find it, I was going to ask you to add it yourself, can you please do so? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from EddieHugh

[edit]
A media check has been done by someone else; I've checked online sources 22, 23, 27, 37 and 67 for fidelity to source and plagiarism. All of my points below have been dealt with. So, I'm happy to support based on the FA criteria. EddieHugh (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have now been dealt with. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings and prints depict games taking place on the lawn." Needs a source.
  • "with a number of upper-class men, women and children as spectators". A source stating that would be preferable.
  • "Right: A fencing bout." Main text states "practice".
Some good points on the sporting events. A lot of what is known is based on paintings and prints of the house. There's quite a few depicting sports and events at the house in a history that is rather sparse in sources. To adequately support my statement I'd need to cite many of the pictures as I can't see a source which discusses them. Does it seem like OR here? I've merged mention of the painting into the sentence and removed "important" anyway♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue" is OR if it's based only on the existence of paintings. No doubt such images were typically depictions of real scenes, but they could be imagined scenes. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the cricket info supports the statement and I think there's enough coverage in depictions to make it stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe changing from "as" in "a local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings" to something not implying (otherwise unsubstantiated) evidence would do the job. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bramshill House was "in a poor state of repair" but that it was inconceivable that the police college should move given the investment already made in the site.[37]" This wording is too close to the original ("Bramshill house is in a poor state of repair [...] the investment that has already been made in the current site makes it inconceivable that the college should move"). Rephrase or use more quotation marks to avoid plagiarism.
Yes, the "inconceivable" word might make it seem like that as the other is a quote, I've reworded.
  • "fourteen different ghosts". "different" is redundant.
Not sure I agree as the same ghosts can apparently manifest themselves in different ways but I've removed.
  • "a 18-acre". Should be "an".
Done.
  • "the wider 490 acres (200 ha) medieval park". Change: "490-acre".
I'm using the conversion template, can you find a way to avoid "acres"?
Convert the other way and use "acre" (copy the 18-acre style immediately above it), if you're content to do the conversion that way. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This includes the 25 acres (10 ha) of early 17th-century formal gardens near the house, the wider 490 acres (200 ha) medieval park, landscaped from the 17th to the 20th century, which includes 250 acres (100 ha) of woodland[78] and buildings including an icehouse and a folly known as Conduit House". Which features are parts of larger units would be clearer if semi-colons were used (e.g., "This includes: w; x, which y; z"). This would make it easier to read, as would avoiding repetition of 'include'.
Reworded, I'd prefer not to use semicolons.
  • "Location of Bramshill House in Hampshire". Mention that Hampshire is the white bit (if that's the case)?
I think it's obvious, especially given the window highlighter outlining the county which is the same shape. Wouldn't it look daft saying "shaded part in white" after Hampshire?
If that's common, then it's fine. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much of the work, most notably the entrance, was executed by German builders". "most notably" looks out of place. Is it notable that the entrance was built by Germans, or is the entrance particularly notable in itself?
Removed the middle part.
  • "It now houses the National Police Library." "now" is always hazardous; it's unlikely that the police library is still there.
Removed.
  • Is the building itself a bit off level, or do the first few photos just make it look that way? (Not vital, as this is a nomination of the article rather than the photos.)More later. EddieHugh (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of, might be the photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • "2,500-acre wooded park". May as well convert this one, too.
Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see what you're referring to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to ha. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's variation in units: sometimes "ft", sometimes "feet"; check for others, too.
Still to do (2 in Original house), unless there's a reason not to. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "steward's room at Windsor". "Windsor Castle"?
I'd have thought it obvious from previous mention but OK.
  • "bought the property from Sir Stephen Thornhurst". Are you using the full name because it's the first mention in the para? It's full in the previous sentence, so could be shortened.
Well, it was the previous section, but I've shortened to just Thornhurst.
  • "In 1347 he obtained" cf. "In March 1605,[12] Edward la Zouche". Comma or no comma? Check all others, too.
I think it's necessary with the 1605 one, but with the 1347 the context of the sentence I think it's more appropriate without for flow. If anybody else insists that the 1347 sentence must have a comma then I'll consider it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they're used inconsistently ("In 1347 he obtained"; "In 1673 it was the property"; "In the 1880s the library"; "In 1935, the house"; "In the early 14th century, Sir John Foxley"), but no-one else seems to be concerned. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A house was earlier planned on the site". The chronology and plans are unclear here. When does "earlier" refer to, and was the proposal for the PoWales to live in it (what happened to the plan)?
Unknown I believe, all we know is that a house had been planned for him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lord Zouche bought the property from Sir Stephen Thornhurst in 1605". Is the wikilink sufficient to indicate that the picture is of Z, not ST?
I think so, I think it's obvious, and clicking the link we'll soon find out!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the maids' chamber was of very high standard". "a very high standard" feels natural to me, but feel free to demur.
Agreed.
  • "Edward la Zouche" (twice). If this is the short form of "Edward la Zouche, 11th Baron Zouche", can't it be even shorter?
Agreed.
  • Consider putting Sporting events as a lower sub-heading than the others in the History section, as it's not chronological.
I disagree, the sporting events were prominent in the 17th-19th centuries in particular I believe, certainly belongs before 20th century material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location. Would going from big to small be more logical (i.e. swap sentences 1 & 2 around)?
The location section? My thinking is that you want to describe its location as if providing direction to the property, so putting it in its wider geographical context and approach roads first and then inner lanes I think seems a better way to describe it, at least in the way that my brain works.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But isn't the current arrangement: position relative to villages; position relative to towns; approach roads; internal? EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "internal police training". What made it "internal"? Is there a less ambiguous alternative that could be used?
Good point. Presumably I think it is referring to training police who are already established rather than newbies, but I've removed as I agree it seems odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ronald Nall-Cain's motto [...] was adopted". Adopted by what?
The motto was adopted by the police.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Daily Mail reported the police". "reported that the" feels natural, etc., etc.
OK.
  • "were criticised for lavish spending on the estate". Perhaps indicate when this happened, as the implication is that it was in the late 1980s, but it was actually later.
Added "subsequent".
Thankyou for your points. I'm not sure, I could work it out from the 1880s plan, but then there lies the problem of what the police did to the building, were rooms merged or now have a different use? Judging by the ground floor rooms I'd guess they didn't touch anything technically as it is a Grade I property. If there's no source to support how many bedrooms it currently has then it's probably best avoided. Looking at the plan though I count seven bedrooms and one in the wing and one "bed chamber" if that counts as one, so I could say something like "As of the 1880s the house had eight or nine bedrooms" or "The plan drawn up in the 1880s indicates that the house had seven bedrooms, and another bedroom in the wing" and source it to Shaw's book on the page the plan is. I think that would acceptable, what do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's some relevant info in source 28, including "The mansion, which was built between 1605 and 1615, has 15 bedrooms, a long gallery, chapel, lounges, a mezzanine and a number of 'magnificent state rooms' which have now been converted into banqueting halls". It also summarises some recent additions in the grounds. Incorporating some of this stuff, especially if different from the old plans, would be good. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other 7 or 8 bedrooms must be on the second floor then. I'll add some of this, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully) final batch:

  • "Much of the work was executed by German builders, part of the workforce which replaced the Italian artisans who had left England following the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558". Earlier, it's stated that the building began around 1605. It seems unlikely that people arriving around 1558 would still be working then. Is there more clarity available on this?
Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plan of the house is unusual, partly because of its incorporation of the earlier building; it". Is "it" the house or the earlier one?
It is the house, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The southern façade, unique for the period,[47] was described by Nikolaus Pevsner as "among the most fanciful pieces of Jacobean design in [England]".[39]". Was the unique bit that NP used those words to describe it? If so, it's not much of a claim. The first words are "among the", which rules it out of being "unique".
I'll remove "unique".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is three storeys high and features three sets". 3 storeys is stated in the previous section.
Yes, but the initial is a brief overview and I elaborate on it in the second by mentioning the three bays.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "layout on the second and top floors". In the UK, the 2nd floor of a 3-storey building is the top one.
Changed to "first" floor.
Not changed yet! EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't seem to locate it, can you be more specific?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
North and south section. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mansion is richly furnished with period pieces". Is this still the case, following the 2014 sale? Same question applies to lots of other descriptions.
Yes, it would be very unlikely that the house was stripped, the pieces belong to the Grade I listed building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in the end rejected them for another set". Needs "he" or a restructuring.
added "he".
  • "the "Wrought Room", named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed". Something more descriptive would help someone who isn't sure of "wrought".
Not sure on that one either!
Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be OR though? The source doesn't explain it and it would be pure guess work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If no-one knows what it means, best to remove it ("named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed"), I suggest. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two of the bedrooms, the two "White Rooms", were originally connected to what was called the Flower-de-luce Room, but the doors were boarded up". There's no "Flower-de-luce" on the plan, so what was/is this?
Good point, not sure, it's not shown on the plan as you say, but then again, neither are the two white rooms.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I've missed it, there's nothing on the interior of the second floor.
Could find any mention of it, nope.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate, but if there's nothing available, it'll have to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An inquiry cleared him". Of what?
Murder of course! Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who hunted fox and deer (and collected butterflies) there". Better to avoid brackets here.
Removed.
  • "separate listings for other structures near the house, including". "including" entails that there are others unstated. Is this correct?
Yes I think so.
  • "taken away by Sir Denzil Cope's". Who's that?
Presumably the owner of Bramshill at the time, it was in the hands of the Cope family.
  • Capitalization in Refs looks inconsistent.
Which one? If you mean CEPOL it's supposed to be like that, its an acronym.
That one's fine. I mean the contrast between, for example, "Walls and Gate Piers to West of Bramshill House" (all content words capitalized) and "Playing host to many a ghost" (only the first) or "First-Class Matches played on Bramshill Park" (all except one). EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made as many of them as consistent in caps as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Public Consultation, Bramshill House, Hampshore". Change to "Hampshire".
Well-spotted :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes. Add full stop at the end of #38?
I added a citation template, should come naturally now.
Not heard that one before LOL. The categories are fine and in an appropriate order!
Easier to find a specific one if someone's hunting through a long list, but not to worry. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptional points here, many thanks EddieHugh.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My responses are indented and signed above: some things are still to be dealt with; anything not indented and signed I regard as dealt with. Thanks for the prompt updates.EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing:

OK, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EddieHugh I've done my best to address all of your points, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I count four things added on 09 Feb (UTC) remaining to be responded to. EddieHugh (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Care to list them below? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're the ones dated 9 Feb... Starting points:
  • "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings"
That one was reworded to reflect what the source gives.
The only info in the source stated is "This page contains some of the paintings and prints that can be seen at the National Fencing Museum." That doesn't justify what is written in the article's paragraph. EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EddieHugh OK, I've shortened it to simply describing the prints depicting games, the reader can draw their own conclusion from that without it being OR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2,500-acre wooded park"
Done.
  • "layout on the second and top floors"
As I said I couldn't find any real details on the upper floor, presumably just bedrooms.
The point was that '2nd floor' is the same as 'top floor' in British English, so shouldn't it be '1st floor' and 'top floor'? EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OK, I'll change to top floor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have no details on what exactly they're referring to and given that this is the case it would be OR to try to guess and elaborate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what it means, and neither do I. If no-one knows, it's meaningless and the bit on "wrought hangings" should be cut. EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have now been dealt with. Thank you for your patience and responses. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I read this knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, and I was pleasantly surprised on how much of an interesting read it was. Excellent work Blofeld! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Krimuk90!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

[edit]
  • Is there a wikilink for "Grade I" in the lead section?

That's about the only comment I have on this article. It would be better to archive the references to prevent dead links. On the whole, it is a fantastic article and it has my Support. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 06:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sven. We don't actually seem to have an article on Grade I listed building. If we did I think it would be worth linking of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Simon Burchell

[edit]

Support This is a very nice looking article, and I'll make any comments as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last one-sentence para in the lead looks a little lonely. Maybe it could be combined into the previous para?
Merged.
  • The Legends section says that 14 ghosts have been reported, but only 2 are mentioned in the text. Is any further information available to fill out this section? If not, I have a number of books on Hampshire folklore and may be able to dig something up.
I couldn't find anything much, not beyond the unreliable ghost type sites, but if you have a book and could find something further I'd be grateful Simon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All 14 ghosts now accounted for... I have lots more info available, but what's in the section now should cover it sufficiently. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Hchc2009

[edit]

I mostly really enjoyed the article. I had a couple of concerns on the sourcing though at the FA level, and would oppose at this stage on that basis (but am happy to be convinced otherwise - please push back if you disagree with me!)

  • I wasn't convinced that P. Lal, writing for the Sunday Tribune in India, was a "high-quality reliable source" for British folklore concerning the house (the newspaper article is used six times).
The newspaper itself seems to be a reliable source, and he really seems to have done his research into writing it and you'll find what is documented in other sources. Perhaps it seems strange that it's an Indian newspaper not a British one. But most journalists writing on general topics are not experts in the given fields.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wasn't sure about Penny Legg ("Folklore of Hampshire"), Donald Parr ("The Web of Fear") and Wood and Kolak ("A Ghost a Day: 365 True Tales of the Spectral, Supernatural, and ... Just Plain Scary!"). Legg is a generalist writer, teacher and journalist, albeit with an interest in the paranormal (she notes that "as an Associate Member of Haunted Southampton Ltd, I have joined several investigations and as a writer I have met and worked with many people interested in the paranormal"). I wasn't convinced though that she has represents a high-quality reliable source for folklore studies (she doesn't produce peer reviewed work, as far as I'm aware etc.) Parr is similarly probably best known for books of reprinted old photographs of the south, and again doesn't (as far I'm aware) have any formal education in folklore, or publish in peer-reviewed works, higher quality publication houses etc. Wood and Kolak don't give any indication of what research they carried out for their book; their publishers describe them as being a "a fifth generation psychic/trance-medium" and "a paranormal scientist", but again, there's no evidence given of academic qualifications in the field, peer review, high quality publishing houses etc.
Wood and Parr books were superfluous sources anyway and have been removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the Legg book, it is one of a series of well-researched county folklore books, it's a cut above the normal "county haunting" type books and covers various aspects of Hampshire folklore. To be clear, with folklore we are dealing with stories in circulation, and would not necessarily require a scholarly article. In the context, I would consider it an acceptable source. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree it is better than the usual ghost story books (!), but I don't think the publishing house in question peer reviews its publications or does independent fact checking, so I'd be cautious about using it at FA level; to be honest, my concern in many cases is that "stories in circulation" becomes a shorthand for "repeating what another author has said previously", as opposed to genuine research into whether a folklore story is really still active in a particular area, or was actually widely known at an earlier point in history. Does Pegg give any indications of the sorts of research she carried out for this bit of the book? (have.g. archive work, oral histories etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of high quality folklore works out there (including by very strong publishing houses, peer reviewed journals etc), but I wasn't convinced that these were good examples of them at the FA level.
  • Footnote 98 probably needs a page number. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to have a page number.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you deleted the original fn 98! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added the volume number but anything else didn't pick up in the google book ref maker. You can view the source here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see the snippet view. It looks like it should have a title and an author though, as it seems to be an article of some sort. Could you check the first page of it? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I was actually considering removing the haunting section at an earlier stage as it's verging on WP:FRINGE theories and pseudoscience. I once had an interesting conversation with User:Jehochman over it. I think a basic summary is appropriate, given that it is supposed to be one of the most haunted houses, but to expect an encyclopedia article on an architectural piece to have a detailed (and scholarly at that) coverage of things like ghosts and other things which are widely believed to be make believe stories really has no place in an encyclopedia. I don't think detailed coverage is encyclopedic. I'm sure many others here would agree. This is an article on an architectural piece, a country house, not ghosts. The summary we have is adequate and comparable to several other FAs on country houses with a summary of apparent hauntings. I've already covered the ghosts which have received the most coverage in multiple sources and that is satisfactory I think. Simon's made some good additions today which now appears to have it all covered, but I really wouldn't want to see this bloated out into a massive section. I found the best sources which were available to me in covering it at the time, most coverage is on amateurish websites which certainly wouldn't cut the mustard as reliable sources. In all honesty there's very few "credible" authors on things like ghosts, I'm sure you could question most of the books written on topics like that, regardless of the credentials of the author.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ghost stories? We're moving too far into FRINGE territory for my liking. A brief piece outlining that people believe there are ghosts is one thing, but detailed scholarly research on the supernatural is thin at the best of times, let alone about specific,properties. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The house has a significant body of folklore associated with it, and I would expect that to be briefly covered in the article. An overview of folklore is not the same as arguing for the reality (or not) of ghosts. Note that there is an FA on the Cock Lane Ghost, that the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane FA has a section on ghosts, Little Moreton Hall is a more recently promoted example; and I am sure that I could fish around for more examples, and that the section here is titled "Legends", not "Supernatural phenomena" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If (as the article states) people believe that there is a ghost in the stables etc. then it is a notable fact... But the fact of that belief needs to be reliably cited. (i don't mean that we need sources to prove that there is a ghost, just reliable sources showing that a reasonble number of people believe, or believed, it to be the case). Similarly, claims about stories being told, reported etc. need to be reliably sourced. At the moment, I don't think the quality of the sources justifies the detail of the section. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a summary is fine as Simon says, coverage of legends does offer an interesting angle to coverage. But expecting all of these scholarly sources and in depth coverage studying them and to not consider it FA worthy because of it.. What sources Hchc2009 would you consider reliable for this then? I would prefer it if you gave specific examples and illustrate the abundance of better sources on the topic. Imagining that there's lots of high quality sources on this isn't going to produce results. An article on something like Legends of Hampshire or something you might expect something more detailed. This is an article on an architectural piece which at best should have a basic summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dr B, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the material here should be made any longer. Rather, I'm arguing that in the absence of reliable sources, we shouldn't be giving so much weight to some of the details in the section (the solution to there not being high-quality reliable sources on an topic isn't to use low-quality sources instead...!) To use Simon's example of Moreton Hall, you've got examples of the best and worst of sources in its "Superstition and haunting" section: you've got material from a Manchester University Press volume (reliable in my opinion) and material from a self-published ghost website mainly concerned with selling the author's own books (not particularly reliable in my opinion). I've noted my general concerns with the reliability of the sourcing above, but examples of where this then causes me particular concerns in this article include:
  • "King Michael I of Romania is said to have asked to be moved to another room during a stay there..." To me this gives an impression that the event is essentially fact - that the King did ask to be moved because he thought he repeatedly saw a ghost. I'd be seeking a reliable source for this statement, and a better elaboration of whether the King really did move rooms, or if this is an unsubstantiated story that someone has just told about the King at a later point etc. Given that the King is still alive, and covered by BLP policy, if it's unsubstantiated then I don't think it should be included. If the story is factual, then we should be saying so as well.
The Legg book looks to be a reliable source, "reportedly" asked to be moved I think is fine, and it's actually better from a BLP perspective to word it like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't think that's the way that the BLP policy would prefer us to have it. It states that "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." In this case, I don't think that Legg gives any information on where she came by the story, which is effectively making it an anonymous account and, to me, pretty close to gossip. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it to "According to folklorist Penny Legg". Yes, we're an encyclopedia here to report what has been documented in reliable sources. I can think of some recent articles by some very credible editors here which have passed FAC and who've stated "According to the author" to deliver a claim. It's fine I think now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the degree to which the author is a reliable source I think... Where do you stand on the "Ghost a Day" and the other sources? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wood book source is superfluous anyway, so I've removed it. Which remaining sources do you think are shockingly bad? All I can see the legends section uses now are a government source for haunted, the Legg book, the Tribune newspaper source and the historical sources Page and Cope, all of which clearly meet RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with you over Legg - I can't see any evidence that either her or the publisher is known for reliable fact checking, peer review, explanation of the research techniques used etc., which are important attributes for high quality secondary sources. I feel similarly about L. Pol in the Tribune (He doesn't seem to be a particular expert in the field, and I can't work out where his information is actually supposed to have come from, other than the breakfast table in 1986!). Page and Cope look like reliable sources for claims in their period. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Legg source is published by The History Press - "the UKs largest local and specialist history book publisher; publishing over 500 history books a year including Local History, Military History..." I'd argue that you're unlikely to find a better source on covering the Legends of Hampshire and the house, so if you still dispute the legitimacy of the source I can see there's little way of changing your oppose vote. Tell me, who do you think is an expert on such a topic. What existing sources would be better than the Legg book and the Tribune newspaper source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of publications coming out of a company isn't a good indicator of reliability - evidence of fact checking or the use of peer review typically is. I don't know of any reliable secondary sources for modern folklore on the house, but I don't think that is a good reason to use unreliable sources - shortening the section so as to avoid undue weight would be a better solution. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the volume of publications is, but I'm arguing that it appears to be a leading publisher in its field. Simon is an experienced researcher, and I'll trust his judgement that it's a credible source for the topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Grey Lady's husband is believed to haunt the stables..." - believed by who? Lots of people? A few? One or two paranormal investigators?
  • "The chapel drawing room is also said to be haunted..." The "said to be" phrase is used in various places here, and always begs the question "by who?" By lots of people? By the tour guide? By a couple of paranormal investigators? By a previous Victorian writer? Again, good sourcing can help to determine this, and therefore the weight that should be given to it in the article, but I don't think we have the kind of reliable sourcing at the moment. (The "reputed to..." phrase also makes an appearance in various places, which has similar issues - who believes it to have this reputation? Like "said to", it's a good example of a WP:WEASEL phrase.)) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I never feel comfortable with covering things like ghosts on wikipedia. It's finding a way to write it so that it seems credible and neutral. Some people believe it, yes, I could change it to "allegedly", that might read better. I've changed as many examples of "is believed" or "is said" as possible. All we know is that they've been reportedly seen, I'm sure paranormal investigators would claim seeing the lot, but stories like this are usually seen by a wide range of people who turn them into legends. Not sure what "self-published ghost website" you're referring to, given the topic I think the sources are generally very good and meet WP:RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 I agree that we should try to use the best sources available, but I believe I've done that. If you could find accessible sources online which are superior to the Tribune source for instance then we might get somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above - I don't that using an unreliable source is the right response to a paucity of reliable secondary sources on an aspect of an article, nor in keeping with the relevant Featured Article criteria. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've done my best to address what you've said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the reliability of the Legg book and the leading Indian newspaper source, I'm sure it'll have no bearing on the outcome unless somebody can really illustrate superior sources on the topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, probably best to agree to disagree (NB: if you ever want some recommendations for reading on cultural research methods, gathering oral histories, etc., though, do let me know! It is an area I know pretty well.) The references are looking a lot better now though, with the weakest ones pruned out, and the language is better. The two Justice of the Peace magazine citations definitely need authors and titles though - I'm nearly 100% sure that the magazine used them during the '60s and '80s. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Can you acknowledge/action Hchc's last point about the magazine citations? @Hchc2009: Given that you've agreed to disagree on other points, would this be the last actionable concern you have? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ian: yep, we're in disagreement about the sourcing and have agreed to disagree. :) I think the author and titles are needed for the magazine articles though. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address most of his concerns Ian, he even said "The references are looking a lot better now though, with the weakest ones pruned out, and the language is better." The source is here 3rd one down. I couldn't find those details, google gives very little. Perhaps somebody with library connections here like Tim riley or somebody could find the author and title?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see the snippets format, which isn't much use... Do we know which editor originally added them? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source recently in response to your concern about reliable sources making the claim!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: What shall I do about it? The details are not given by google. I thought it a good source to demonstrate the most haunted claim. Eddie Hugh has done a spot check I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered dropping the publishers an email? The magazine is still published I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link of where to contact?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link from Justice of the Peace Magazine was broken when I tried it last time, but I think [7] works and has some contact details. I suspect a google search might also produce an editorial contact address. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments. I learned a lot about this property in the course of helping to gather photos for it. It's a fine article about the estate and its rich history. I also noted that the magazine Country Life has featured Bramshill House many times over the magazine's history; we have photos from 1899 and 1903 Country Life articles about it. When the news came that the estate was to be sold, Country Life was there again, with a news article saying that Bramshill House "was said to be one of England’s most haunted country houses" in their July 25, 2013 issue. If this is the only problem hoding up the article's promotion, here is the link to the Country Life story. We hope (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WH, and for the free images you found recently!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I don't think it's worth going to all that trouble over two sources, one of which was easily replaceable. I've replaced one with a Telegraph source and removed the other, the motto I thought seemed a bit trivial and out of context anyway. We should be OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrB, did you mean to link to the Telegraph article in fn 93? I can't see anything about ghosts or hauntings in that article... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cite has now been changed to one from July 2013 from Country Life magazine and the quote is "said to be one of England's most haunted country houses." We hope (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is another newspaper source I could add, but I think that will suffice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted the above -- sorry I didn't stop by after the earlier ping. I'll probably walk though the FAC list in the next day or so; unless something else pops I'd expect to close this. Tks all and cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [8].[reply]

God of War III

[edit]
Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 PlayStation 3 video game God of War III, the best-selling game in this series and one of PlayStation's most popular game series. This is the article's fourth nomination here. The last nomination was about a year ago. After that FAC closed, I took a break from Wikipedia and only made some intermediate edits here and there. I've recently come back and had this article copy-edited by the GOCE, which was something that was said was needed in the previous FAC. I will respond promptly to any issues or concerns. JDC808 ♫ 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from hahnchen

[edit]
  • Oppose
    • "first-person kills" deathcam is trivial and needn't be mentioned.
      • Done
    • "On December 8, Stig Asmussen..." - Really weird way to announce Barlog's departure. You begin with the Asmussen quote and the reader has no idea why you're doing that. Start off by making the point, "Barlog left the studio..." or something similar.
      • Done
    • Put the "interest in a cooperative mode" sentence with the other multiplayer mention.
      • Done
    • What's the difference between "early development" and "pre-release"? Why is the length of the game in one section, but the length of the script in the other?
      • What do you not understand about the difference? They are straight forward. Early development is just that. Pre-release is the few months before it was released.
        • That you moved the game length section from "early development" to "pre-release" suggests they are arbitrary. It's why I put the two questions together.
    • CGSociety link broken.
      • See the archive link (this is why they are there).
        • At the time of the review, webcitation was down.
    • I would move all the trailer talk commentary into release/marketing.
      • Why?
        • Releasing a trailer is not a development milestone, it's a marketing one. It'd also make the Sixaxis stuff sit together. Consider putting the controller stuff together anyway.
    • No need to quote Asmussen to say the trailer is in game. Just state it is in game and reference it.
      • Done
    • There's generally a lot of trivial dates in the article, "On October 28, 2009, it was announced that the Blu-ray version of the film District 9 would include a God of War III demo", "The Blu-ray version of District 9 was released on December 22". I think it very unlikely the reader cares about the press release at all.
    • This review of the soundtrack may be worth a mention.
      • Done
    • You don't mention who actually performs the soundtrack.
      • Done
    • The soundtrack's label seems to be Sumthing Else. Looks like they have some licensing agreement with SCE.
      • Done
    • Why use a niche source like Gamestyle?
      • What's wrong with Gamestyle?
    • "is some next-level stuff" tells the reader absolutely nothing.
      • That's what he says.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • One "particularly inappropriate" puzzle, zero context.
      • He did not explicitly state which puzzle.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • Calling the game "less diverse" is incredibly broad and bland, and the link is broken.
      • That's what he says. See the archive link.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • Consider moving the "most anticipated" awards to the marketing section.
      • Why? It was an award.
        • The awards section generally deals with the game's overall reception. Pre-release awards are essentially the reception of the marketing campaign.
          • I can see what you're saying, but I don't feel that it's enough reason to move this one award.
    • N4G is not a reliable source and I don't think a GameTrailers "Diamond Award" is an award at all.
      • Removed N4G, which happened to include the Diamond Award. I didn't really see a problem with including the award itself, but doing a quick search, I couldn't find a replacement source for it anyways.
    • Who are PS3 Attitude and why do we care?
    • Still unconvinced about the reliability/notability of PS3 Attitude.
      • Removed.
    • The "No CGI" section feels clumsy, there looks to be redundancy, you're using a lot of lines to say something simple.
      • I'll work on it.
        • Trimmed back.
    • These articles, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-making-of-god-of-war-iii & http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-sony-santa-monica-mastered-the-ps3 are not used. Was there nothing in those articles, the "Making Of" or "Art of" videos that you felt were relevant to the development section? Camera work, animation and anti-aliasing seem interesting, I've not watched the videos.

Comments from ProtoDrake

[edit]

A few points I must raise.

  • The lead. Why must IGN be cited in particular, as the points from the review are generally shared across the reviews. Uncited generalities are allowed in the lead as long as the claims are backed up in the article proper.
    • Because it was IGN who stated those specific points.
  • The opening paragraph of the gameplay section look a little clunky to my eye.
    • The first piece that caught my attention: "The gameplay of God of War III is similar to that of its predecessors. It is a third-person, single-player video game from a fixed-camera perspective.[4] The player controls Kratos in combo-based combat, platforming, and puzzle games, battling foes drawn primarily from Greek mythology (including centaurs, harpies, chimeras, cyclopes, satyrs, minotaurs, sirens, cerberuses, and Gorgons). Other enemies were created specifically for the game." Possibly you could rewrite it as "God of War III is a third-person, single-player action-adventure video game. As with previous God of War games, the player controls Kratos from a fixed-camera perspective in combo-based combat, platforming, and puzzle games. The enemies are a mixture of creatures drawn from Greek mythology and monsters created for the game.
      • Done.
    • The next is the sentence about puzzles: "Although some puzzles are simple, others—such as finding several items in different areas of the game to unlock a door—are more complex.[5]" Perhaps you could specify how many puzzles are simple, and refine the second part into something like "more complex puzzles involving retrieving items from multiple areas."
      • Without playing the game again, I don't have a count of how many puzzles are simple, and I don't believe any sources do either (the ones I've come across do not). The complex puzzle part is trimmed back as per suggestion.
    • The most I can say about the combat system is that... it needs some condensing here and there. I'll leave the exact details up to you.
      • I don't see where it needs condensing. Unless some sentences can become more concise without loosing information (not sure how more concise it could be), condensing it any further is going to lose information and may make things unclear.
  • George Bell (voice actor) should not be linked if there isn't an article for him.
    • Don't see why it's a problem (as an article could be made), but okay.

That's what stood out right now. I'll probably be back for more. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]
  • I think I'm going to make this standard in my FA/GA reviews, as I've been doing it lately: I've done a brief copyedit before anything else. Feel free to revert or adjust as needed.
    • Looks fine, thanks.
  • "others are more complex and require the player to retrieve items from multiple areas" - that doesn't sound complex; the Lego games do that. Could you provide an example if you think it's complex?
  • You can choose which, if any, to remove or restructure around, but I see a noticeable overuse of parentheses; these should be rare in encyclopedic writing to avoid losing focus or including esoteric details.
    • Okay, I'll look through and see what I can do.
    • Parenthetical bits taken care of, I think. After going through it, a lot of the parenthesis were done by the last GOCE copy-editor. --JDC808 ♫ 16:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember seeing articles about the sex minigame back when this game was released, but doesn't it only occur once, not even lasting very long? If so, why is that worthy of a mention in Gameplay?
    • It uses the same mechanics as the quick-time event feature mentioned before it, and it became a standard feature for the series up until the last game.

Done up through Gameplay. Tezero (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "on the fictional Mount Olympus" - I don't think it's appropriate to call religious beliefs "fictional" - or is this a fictional version of it?
    • It would be a fictional version, or rather an alternate version.
  • "and the Underworld and Tartarus" - why are these grouped together and not just ", the Underworld, and Tartarus"?
    • I had taken away the parenthesis around "such as the Forum and Hera's Gardens" and if I would have made it like how you're saying (which it was when the parenthesis were there), it would sound like the Underworld and Tartarus are also part of the Palace of the Gods.
  • "the remains of his wife" - per WP:EASTER, piped links are discouraged; could you rephrase this as something like "the remains of his wife, who was killed in ..."?
    • Okay.
  • "who was banished when Kratos retrieved Pandora's Box from Pandora's Temple, still chained to his back" - confusing; what was chained to whose back?
    • The temple. Not sure if clearer now.
  • The constant actor names are kind of distracting; have you considered creating a "cast" section? Normally these are frowned upon, but I think it'd be accepted if they're all notable actors and their acting is covered elsewhere in the body, which it is.
    • A good while ago (like 3 years if not more), we had a cast section, which like you said is frowned upon with video game articles (which I personally find silly). This was basically what we agreed upon (by we, I mean a couple of others who were editing the article back then). --JDC808 ♫ 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his death floods the world" - ???
    • Clarified, I think.
  • Might want to mention earlier that Hera controls all plant life a la Poison Ivy from Batman; it kinda comes out of nowhere that killing her ends all of it.
    • Done.
  • How unknown is Kratos' fate if he was "near death" when he offed himself? I'm genuinely asking - I haven't played any of the God of War games since I was mostly a Nintendo kid.
    • Right before the end of the credits, it's believed he died, but right after the credits, there's a trail of blood leading off to the edge of the cliff. He might have jumped off or he might have climbed down and is surviving somewhere. That's what's unknown.

Done up through Plot. Tezero (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 2007, God of War creator and game director David Jaffe explained his original idea for the series, saying that it would be "hell on earth" as the gods and Titans battle each other for domination; "God of War explains, or ultimately will explain, why there are no more Greek myths"." - ambiguous; by "original" do you mean this was what he intended at first, or that the idea had never been tried before? This idea seems to be contrasted with what actually came into play in GoW3; was this his current idea in 2007, or only before then? I'd suggest reworking a lot of the first half of the first paragraph of Development for clarity.
    • It's what he originally intended. 2007 was when this particular interview happened. Done some reworking.
  • "individual tasks could take a year" - what kind of original tasks? A year would be quite a short time to develop an entire triple-A game, pay off one's mortgage, get a medical degree, or learn Mandarin fluently, while it would be exceedingly long to create a single character model or program the basic controls.
    • He didn't explicitly state what tasks. He only gave an example, which I have put in.
  • "which is the amount developer Naughty Dog used for the in-game model of Nathan Drake in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves" - relevance?
    • Comparison. At the time, God of War III and Uncharted 2 had some of the best (if not the best) graphics for consoles.
  • "Overall game length was estimated" - by whom? Normally I'm cool with the passive voice, but here the agent would be helpful since another total is given immediately after.
    • That was Asmussen.
  • "all footage from the trailer "is pulled straight from the game" and all footage is gameplay" - seems redundant; you could merely snip the quote
    • Done.
  • "Susan Blakeslee, who voiced two characters in God of War, voiced Gaia; previously voiced by narrator Linda Hunt, she only provided an introductory narration for God of War III" - ???
    • Better?
  • "Each composer provided a different aesthetic to the score" - examples would be nice
    • Added a couple of examples.
  • Some of the quotes in Reception appear unneeded and like they could easily be paraphrased, e.g. "so easy to switch between them on the fly", "couldn't be simpler", "its most outstanding visual achievement."
    • I sometimes have a hard time paraphrasing some things because I don't know how I would say it any differently. Tried to at least get the ones you mentioned here.
  • Not sure GiantBomb is a reliable source for release dates; doesn't it accept user-inputted data?
    • According to WP:VG/RS, it's "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff. Do not use the user contributed content from the site's article/database section for citations." I don't know if the contents of that particular citation is user submitted.
  • Is Sumthing.com a reliable source?
    • I can't say for sure. It's there to show that they also a label for the soundtrack.
  • Per reference convention established on this article, Gamestyle should be used as work, not publisher; it looks like there might not be a true publisher.
    • Done.

That should be about it. Tezero (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, then. I don't think the GiantBomb issue is worthy of concern; if it's determined unreliable at some point, release dates for games from the early/mid-'00s or later are easy to find via press releases, ratings websites, etc. Tezero (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
Resolved issues

I'm not a gamer so please excuse any mistakes; and if I screw up anything in a copyedit feel free to revert.

  • "a search for Pandora (the key to Pandora's box)": not sure what this means -- Pandora and the key to her box are different things. Does Kratos have to find both Pandora and the key, separately?
    • Pandora is the key. In this game, she's an artificial being that was created solely to be sacrificed to open the box.
      There are two problems with the way it's currently phrased: the mythological Pandora is what most readers will think of and you can't say "key to a box" without people thinking of a literal key. How about "Kratos battles monsters, gods, and Titans in a search for Pandora, without whom he cannot open Pandora's box, defeat Zeus and end the reign of the Olympian Gods"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as the Guitar Hero-esque puzzle": the reader has no other information about this puzzle so I don't think you can say "the"; it would have to be "a". I think a little more information is needed though, unless the puzzle really does consist of Kratos picking up a guitar and synching to a heavy metal track.
    • Changed to "a", and as to the second point, kind of. There's these giant things he has to move that strum strings, and you (as the player) have to hit the buttons in time just like in the Guitar Hero games (and doing it correctly plays main God of War theme).
  • "Kratos' main weapon is the Blades of Exile (initially the Blades of Athena)": does this mean that early in the game the weapon was called the Blades of Athena? Or in earlier installments of the game?
    • Both. It's further explained in the Plot section. It's technically a different weapon, but for someone with less knowledge, it's basically the same weapon, just with a cosmetic difference and different attack combinations.
      How about "Kratos' main weapon is the Blades of Exile, which replace the Blades of Athena that he used in the game's previous installments"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a video game player so this may be a dumb question: in "moving the right analog stick as shown by the orange arrow" is it actually the right stick? I ask because it's the character's left arm, not right arm.
    • Yes, it is the right analog stick.
  • "fist gauntlet": I would have expected just "gauntlet" -- or is a "fist gauntlet" a specialized term?
    • Fixed. I don't know why we put that redundancy.
  • "who was banished when Kratos retrieved Pandora's Box from Pandora's Temple of which is still chained to his back": looks like "of" is left over from a previous version of the sentence, and I'd make this "still chained to Cronos's back" to clarify who "his" refers to.
    • Okay. The "of" was just to try and clarify that it was the temple that's chained to his back. Out of curiosity, despite the "of", did you understand that it was the temple that's chained to his back?
      I did not understand that, and we should clarify that in the article -- you mean he has a building chained to his back? I'm guessing that this is chained to Cronos's back, not Kratos's back; I only just realized that. Before suggesting a rewrite of that sentence, can you clarify it a bit more? It says "Tartarus is the prison of the dead and the Titan Cronos, who was banished when Kratos retrieved Pandora's Box from Pandora's Temple which is still chained to his back". So Cronos is imprisoned in Tartarus, and Cronos was banished -- to Tartarus? And Cronos was banished when Kratos retrieved the box? Because Kratos retrieved the box? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, he does have a building (temple) chained to his back. As you saw in the video I linked, the Titans are massive. Here's a pic of Cronos in the first game with the temple on his back. Here's one from this game (couldn't quite find a better one). I think I made it clearer. He was banished to Tartarus after (and because) Kratos retrieved the box from the temple. The whole sentence now says "Tartarus is the prison of the dead where the Titan Cronos was banished after Kratos retrieved Pandora's Box from Pandora's Temple (still chained to the Titan's back) in God of War." --JDC808 ♫ 03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That's improved; I tweaked it a bit more -- I don't think "still" is necessary, though I can see it's accurate; in this context it doesn't help the reader understand what's going on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who appear in the psyche sequence": what does this mean?
  • "Pandora's Box is in the Flame of Olympus, and is again key to the success of his quest": why "again"?
  • "the actual ending of God of War III envisioned by game director Stig Asmussen": to me, "actual ending" means the one that was created, and "envisioned by" means the original idea, not necessarily what was created. If this means that the actual ending was Asmussen's idea, I'd reword this; perhaps "the actual ending of God of War III, which was based on game director Stig Asmussen's vision".
    • Okay. Put your suggestion.
  • "the code department would swap out PlayStation 2 stuff with PlayStation 3 stuff": suggest "components" for "stuff" as a bit less informal.
    • Done.
  • "Christer Ericson of SCE Santa Monica Studio wrote on his Twitter page that God of War III has seamless loading; no loading screens and no hard disk drive installation requirement": what does this add to the article? If it's used as a source for there being no loading screens and no hard disk installation requirement I think it doesn't work, for two reasons; first, it's Twitter, which is not a RS for this sort of thing, and second, it appears this was tweeted during development, meaning that it's not a final assessment of the game.
    • I'll have to look into the RS situation, because I believe in some cases, it's acceptable. As to what it adds, he was confirming that the final game would not have those (which it doesn't), as some games do.
      Let me know if you can find anything in the RS pages that supports this use of Twitter; I don't think it's appropriate, and I think you could cut this with little harm to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VG basically said the twitter post is okay as long as the account does in fact belong to that person. --JDC808 ♫ 00:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reporting improved lighting and motion blur in the final release": I don't understand the reference to motion blur. There was less motion blur? If so, let's make it "reporting improved lighting and reduced motion blur in the final release".
  • "SCE Santa Monica Studio announced the God of War III Ultimate Edition'": should "the" be deleted?
    • I'm not entirely sure. I understand what you're saying, but usually whenever it's a special edition of games or movies or whatever, it seems there's always a "the". Maybe they're incorrect about it. Just an example, the source for the trilogy edition one says "the God of War III Ultimate Trilogy Edition".
  • Any reason not to name the winner of the ultimate God of War fan contest?
    • I don't believe that source actually says the winner (would have to check), but since the winner isn't a "notable person", I didn't think it was necessary to include the winner.
      No problem; just thought it could be mentioned if the name was available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 4, 2010, it was reported that the site was a teaser and the official website for the second PlayStation Portable title in the series, God of War: Ghost of Sparta": I don't think I follow this. Did spartansstandtall.com initially have one set of content and then change? Also, for non-gamers, saying "the second PlayStation Portable title" is confusing -- not being familiar with the hardware, I didn't realize that this was the next game in the series; I thought it was the second game, meaning it had been released earlier.
Okay. I'm not sure when it stopped. I'll try and see if there's any articles that make note of when it stopped. --JDC808 ♫ 00:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "praising the way the Titans are larger than entire levels in other games": I don't understand this. The Titans are characters, not levels; or does this mean that defeating a Titan is considered a level in the game?
  • I don't think you can say "universal critical acclaim" if you later say the plot had mixed reviews.
    • You're not the first who has questioned this. Games are universal acclaim if they have an aggregate score of 90-100 (movies, TV, and music are 81-100) as calculated by Metacritic. Here's where it shows that (http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores), just scroll down a little bit. --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, but you still can't say it received universal critical acclaim -- it didn't. What it received was a Metacritic score that is described by Metacritic as "universal critical acclaim", which is a different thing altogether. I'd suggest cutting the sentence altogether and starting with Adam Sessler's comments; you have the Metacritic score in the box on the right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made the first sentence say "God of War III received universal critical acclaim as calculated by review aggregator Metacritic, receiving a score of 92 out of 100." --JDC808 ♫ 03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I don't think that does it (and I realized this is in the lead as well as the first section). We can't have text that says the game received universal critical acclaim; if we're going to use that phrase, it would have to be something like "the game received a Metacritic score described by Metacritic as universal critical acclaim", which I don't think is worth including. It's fine to include the Metacritic score, and it's fine to make it clear that that's a very high score, but the reader shouldn't be under the impression that it was universally praised. I would assume that most video gamers know very well what the phrase "universal critical acclaim" means in the context of a Metacritic score, but many readers won't be gamers so the text has to work for them too. I'd suggest cutting it completely, or if it's truly notable that the score was 92, find a source that says that, and write it that way without using the phrase. If you really feel you have to use the phrase in the article text it has to be crystal clear it's just Metacritic's internal name for the score range, which is why I don't think it's worth mentioning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a post at WP:VG regarding this because I know there are other video game articles that also have this and I'm going to see how they resolved this issue.--JDC808 ♫ 00:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After getting responses from WP:VG and being linked to a large discussion of the same issue, they basically just said to drop "universal" and if I include "universal", state its Metacritic who says that. So "universal" was dropped, but made note that Metacritic describes their score as "universal acclaim". --JDC808 ♫ 01:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done with a first pass. After we deal with these I will do another copyedit pass. Haven't yet looked at the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything from my first pass through has been resolved; I'll do another read through and if I find anything else I'll post it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix my copyedits as needed. More points:

  • "In creating Kratos, art director Ken Feldman said "We [used] as many [polygons] as it [took]." The raw polygon count is considerably lower than 35,000, which is the amount developer Naughty Dog used for the in-game model of Nathan Drake in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. Kratos' PlayStation 2 (PS2) character model was about 5,000 polygons; his PS3 model is about 20,000." Looking at some of the sources, it appears Nathan Drake is mentioned because he has quite a few more polygons than Kratos, but there seem to be other models with more polygons out there. I know Feldman mentions Drake, but it's a distraction here. How about rewording these sentences like so: "The character model for Kratos in the Playstation 2 (PS2) games used about 5,000 polygons; the PS3 model was about 20,000 – a high number, but less than the number used by models in other games. Ken Feldman, the art director, commented that the polygon count was not the only factor, and cited the increased texture detail as one of the reasons for Kratos's realistic appearance", using the same source you're using.
    • Okay, implemented your suggestion. A big reason Drake was referenced in that article was because Uncharted 2 and this game at that time had the best graphics for video game consoles. Games since then (especially with the new generation) have higher counts, but at that time (and I may be wrong) I think Drake was the only character model with a higher count (at least for video game consoles, not sure about PC). --JDC808 ♫ 03:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That explains why Feldman mentioned it, but without a source to give those details it's not really possible to explain that to a reader, and even with a source I think it's a bit of a distraction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The best-selling game on any console, its opening-month sales were 32 percent higher than those of God of War II": what does "best-selling" refer to here -- best-selling ever in total sales Best opening-month sales? And has the record been exceeded since then, or does it still stand?
  • "A week before God of War III's release, the developers released "Path to Olympus" on the God of War website, with Kratos' backstory": is "Path to Olympus" a game? Or a film sequence?
  • "He said the melodic and harmonic development has grown since the first game": I think you should cut this -- it's somewhat self-praise, and since it's not a third party comment I don't think it adds much.

I want to go through the reception section one more time; I think it's a little choppy in places. Other than that, this is now in pretty good shape and I expect to be able to support once these points are cleared up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I haven't reviewed the sources in detail, nor have I checked for close paraphrasing, but the sources I looked at in passing as part of the review look fine to me. There's a good deal of detail here, but it's handled neutrally and I think it stays on the right side of trivia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (GermanJoe)

[edit]
  • Fair-use rationales in general are OK for both images, but File:GoW3_Kratos_vs_Hercules_QTE.jpg fails WP:NFC with over twice the recommended size. If higher resolutions are needed in exceptional cases, "editors should ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail". See the guideline at WP:IMAGERES for more information. GermanJoe (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time these images were checked during an FAC, there were only minor issues that were easily resolved. Now one's being opposed? Regardless, that one's size has been reduced. --JDC808 ♫ 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't know why, but maybe the reviewer overlooked the image size issue, sometimes reviews in good faith simply miss a problem. Please check the complete linked guidelines regarding non-free image quality (not only quantity). Sorry for bringing this point up quite late in the review, but I just noticed it today.
      • Thanks for resizing the image - all OK now (changed in header above). On a sidenote: the image size in pixels was too high, but you could still use a slightly larger image if you want (the quality limit is based on pixel count up to circa 100,000 pixels for the whole image. The current version has 57,600 pixels). WP:IMAGERES has details, how to calculate that. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

American Arts Commemorative Series medallions

[edit]
Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather obscure and unloved series of American bullion medallions produced as a competitor to the very popular South African Krugerrand coins. Though their sale numbers were lackluster, they served as the direct ancestor of the American Gold Eagle, a series of bullion coins which are today extremely popular with both collectors and investors. I worked on this article a few years ago, but personal issues arose and I became unable to be an active participant here for a while. However, I think the article meets the criteria, so I hope that this will be a welcome return to FAC. It is currently a good article. I want to thank everyone in advance for your efforts in reviewing and commenting on this article. Of course, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.-RHM22 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • I don't know anything about coins. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to laugh and any of my suggestions.
  • The sales were intended to "[reduce] the U.S. trade deficit, either by increasing the exports of gold or reducing the imports of this commodity", and to "further the U.S. desire to continue progress toward the elimination of the international monetary role of gold.": quotations require in-text attribution
  • a large number of suggestions of worthy individuals for the dollar coin that had previously been proposed,[1] which later became the Susan B. Anthony dollar.: a large bumber of worthies later became the Susan B. Anthony dollar?
  • The subjects designated were Grant Wood, Marian Anderson, Mark Twain, Willa Cather, Louis Armstrong, Frank Lloyd Wright, Robert Frost, Alexander Calder, Helen Hayes and John Steinbeck.: it might be best to state what their artistic fields are here, rather than scattering them throughout the text later
  • those honoring painter Grant Wood on the one ounce issue and contralto singer Marian Anderson on the half ounce issue: it might be best to describe the different issues for those of us who know nothing about these things. Are one-once and half-ounce issues to be taken for granted?
  • the Mint announced that a private firm would market the medallions; commodities trading firm J. Aron and Company was selected: did the announcement state J. Aron and Company was selected, or were they selected after the announcement?
  • toothlike denticles: toothlike whut?
    • Haha, that is pretty obscure. It refers to the small designs seen around the rim of some coins, although it's uncommon on modern coins. It's pretty hard to work around that, since it's a word known only to numismatists, so I removed it and replaced it with a description of the term: "Beginning in 1982, this information and small, toothlike designs were added along the inner rim of the medallions, and reeding was added to the edge." Does that sound okay? ('Denticles' comes from the Latin word for 'tooth,' I think, so it's probably a little repetitive to say "toothlike denticles" anyway.)-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or you could go with "like designs called denticles" to please both layreaders and numasmatists (is that a word?). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an interview with New York Magazine in October 1980, Luis Vigdor, assistant vice-president for bullion and numismatic operations of Manfa, Tordella & Brookes, then one of the largest coin firms in the country, compared the medallions and the efforts to market them unfavorably to the South African Krugerrand.: this is quite the mouthful. Could it be cut up or down?
    • I removed the part of the sentence which mentions that the quote is from an interview with New York Magazine, since it isn't really relevant or necessary to that sentence, and of course it's also cited as such. Other than that, I can't really find any way to reduce the size of the sentence. I think it looks better now, but I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Curly Turkey, for your thorough copyedit and suggestions! I've addressed all of your concerns, but I'm also adding a few notes to your above suggestions to explain and make sure they're all good with you.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all your further concerns, I think. Please let me know if I missed anything or made mistakes (especially regarding the endnote, with which I'm not very familiar). Thanks again for your time and effort.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm ready to support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ U.S. Senate, p. 93.

Support I probably have some articles on these medallions someplace from my last trip to the ANA library, I mean contemporary ones from Coins and CoinAge but I'll have to look for them, they are on my old laptop, which no longer travels. However, the article is just fine without them. I'll email them to you, but it will be at least a week as I am traveling. Could you shoot me an email via "Email this user"? I think you still have my old email and I can't find yours.

Background
  • "The intent of the act" This sentence should be split at the semicolon.
  • Putting an image to the left of a block quote loses the indented effect and probably should be avoided.
  • "remain stagnant" maybe "remain unchanged"
  • "Helms gave" ... "Helms goes on" probably the tenses should be consistent.
  • "the Bank omnibus bill" probably either both Bank and omnibus should be capped, or neither.
Reception
  • "Manfa" is this correct? I thought it was a longer name.
That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt, for your thoughtful review and support! I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, but I left a few notes above to discuss if not.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Just a few minor comments.

  • Suggest saying in the opening sentence that there were ten medallions in the series.
  • "Critical of the Treasury's plan, North Carolina senator Jesse Helms stated that": how about "North Carolina senator Jesse Helms criticized the plan, saying that"?
  • "Helms gave the following statement": I think you could make this just "Helms said".
  • "He noted that the House Subcommittee on Historic Preservation was sent a large number of suggestions": should this be "had been sent"? Or if the point is that the suggestions both had come in in the past and continued to come in, how about something like "regularly received suggestions" to emphasize that?
    • The source isn't really clear on that, but I believe that the suggestions were still coming in at that time. However, just in case, I changed it to "received," which should cover either scenario.-RHM22 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vigdor stated that they were difficult to market": perhaps "According to Vigdor"? And maybe switch "stating" to "asserting" in the following sentence -- he is making an assertion and something more definite than "stating" seems appropriate.
  • The comment about selling them in sets of five of the half-ounce or five of the one-ounce made me realize that it's not obvious which five are in each set. Four of them don't have weights in the mentioned in the inscriptions listed in the table, and two are not described in the text; the Twain medallion's weight can only be deduced by noticing the caption of the Cather medallion picture. How about adding a weight column to the table? And maybe a designer column?
  • I would assume all the coins are not under copyright. How about a gallery of some (or even all) of the designs?
    • They are indeed in the public domain as works of the U.S. federal government, but coins and medals are considered three-dimensional objects, so any photograph automatically generates a new copyright. In the past, it has been very difficult to find freely-licensed images for coin articles, but another member has recently received permission to use a large repository of images for the encyclopedia. I will contact him to see if he can secure some images of these pieces.-RHM22 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie: Thank you for your thoughtful comments! I believe I have addressed all of them (some with minor changes), however I have also left some notes above, between your suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My comments above have been addressed; this looks good to me. A pity about the coin image copyrights; now you mention it I remember running into that before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your comments and support. I contacted that fellow editor, whom I mentioned above, in regards to some more images for this article. I think that I will be able to get them, but I'm still waiting to hear back from him. It used to be extremely difficult to find any decent coin images, to the point that we (myself and the other numismatic contributors) would sometimes have to resort to using low quality monochrome images from pre-1923 Google Books.-RHM22 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie: I have an update regarding your proposed image gallery. Thanks to the very generous and invaluable efforts of Godot13, I have added an image gallery depicting all ten medallions to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great! Glad to see it was possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi RHM, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability, and since it's been a couple of years since you were last here (I believe) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- will request both at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Thank you. My last time at FAC was in mid-2012, I believe.-RHM22 (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotchecks

Nikkimaria: Many thanks for your SR and spotchecks! I believe I've addressed all of these except for the last one. I've added some notes below yours above.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Support, essentially. I have a few nitpicky observations that surely won't interfere with promotion:

  • J. Aron & Co. currently redirects to Goldman Sachs, where it's mentioned in the 1980–1999 History subsection. Is it worth linking there (perhaps making an appropriately-formatted redirect to that section)?
  • "1984 marked the termination of the Mint's contract with J. Aron and Company..." The manual of style discourages starting sentences with figures, including years. Perhaps instead "The Mint's contract with J. Aron and Company terminated in 1984..."
  • Is the reverse of the Frost medallion conventionally described as "inscription" rather than, perhaps, "poem"? I recognize that it is both of those things, but the latter makes the connection to his work more clear, perhaps.
  • The Egan source is missing some information about the journal issue: this was volume 13, number 41 of New York.
  • Its not really essential, since the citations cite specific page numbers, but I don't suppose you have the page ranges for the Ganz and Gilkes articles (or the volume/number for those issues of COINage and Coin World)?
  • The Yeoman source is missing an ISBN number (I believe it to be 978-0-7948-2494-5).

In general, very nice work on a surprisingly obscure bit of modern American exonumia. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you for your support and comments! I believe that I have addressed all of them.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I look forward to seeing this article with its bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Cucurbita

[edit]
Nominator(s): HalfGig, Sminthopsis84, Chiswick Chap

This article, Cucurbita, is about the genus of plants called squash, pumpkin, and/or gourd depending on local parlance. They are native to the Western Hemisphere. The fruits of this genus are an important source of human food and play several roles in human culture. We've enjoyed working on this for over a year and hope you enjoy reading it. There are many people without whom we could not have gotten this article this far; too many of them to list here. HalfGig talk 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the tools are reporting it has "Squash (plant)" which is a redirect, but it doesn't. I don't know how to fix this. HalfGig talk 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap looked at this. See this talk page thread. HalfGig talk 13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

[edit]

Good to finally see this article at FAC! I'll post a full review later, but for now a few comments:

  • "Female flowers of C. pepo have a small calyx, but the calyx of C. moschata male flowers is comparatively short."
  • "Cucurbita are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C, potassium, dietary fiber, niacin, folic acid, and iron. They are free of cholesterol."
  • entire paragraph ending with "has significantly different enzymes and chromosomes."
This was all the result of copyediting. They all had refs at one point. I dug them up by going through the history of the article. HalfGig talk 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CorinneSD

[edit]
Resolved comments

Comments about the lede

1) Regarding this sentence:

  • The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and traditionally of detergent.

This part: and traditionally of detergent does not sound right. It would partly improve it if you added commas around "traditionally":

  • The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and, traditionally, detergent. (no "of" before detergent)

But that's a little inelegant. Another problem is that the word "traditionally" suggests that it is no longer an important source of detergent, and since the verb of the sentence, "is", is in present tense, detergent doesn't belong in the list. You might perhaps fix that problem by changing the verb to present perfect tense and adding a time period:

  • For hundreds [or thousands] of years, the Cucurbita genus has been an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil and detergent. [Here I think you can leave out "traditionally" because the time span is large enough that you don't have to be so accurate about the present time.]

Another solution would be to leave the verb in present tense (or change it to present perfect) and leave out detergent. I think the word "traditionally" unnecessarily clutters up the sentence.

Since it's in the lead I cut it. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Regarding this sentence:

  • Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, which are used as utensils or vessels, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe.

I know you've worked on this sentence, but it is still not perfect. You have two adjective clauses in this sentence, both beginning with "which" (they must begin with "which" and not "that" because they are non-restrictive, or non-identifying, adjective clauses). I suggest the following wording to reduce the number of adjective clauses to one:

  • Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are used as utensils or vessels. They are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe.

Another possibility is the following wording:

  • Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels.

or:

  • Gourds, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe; rather than providing food, they are used as utensils or vessels.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the third paragraph of the lede is the following sentence:

  • The flowers are yellow or orange, and there are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: the female flowers that produce the fruit and the male flowers that produce pollen.

I think the definite article "the" can be removed before "female flowers" and "male flowers". You're not talking about specific flowers; you're talking about types of flower:

  • The flowers are yellow or orange, and there are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: female flowers that produce the fruit and male flowers that produce pollen.

but the sentence still does not sound right. The first half of the sentence is not closely related to the second half, and the first half is in a different sentence structure from the second half. I suggest the following wording:

  • The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange and are of two types: female and male. The female flowers produce the fruit and the male flowers produce pollen.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you changed it. Did you mean to leave out the link at "tribe"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HalfGig I don't know if you saw this. CorinneSD (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS. Missed that one. Fixed now. Thanks! HalfGig talk 17:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) The last sentence in the lede is the following:

  • Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated in festivals such as Halloween, pumpkin chucking, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries.

I was about to add "in" before "flower and vegetable shows" because "flower and vegetable shows" are not examples of festivals, when I realized that Halloween is not a festival, either. It is a traditional holiday, but not a festival. I don't know how you want to fix this. One possibility is to delete "in festivals such as":

  • Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keen Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the section "Description":

1) I'd like to say something about these two sentences:

  • Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and are mesophytes, plants which require a more or less continuous water supply. The perennial species grow in tropical zones and are xerophytes, plants which tolerate dry conditions well.

I assume that if a Cucurbita species is not a mesophyte, it is a xerophyte, and vice versa. If I am correct, then the xerophytes are less common than mesophytes. Something needs to make clear the relationship between these two sentences. Before I suggest an alternate wording, I'd like to ask whether any xerophytes are climbing annual vines.

All Cucurbita can climb if they have a structure to attach to, such as a corn stalk. Otherwise they grow along the ground. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You'll see that I don't know much about plant biology. As I said before, the relationship between those two sentences is not clear. Now I know that xerophytes can be "climbing annual vines", but, clearly, because of the definitions you've provided, a plant can be a xerophyte or a mesophyte but not both. Are all "perennial species" xerophytes? And why don't you mention "annual species" anywhere? CorinneSD (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, they can't be both. I'm only talking Cucurbita here...not any other genus, which I know far less about....Xerophytes are perennials not annuals. You said both in your last post. So to answer one of those question, yes, in the genus Cucurbita, all perennials are xerophytes. I do mention annuals, the article says "Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and are mesophytes". Most Cucurbita will be annual and mesophytes. Only a few are perennial and xerophytes. Does this help at all? HalfGig talk 03:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. I missed "annual" in "climbing annual vines". I'm sorry. What would you say to adding the phrase "The lesson common" or "The less numerous" before "xerophytes":
Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) The next sentence following those two is:

  • Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or along the ground.

There is something wrong with this sentence. The way it is worded now, the verb climb applies to both "adjacent plants and structures" and "along the ground":

  • Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or [climb] along the ground.

The verb climb doesn't really work with horizontal movement along the ground. You could add the verb crawl, move, or extend:

  • Growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft), the plant stem produces tendrils to help it climb adjacent plants and structures or crawl along the ground.

Do the tendrils actually help the plant crawl, move, or extend along the ground? If so, then you can use one of those verbs as in the version just above. The phrase "growing 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft)" doesn't really say height or width. I guess the reader is supposed to assume that it means that it grows 5 to 15 meters (16 to 49 ft) in height. Whether or not you think that is clear enough without the phrase "in height", it seems odd to mention tendrils that help it crawl along the ground, which is horizontal movement. Just some things to think about.

I used crawl. I also added "in height or length", because that depends on if they grow up or out. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clearer now. I prefer "extend", though. It's more academic than "crawl". CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the section "Germination and seedling growth":

1) In the first paragraph, the second sentence is the following:

  • Seed with maximum germination potential in C. moschata had developed by 45 days after anthesis, and seed weight reached its maximum 70 days after anthesis.

Coming right after a sentence in present perfect tense (has been directly linked), this sentence in past perfect tense (had developed) and past tense (reached) puzzles me. It sounds like it refers to a specific experiment or research result, but no indication of time or place is given. If you want to keep those verb tenses, you need to indicate to what experiment or research this refers. If you're referring to a generally accepted truth about the seeds, you need to use present tense. Also, I don't understand the use of the singular "seed" at the beginning of the sentence.

I tried to fix this. Think of the singular seed as collective, as in "a sack of bird seed", which is thousands of seeds, not just one. Does this help? Ok now? HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean by the singular seed as a collective noun, and I saw you changed "had developed" to "developed", but the sentence is still not clear to me for several reasons.
1) When and where did this happen? You can't just have a sentence in past tense sandwiched in between a sentence in present perfect tense and the subsequent sentences in present tense.
Asking Sminthopsis84 to handle these two. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2) What does "Seed...developed" mean? CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking Sminthopsis84 to handle these two. HalfGig talk 03:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) and 2) Although I'm a little uncomfortable with generalizing from one experiment, I think that is the wikipedia style, since there's no point in citing the experiment if it isn't taken as a general indication. I've changed these sentences to "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein. Seed with maximum germination potential in C. moschata develops by 45 days after anthesis, and seed weight reaches its maximum 70 days after anthesis." I hope that solves the problem that the subsequent text is in the present tense. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) In the second paragraph is the following sentence:

  • Phytate forms in seeds tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids.

I don't understand the use of the plural "seeds" as an adjective before "tissues". Also, even though there is a link at "Phytate", for an average reader who doesn't already know what "phytate" is, there is potential for ambiguity at the beginning of the sentence. "Phytate forms" can be read as noun - verb or as adjective - noun (because "forms" can be a verb or a plural noun). It only becomes sorted out when one continues to read. (The plural "seeds" before "tissues" doesn't help.) I'm wondering whether some descriptive phrase could be added before "phytate" to give the reader an idea of what it is: "The...... phytate forms...." If you don't want to do that, then perhaps changing "seeds" to "seed" will be enough. CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the "seeds" to "seed". To me that helps. Work for you too? I added an explanation clause. HalfGig talk 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the change from "seeds" to "seed" helped improve the sentence. The additional phrase only helps a little. Let me ask you: in the next sentence it says, "The nutrients in globoids". What's the relationship between that sentence and the one we've been discussing? Do those nutrients include phytate, or are those nutrients phytates? (I always try to make the connection between a sentence and the sentence before it clear; sometimes all it takes is the use of the right word or phrase.) CorinneSD (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are related. Globoids contain phytate, hence phosphorus, which is essential for plant growth, as well as other nutrients. HalfGig talk 03:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. What would you say to adding, "including phytates" or "including this stored phosphorous" (between a pair of commas) after "The nutrients in globoids"?:
  • The nutrients in globoids, including this stored phosphorous, are eventually used completely during seedling growth.
To tell you the truth, when I first read that sentence about phytates, it wasn't clear to me whether it was something beneficial or something harmful to the plant. If it is made clear that it is a nutrient, then I know it is something beneficial. CorinneSD (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HalfGig, I know you've done just what I suggested, but I have re-read these two sentences several times and I feel that they don't fit well together. The sentences are awkward and the relationship between the two sentences is still not completely clear. Here they are as they are now:
  • Phytate, a type of stored phosphorus, forms in seed tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. The nutrients in globoids, including this stored phosphorus, are eventually used completely during seedling growth.
I'd like to suggest the following re-wording:
  • A type of stored phosphorus called phytate forms in seed tissues as spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. Along with other nutrients, phytate is used completely during seedling growth.
With this wording, the second sentences develops naturally out of the first. I have left out "eventually". I think "during seedling growth" is sufficient to indicate when phytate is used. I also left out "in globoids" after "nutrients". If you think it is important, you can add it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. HalfGig talk 23:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Comments about the section "Species"

I noticed that in the list of species in the third paragraph of the section, the countries of origin are given after the word "origin" followed by a hyphen. Is that standard format in botany? I haven't often seen a hyphen used that way. I would have thought either a colon after "origin" or a spaced en-dash would look better.

I made them ndashes. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the section "Habitat and distribution"

1) I paused at these two sentences:

  • Within C. pepo, the pumpkins, scallops, and possibly crooknecks are ancient and were domesticated separately. The domesticated forms of C. pepo have larger fruits and larger yet fewer seeds.

(a) Regarding the first sentence, in the phrase "were domesticated separately", it is not clear what "separately" refers to. Separately from what?

Different times and places. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that to the sentence, which hopefully clarifies. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) It is not clear whether "the domesticated forms of C. pepo" at the beginning of the second sentence are the same as "the pumpkins, scallops, and possibly crooknecks" that "were domesticated separately" (first sentence), or different.

It does if they are domesticated. I've added "than non-domesticated forms" to the end. We can tweak that even more if needed. Pumpkins, scallops, and crooknecks are only 3 of the 12 or so types of C. pepo. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(c) In the second sentence we read: "have larger fruits and larger yet fewer seeds". Larger than what? It's not clear.

See prior response. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(d) Regarding that same phrase, it would be a stylistic improvement to avoid the use of "larger" twice in such close proximity. One solution would be just to change one of them to "bigger". Another suggestion is to change "and larger yet fewer seeds" to an adjective clause describing the fruits:

  • have bigger fruits whose seeds are larger yet fewer in number", or
  • have larger fruits whose seeds are bigger yet fewer in number" (better).
Chose this one. HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) At the end of the third paragraph are the following two sentences:

  • It is found from sea level to as high as 1,800 meters (5,900 ft) in dry areas or areas with a defined rainy season. Seeds are sown in May and June at the start of the rainy season.

The second sentence says that seeds are sown...at the start of the rainy season, but you just mentioned that Cucurbita argyrosperma is found in dry areas as well as in areas with a defined rainy season. In those dry areas, is there a rainy season? If not, then when are seeds sown in those areas? CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unknown to me. Can you help wordsmith this? HalfGig talk 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded that to clarify it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
Further comments by CorinneSD
[edit]
Resolved comments

I hope my comments will not be seen as nitpicking. If you read my comments and suggested re-wordings carefully, I think you'll see that my goal is to increase clarity and improve sentence flow. (Read all the way through before you make any changes.) First, I'm going to copy the entire first paragraph of the article here:

  • Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica. Some Cucurbita species were brought to Europe after the discovery of America and are now used in many parts of the world. The plants, referred to as squash pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds. Plants in the Cucurbita genus are important sources of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil. Other kinds of gourd, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels.

1) Unless this is standard language among botanists, in which case I guess it should stay, I am not pleased with the sound of the first sentence:

  • Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica.

The reason is that, normally, we say "X is native to [place]", but "X was first cultivated in [place]". Ideally, I'd like to add "that is" before "native to":

  • Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae that is native to...

but even if it's not added, it is understood, so the "is" applies to both "native to" and "first cultivated in", and "[is] first cultivated in" does not make sense.

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Also, the way it is worded now, there is some ambiguity in the "native to and first cultivated in". It could refer to Cucurbita or "the gourd family Cucurbitaceae". The way to clear up the ambiguity is to separate "native to..." from "the gourd family Cucurbitaceae". One possibility is:

  • Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae. It is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica.

Another possibility is a small re-arrangement:

  • A genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae, Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica.

This puts Cucurbitaceae far from, and Cucurbita closer to, "is native to...". For clarity, this is actually the best wording, but I don't know if there is some requirement that the subject of the article be the first word in the article.

I like that last wording too, but also don't know if it has to be the first word. HalfGig talk 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the phrase "referred to as squash pumpkin or gourd depending on species", shouldn't there be a comma after "squash"? You don't mean that "squash pumpkin" is a phrase unto itself, do you?

Fixed. HalfGig talk 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) At the beginning of the second paragraph in the lede are the following two sentences:

  • There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these species can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; C. pepo includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

Even though I may have worked on these sentences earlier, upon re-reading I see that the beginning of the second sentence needs some work:

(a) I think that, in the phrase "All of these species", the word "species" can be omitted:

  • All of these can be treated as...."

(b) You might consider adding "however," after the semi-colon or after C. pepo.

  • There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; however, C. pepo includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.

or:

  • There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. All of these can be treated as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months; C. pepo, however, includes some cultivars that are better used only as summer squash.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) At the beginning of the third paragraph in the lede is the following sentence:

  • Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have tendrils, but non-vining "bush" cultivars of C. pepo and C. maxima have been developed.

I would add the word "also" after "have":

  • Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have tendrils, but non-vining "bush" cultivars of C. pepo and C. maxima have also been developed.
Fixed HalfGig talk 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) The next sentence is:

  • The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange and are of two types: female and male.

I probably wrote this sentence, too, but upon re-reading it I thought of something. The sequence "are yellow or orange and are of" is all right but is a little awkward-sounding. It also puts equal emphasis on the color and the fact that they are of two types. I'm wondering if it is necessary to say "The flowers on a Cucurbita plant are yellow or orange." I'm wondering what you think of this:

  • The yellow or orange flowers on a Cucurbita plant are of two types: female and male.

This tells the reader that the flowers are either yellow or orange but puts less emphasis on the colors and focuses on the types (and the next sentence after this continues discussion of the types, so that focus is appropriate). What do you think? That's all for now. Will continue reading. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the section Cucurbita#History and domestication:

1) The second sentence in the section Cucurbita#History and domestication is:

  • The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south into what is now known as Mesoamerica and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

According to the first sentence in the article on Mesoamerica, the region called "Mesoamerica" extends southward from the middle of Mexico. Since "southern Mexico" is in Mesoamerica, the phrase "spreading south into...Mesoamerica" isn't quite accurate. (If it's in Mesoamerica, it can't spread into Mesoamerica.)

Perhaps a small word change would avoid that inaccuracy but express pretty much the same thing:

  • The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

Since it says at the beginning of the article that Cucurbita is native to, and was first cultivated in, the Andes and Mesoamerica, I don't see why you don't add "into South America" after "spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica":

  • The likely center of origin is southern Mexico, spreading south through what is now known as Mesoamerica, into South America, and north to what is now the southwestern United States. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. HalfGig talk 01:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Toward the end of the last paragraph in Cucurbita#Habitat and distribution is the following sentence (read to the end before you make any changes):

  • In 1986 Paris proposed a revised taxonomy of the edible cultivated C. pepo with eight groups based on their basic shape and color, which varies widely.

I suppose, just judging from the verb "varies", the adjective clause "which varies widely" refers just to color, but it might also refer to "basic shape". If it refers to both "basic shape" and "color", the verb needs to be changed to "vary". If it refers only to color, I would add "and on their" before "color" to make it clear that the clause refers only to color. I'd also like to suggest that you change "with" to "that consists of" or "that includes":

  • In 1986 Paris proposed a revised taxonomy of the edible cultivated C. pepo that consists of eight groups based on their basic shape and on their color, which varies widely.

I actually think it would be better to leave it "their basic shape and color" but leave off the adjective clause, "which varies widely". You could say somewhere else that their color varies widely. The important thing here is that the revised taxonomy is based on their basic shape and color. If it is important to mention their colors, you could write,

  • ...based on their basic shape and their widely varying colors.

or:

Fixed HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to harp on this, and I know you selected one of the two alternatives I suggested, but upon re-reading, I have to ask you: was Paris' new taxonomy really based on all the different colors? Basic shape I can understand. But I believe I read somewhere that the colors vary widely even within one species, so creating a taxonomy based on all these colors doesn't seem to make much sense. You can ask Sminthopsis84 about this, but I would keep this simple: "based on their basic shape and [varied] colors". I really don't know to what extent the taxonomy is based on the colors, but the more elaborate wording you chose suggests that one principle upon which the taxonomy was based was the many colors -- a bit confusing. CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Paris article again, I think it would be accurate to drop the mention of color from the classification, saying something like "based primarily on the shape of the fruit". The flesh of the fruit and whether the rind is hard are also important for deciding where a cultivar belongs in that classification, and color plays some part (e.g., vegetable marrows are not yellow or striped), but fruit shape alone could be used to accurately place each cultivar into that classification. I'll make that change; see what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) Regarding the table in this section, I just don't understand the photo of the pumpkin. I have never seen a red pumpkin. All my life I have seen pumpkins, and they are all orange -- not even reddish-orange -- just orange. I know there have been discussions regarding this earlier, but even if pumpkins are red in some other part of the world, they are native to Mesoamerica and soon moved into North America, so are kind of native to North America, which is where I am, so I think the picture of the pumpkin should show an orange pumpkin. Also, most of them are rounder, not as narrow as the one in the table. CorinneSD (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a red pumpkin anywhere. HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only image of a pumpkin in the table. It's reddish-orange. CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several pumpkins that color. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the photo. HalfGig talk 02:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. You don't have to change the photo. It's just that the pumpkins I'm used to look like the ones in the article on Pumpkin, the first image in the section Pumpkin#Description. The caption says, "Several large pumpkins". Do you see the difference in color? CorinneSD (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Cucurbita#Toxins:

1) In the middle of the third paragraph is the following sentence: [Note: read to the "Update" below before making any changes.]

  • Cucurbitacin is a plant steroid poisonous to mammals found in wild Cucurbita in quantities sufficient to discourage herbivores, and in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family. It has a bitter taste, and is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, with the exception of an occasional C. fraterna and C. sororia, bitter to taste.

There are some things about these two sentences that are not clear to me.

(a) The phrase "poisonous to mammals found in wild Cucurbita" sounds like some mammals are found in the wild squashes.

(b) I think you could mention at the same time that Cucurbitacin is both bitter and poisonous.

(c) If Cucurbitacin is found in wild Cucurbita and "in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family", where is it not found? In cultivated Cucurbita? But I thought even cultivated Cucurbita are within the Cucurbitaceae family. I'm totally confused by this.

(d) Regarding the second sentence, I assume that "It" means "Cucurbitacin", but this pronoun is so far from its antecedent, with several singular nouns in between, that it would be a good idea to replace the pronoun with the noun.

(e) I think there is a bit of unnecessary repetition here. You're saying:

Cucurbitacin has a bitter taste and is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds...bitter to taste.

Why would any thing or anyone ever taste Cucurbitacin by itself? Is the first part of this sentence necessary? Why not just say:

Cucurbitacin is what makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, ..., bitter to taste.

If you want to explain things, I'll be glad to revise the sentences to whatever extent you wish, or you can go ahead and work on the sentences yourself; either way is fine. Or, of course, if you think they're fine as they are, you can leave them as they are. CorinneSD (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I think I've figured out a wording that would address most of the issues I raised. I haven't changed anything in the article, but I'll put this version here so you can look and think about it. If you decide to use it, you'll have to figure out where the references go.

  • Cucurbitacin is a plant steroid present in wild Cucurbita and in each member of the Cucurbitaceae family. Poisonous to mammals, it is found in quantities sufficient to discourage herbivores. It makes wild Cucurbita and most ornamental gourds, with the exception of an occasional C. fraterna and C. sororia, bitter to taste.
Fixed HalfGig talk 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Cucurbita#Production:

1) Regarding the table, is there any way to get the heading, "Top ten squash producers — 2012", all on one line? If the table itself has to be made wider in order to do that, perhaps the "Country" column could be made wider.

No idea. We'd need a table expert for that. HalfGig talk 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) The first sentence after the table is the following:

  • The only other countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native are Cuba, which ranks 14th with 347,082 metric tons, and Argentina, which ranks 17th, with 326,900 metric tons.

I don't understand the first part of this sentence. I don't understand "The only other countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native". Perhaps it should be "The only other countries where squashes are native that rank in the top 20". But even with that, I don't understand "The only other". The countries that were mentioned before the table are not all countries where squashes are native. Well that's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cut "other". HalfGig talk 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

[edit]

An impressive looking article overall. A few points occurred to me:

  • You need to be consistent as to whether you use the full species name or the abbreviated form, Cucurbita pepo or C. pepo.
I thought if you spelled it out the first time you could use the short form thereafter. Am I mistaken? HalfGig talk 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about this, but having mentioned the five domesticated species in the lead, I would have thought all subsequent mentions in the rest of the article should be of the shortened form, C. pepo for example. This is not currently the case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil." - The subject of this sentence is "The Cucurbita genus" and I doubt you could extract much oil or anything else from a genus!
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds." - Perhaps this sentence could be moved nearer the beginning of the paragraph.
Rearranged slightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries." - These events are a bit minor for mention in the lead of an article ostensibly about a genus.
Made the sentence more general; celebration of the genus is however demonstrably widespread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no universal agreement as to how to handle the taxonomy of the genus, as is seen in the number of species listed, which varies from 13 to 30."= This sentence is rather long and rambling.
tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein." - this sentence requires some explanation or wikilinking.
tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pollen load" - ditto.
tweaked and rearranged a little. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "History and domestication" section, the first sentence of paragraph 2 has some duplication with the first sentence of paragraph 3.
Removed the sentence from para 3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put the "History and domestication" section near the beginning of the article.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk)
  • Why are the "Reproductive biology" and "Germination and seedling growth" sections part of the "Description" section?
Should they be their own sections or should we make a new section with them as subsections? HalfGig talk 14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought separate sections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking I can get to this later today. HalfGig talk 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the original wild specimen was a small round fruit and that the modern pumpkin is its direct descendant." - Maybe "had" rather than "was".
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its leaves are 20 to 30 centimeters (7.9 to 11.8 in) wide." -The conversion is a bit over precise.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leaves have 3–5 lobes and are 20–35 centimeters (7.9–13.8 in) wide." - Ditto.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All the subspecies, varieties, and cultivars are conspecific and interfertile." - Isn't this a tautology?
Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pumpkins and pumpkin seeds have high levels of crude protein ..." - This might be true of pumpkin seed but I would doubt it is of pumpkin which is 95% water and contains 1.2% protein according to your infobox.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of this bitterness that is especially prevalent in wild Cucurbita, in parts of Mexico the flesh of the fruits is rubbed on a woman's breast to wean children." - This sentence is a bit convoluted.
Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... there are occasional reports of cucurbitacin getting into the human food supply and causing illness." - "getting into the human food supply" makes it sound like a contaminant rather than a naturally produced secondary metabolite.
Tweaked. HalfGig talk 22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cucurbits, which are all members of the family Cucurbitaceae, ..." - This information seems redundant.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, cucurbita are often represented in Moche ceramics" - If you use "cucurbita" here it needs to be capitalised and italicised. Otherwise substitute "cucurbits".
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (GermanJoe)

[edit]
  • File:Zapallomuseolarco.jpg - this one gave me trouble (low-resolution image), but I found this archived discussion, confirming communication with the museum. This collection of images from museum exhibits is most likely OK, based on information from the museum, that was relayed via OTRS.
  • File:Cucurbita_pepo_Cocozelle_fruits.jpg - originally from a different website, but the Flickr-uploader seems to maintain the source website as well (AGF) - OK.
  • All other images are clearly CC or PD for various reasons with sufficient source and author information.

Both comments are just for information, all images are OK to use within our guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed look. HalfGig talk 22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Will take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have to say I am not a fan of the intro as it stands currently as it comes over a bit stilted. The first sentence leaves me thinking, "a genus of what?" - I'd also wikilink genus here. I think I'd open with, "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to the Andes and Mesoamerica. Five species are widely grown for their edible fruit, variously known as pumpkin, squash or gourd, and seeds. Plants in the Cucurbita genus are important sources of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil. Other kinds of gourd, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels." or something like this - it just needs to flow better and be more punchy. I am happy to massage it live,
Feel free. It has probably had rather too much of the committee treatment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is my attempt at rejigging the lead and making it snappier. Let me know what you think.
Looks good. Linked genus. Yes, by all means edit directly as you see fit or post here for us to do it. As for the intro, I've made some changes as you suggest above. Feel free to tweak it or post more suggestions here. HalfGig talk 13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its because I do alot of biology articles but I'd move the History and domestication section down the article to after Habitat and distribution - that way it segues nicely into the cultivated stuff, with nutrients etc. coming after.
Done. HalfGig talk 13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put production after History and domestication actually.
Done. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we comparing production to watermelon production?
So that we can see where cucurbit production stands relative to another common fruit food. If this is a faux paus, it can be removed. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure - I can see the benefits in giving context, so if you guys feel it's useful I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...is so vast that its various subspecies and cultivars have been misidentified as totally separate species. - needs a ref at the end of the sentence
This had a ref. It was lost in editing, so I found it by going through article history and readded it. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Germination and seedling growth is a subsection of reproductive biology so should be level 3 header.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect the distribution and habitat section to have something on the total range, maybe northern and southernmost species and centres of biodiversity of the genus (if possible), not just the few cultivated species
Some of this type of information is in history and domestication section, but I also see your point. I've added it. Please review. This info is spelled out in the Nee (1990) article. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why the link to Calabaza at the bottom? If it is one to talk about, then a few notes within the general text is better - the article has only 28 kb of prose so can easily be expanded.
Cut HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, am not sure about the Culinary uses section - most of this should be under production above, not human culture, the only exception being the thanksgiving bit which should be moved to festivals.
Split per above, please review because I'm not sure I split it precisely as you intended. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think this split overlooks actual culinary uses, i.e. different foods and recipes, regional or not, made from squashes. These items of daily consumption do not fit into production, nor into (annual) festivals. I suggest we put them back into a smaller Culinary uses section. I'll see if I can find some regional variations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Chiswick here. It's better with a culinary section. However, the paragraph currently at the bottom of production, that was moved out of culinary, which starts "The Cucurbitaceae family has many species used as ....";....I'm split on whether it should stay where it is now or move back to culinary uses. HalfGig talk 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I guess I saw human culture as "culture plus symbolism but not including food as such" but if other folks see it as more inclusive that's no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why is Cucumber in see also bit at bottom?
Cut HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything about regional variation that can be added to the Culinary uses section? what preparation is done more than others where....
As I understood your above comment, there is no culinary uses section now. As I understand your question about preparation, I haven't seen anything in what would be suitable source for a featured level article. I shall look around and post back here if I find anything suitable. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some traditional regional variations from India, France and Italy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think we're in striking distance but still a few issues to clarify. The prose is pretty good, and the comprehensiveness is okay - a few issues there that need to be looked at - but the structure needs some fine-tuning as above. It's a big article and I have to take another look as I am wondering whether there is some more that should be in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was only 6K when I started on it back in Aug 2013. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, that's common. Most articles I pick up to buff for FAC grow considerably....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

This nom has been open a very long time but my impression is that we might benefit more by seeing this one through than archiving and starting again; that'll depend on how things pan out in the next short while...

  • @CorinneSD: do you consider all your comments to have been resolved now?
Yes, I do. Thanks for asking. CorinneSD (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we still need a source review for formatting/reliability and a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If none of our reviewers above feel comfortable undertaking either of those I'll try Nikkimaria.
  • There are quite a few duplicate links in the article. Some might be justified by the space between them but pls review in any case -- vine twice in the lead is certainly unnecessary! You can install this script to highlight the duplicates.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't know about the dupe link tool. I've fixed them now, except for one that shows up because it is linked in a photo caption and the body. I was told this is okay. Thank you for the tip. HalfGig talk 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Ref 10 has an error message missing url.
  • "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd)[3] is a genus of herbaceous vine" I would link herbaceous.
  • "In 1990, Michael Nee classified them into the following 13 species" There is no explanation of why Nee's scheme is given rather than that of another expert.
    • Nee's system is one of the more recent ones if not the most recent, so it based upon more modern scientific knowledge, he is also a recognized top expert in the Cucurbita field, with his 1990 work being oft-cited. I've added a bit and ref about this. HalfGig talk 19:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this pollination requires proper technique." proper does not seem the right word - expert?
  • "The most critical factors in flowering and fruit set are physiological rather than climatic." I do not understand this. It is stated above that most species require almost continuous water and others tolerate dry conditions. These are climatic factors.
  • "Evidence of Cucurbita being domesticated has been found in early archaeological records of native peoples" This seems to say that early native peoples kept archaeological records.
    • I've linked that to Archaeological record, which refers to a body of evidence..." It is what archaeologists have learned from the artifacts they have documented. ". Is this okay or do you have an alternate wording? HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is better not to refer to the "archaeological record" as it is a controversial theoretical concept. Perhaps something like "Archaeological investigations have found evidence of domestication of Cucurbita going back over 8,000 years."
  • "Evolutionarily speaking, the genus is relatively recent in origin" This is vague. 100,000s of years? Millions? If it was in Mexico and more than 3 million years old it presumably originates in the north American continent before it joined up with south America.
Only thousands for the genus, compared to millions for the family.[1] I've added to this effect in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kubitzki, Klaus (10 December 2010). Flowering Plants. Eudicots: Sapindales, Cucurbitales, Myrtaceae. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 120–122. ISBN 978-3-642-14397-7. The fossil record of Cucurbitaceae and indeed of the order Cucurbitales is sparse.. The oldest fossils are seeds from the Uppermost Paleocene and Lower Eocene London Clay (65MA).. Bryonia-like seeds from fossil beda at Tambov, Western Siberia date to the Lower Sarmat, 15-13 MA ago. Subfossil records of Cucurbita pepo have been dated to 8,000-7,000 B.C. at Guila Naquitz..., those of C. moschata in the northern Peruvian Andes to up to 9,200 B.P.
  • Reply above and further points.
  • The comment about Lagenaria siceraria is a bit obscure. I assume it is no longer regarded as a Cucurbita species, but this is not clear.
  • "Later, more accurate, dating using accelerator mass spectrometers provided more specific dates." What dates? Is 10,000 now ruled out?
It seems so, see the Kubitzki ref and quote. I've changed the 8-10,000 to 'at least 8,000' which fits these sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. BTW I think there is an error in the Kubitzki source quoted above. 65MA is the beginning of the Paleocene, long before the Paleocene/Eocene transition and London Clay. Maybe he means 56MA. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. And yes, I think that's what he was referring to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

[edit]

I have spotchecked the sources, examining all those ending in "2". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1. 2 (Tropicos) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    2. 12 (Worldbotanical) - "Musaceae" is mentioned in the source as another example of use of the word "pepo".
    1. 22 (Robinson) - This source hardly supports the statement and could be removed as #21 does do so.
    1. 32 (Sanjur) - This source supports the cladogram.
    2. 42 (Pimenta) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    3. 52 (Holotype) - This source supports the statement it cites but I think "Triloba" should be in italics and not capitalised. This also applies to "Zapallito" and "Zipinka" and the relevant citations need rationalising. I'm not sure about the other varieties as I do not have access to #55.
    1. 62 (Paris) - As far as I can see, this difficult to read, multi-used source fully supports the statements cited.
    1. 72 (Roberts) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    2. 82 (Cutler) - I do not have access to this source.
    3. 92 - (University of Illinois) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    4. 102 (Tallamy) - This source supports the two statements it cites.
    5. 112 (Havelda) - This source does not support the statement it cites as far as I can see. But there are four citations and other sources may support the statement.
    1. 122 (Janick) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    2. 132 (Bean) - I do not have access to this source.
    3. 142 (Jaffrey) - I do not have access to this source.
    4. 152 (Tra Meno) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    5. 162 (Festival) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    6. 172 (Kew) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  • In general, I found no instances of close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the sources I inspected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (formatting / reliability) - OK

[edit]
  • Some references need Template:subscription required, one needs Template:registration required tags. The "External links" tool in the FAC toolbox shows a list of results. Some of those templates can possibly be replaced with actual cite parameters, see the templates' documentation for more info.
  • Fixed a few minor issues with order of references - OK.
  • References are consistently formatted, the article is well-referenced throughout.
  • All sources covering scientific information are academic publications and/or written by topic experts.
  • I can't really judge the scientific details. Several extensive reviews have already combed through the article (see above), all raised points have been addressed.
  • Some references in "Festivals" are a bit more lightweight, but still OK for a folklore section with mostly uncontroversial festival info.

Aside from the first minor cleanup point, no problems found with citations. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Keen Johnson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is another article in the Kentucky governors topic I have been trying to improve off and on for the last several years. It has been a while since I actively worked on the article, but I just read back over it and believe it is in pretty good shape. I also still have access to the relevant sources. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support. Excellent as always. Just one niggle: "Hubert Meredith, Johnson's politically ambitious attorney general, freely aired his concerns about the administration, gaining from the publicity generated. " - gaining what? Karanacs (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a review from an old friend. The source isn't specific about what was gained, but I've tried to clarify based on its implications. Thanks for the review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Like Karanacs I can only find one thing to complain about: "The university awarded him an honorary Doctor of Laws in 1940". I would think this should be either "an honorary Doctor of Laws degree in 1940" or "an honorary doctorate in law in 1940". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "In August 1917, he was appointed a second lieutenant and assigned to the 354th Infantry," I think it'd read a bit better as either "he became a second lieutenant" or "he was appointed second lieutenant". Once this is fixed I'll support. Wizardman 17:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "When no strong gubernatorial candidate emerged from the traditional Chandler faction of the Democratic Party in 1939" "traditional Chandler faction" sounds a bit odd to me. Did he head a family faction going back many years?
    • Not a family faction, but a faction of the Democratic Party loyal to him. It started with his split from Governor Ruby Laffoon (under whom he served as lieutenant governor) and was manifested for many years as the Chandler faction against the faction led by Earle C. Clements.

Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Because of his rapport with union leaders," Is there any information to explain this? There is nothing in the article about his cooperation with union leaders and he was opposed by the United Mine Workers for governor.
  • "In mid-1947, Johnson returned to Reynolds." Is it known why he served for such a short period?

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, Wizardman, and Dudley Miles: Sorry for the late replies. Between my girls battling an upper respiratory infection and the copious snow in western Kentucky this week, I've been somewhat out-of-pocket. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I had so many fail for lack of reviews I had almost given up on coming back to FAC, but this is encouraging. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I didn't see an image review but have checked both myself and licensing seems in order, both US Govt PD. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Horace Greeley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Horace Greeley, editor of the New-York Tribune and Democratic/Liberal Republican candidate for president in 1872. He may have been the most influential man in America in the 1850s and 1860s, possibly even more than Lincoln for part of the Civil War. This is, I should add, a Vital Article. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Nominated by leave of Graham Beards although my previous nom hasn't quite cleared the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This man should have been president (Greeley, I mean, not Wehwalt – though who knows?) but he was saddled with a most unfortunate unelectability. I learned a great deal about him during my extensive peer review (link here if anyone wants a look) including that he didn't actually say the words which even the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations credits him with ("Go West, young man..." etc}. His ideas seem mightily progressive for the Gilded Age, but he was an odd-looking cove, which counted against him. So the electors rejected him, time and again, for every office he sought. But he has my vote. Support for the article is subject to clearance on sources and images – I'll do the source review myself if I can find time, but I shall be away for 10 days from Friday. Generally, a most impressive article on an important and fascinating individual. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the campaign contribution, I mean review and support. Enjoy your time away.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. A few general issues:

  • Ref 6 requires pp.
  • Some adjoining refs overlap, e.g. 29 & 30, 35 & 36, maybe others
  • Ref 96 requires pp.
  • Only the Taliaferro book in the bibliography gives publisher location.
  • "Further reading": the lists include Nevins's DAB and Lunde's ANB entries, both of which are cited sources and shouldn't appear under this heading. I don't think it's a good idea to list further reading items as secondary and primary sources. If they are not cited, they are not sources for this article, so another label should be used. Also, is it necessary to have quite so many "further readings"? The formats in these lists are a little untidy – some years bracketed, others not; inconsistency on publisher locations; "online" v. "online edition" etc. Personally I would trim and tidy these lists.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those. I've fixed 6 and 96 and cleaned up the Further reading, dividing it between books by Greeley and other works. I did try to remove the DNB entries, but Rjensen feels that the book form is useful to have there, and I'm inclined to defer to him on this one. The further reading section, I'm afraid, is one I spend not a great deal of time on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus

[edit]
Lede
  • Looks fine overall. My only quibble is with the last sentence. I find "prior to" is almost always better replaced by "before". It's not something worth opposing over, but I think it's best to use more direct language, when possible.
Concur and will change.
Cool. Don't know if you're a fan, but Bryan A. Garner's work on legal writing influenced me on a lot of things like that.
I read one of his books with Scalia when I did Scalia's article. I'll see if I can hunt it up.
Early life

"...Zaccheus's financial reverses caused him to flee New Hampshire..." Is this a flight from creditors and the sheriff, or just a change of location in hopes of a new start?

The former. The farm and possessions were sold at auction. Zaccheus feared debtor's prison. Williams, p. 11.
OK. I don't know if it's worth adding, but I don't know if modern readers realize how badly debt could affect a person back then.
Added.
First efforts
  • Do his biographers indicate where Greeley got the capital to launch the New-Yorker?
Greeley, in his autobiography, indicates he had earned some money and had a partner.
Editor of the Tribune
  • You cite Nevins, but don't list the work in the primary bibliography.
Arrgh. Will check into this.
  • I don't completely understand how Greeley got to Congress. Was he the Whig candidate in a special election, or were replacement House members appointed in those days?
I guess that was how it was done in New York, anyway. The Whig Committee for the Sixth Ward (district) picked him. There's a certain justice in it, the Whigs were cheated of the seat by Jackson, they got to decide who filled it is unusual by today's standards, where all House members are elected by the people (something not necessarily true of the Senate).
OK, then it's fine as it is. I just wasn't aware that was how it went down back then.
Came as a surprise to me too. I assumed all House members were always elected by the people, or whatever part of them got to vote anyway.
  • I'd consider linking Louis Kossuth and some of the other "-isms" Greeley is accused of following. They may be unfamiliar to average readers.
I thought about it but I'm uncertain if I could correctly ascertain all of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. The point of the statement, I guess, was that Greeley was a weird guy into weird ideas. That's clear without a sea of blue links. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. It saves me the trouble of actually discussing all these things, which probably the reader doesn't care about too much.
  • " In an editorial on November 9," It seems like you're missing a couple of words here.
  • "When the attack on Fort Sumter took place..." might be better as "When the rebels attacked Fort Sumter..." or something similar.
Presidential candidacy
  • "For this, he was attacked as a seeker after office." There's just something off about this sentence. Maybe something about how personally campaigning was seen as unseemly and grasping at the time would work better.
Thank you for that. Except as noted, I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks good. I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I traced it down and it came from [17], but that doesn't work. Since signatures are not copyrightable, we can still use the existing signature. If there's a major problem with that, I'll hunt another one down. I just hate to ask Connormah, who is very helpful to me on this sort of thing, to do unnecessary work. On the other one, are we talking about the image of the Tribune staff? Because I looked at it and the only problem with the caption is that it needed a hyphen, which I've added.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – for some reason the peer review passed me by, but in any case I have found only four infinitesimally small points to quibble about:

  • First efforts at publishing
    • "Constitutionalist, that mostly printed lottery" – as this is a non-restrictive, descriptive clause I think you want "which" here
    • "1836–1837" – I believe the MoS suggests the form "1836–37"
It's only a suggestion. That would involve changing every range in the bibliography. I think it's best left as is.
  • Draft Riots and peace efforts
    • "The books were very successful … a very large sale for the time" – perhaps lose the second "very"?
    • "Lincoln said nothing publicly, but privately indicated that he had no confidence in Greeley anymore" – it isn't obvious why Greeley had lost Lincoln's confidence.
I've tweaked it thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there to prevent a declaration of support for this enjoyable and informative article. Plainly meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and your support. Except as noted, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "He was defeated by President Ulysses S. Grant on Election Day, but died before the casting of the electoral vote." I would delete "on Election Day" as superfluous.
I guess. I'll take it out and see how it looks.
  • "the House of Representatives, where he angered many by investigating Congress in his newspaper." This does not sound right to me. Perhaps reporting misconduct by Congressmen?
On balance, I think the existing language should stand. The travel allowance issue required congressmen to travel (when at public expense) by the shortest post route. A majority of them didn't, and put in expenses higher, even though the post routes were published (even Lincoln put in such expenses). They were reimbursed, and all this sounds systemic enough that "Congress" is a better term.
  • "backing other candidates against Seward at the 1860 Republican National Convention, and supporting the nominee, Abraham Lincoln." You do not say that Seward was a candidate for presidential nominee.
  • "Although ambitious for greater things, he remained into 1831 to help support his father." Perhaps "until" 1831.
Both the above done.
  • "he was defeated by the Democrat, former Tennessee governor James K. Polk, despite strenuous efforts by Greeley on his behalf" This seems to imply that a candidate supported by Greeley should have won!
I've rephrased.
  • "Under the laws then in force, the Whig committee from the Sixth District chose Jackson's replacement" So did the law say that if a congressman was unseated, the committee of the rival party nominated his replacement?
That seems to be it. There is a certain justice to it, if you look at it the right way.
  • "opposing the annexation of the new Republic of Texas to the United States." Presumably because slavery was legal in Texas, but should this should be explained.
Clarified.
  • According to the article on Seward, one of the reasons he lost the nomination was that at that stage he had come out against slavery when Lincoln was still equivocating. If this is correct, I think it should be made clear.
You may have glanced at it hastily. Seward's opposition was to the expansion of slavery, that is why the Kansas-Nebraska Act was a Big Deal. Lincoln had also opposed the expansion of slavery in his two unsuccessful Senate runs. Seward's problems included a tendency towards the memorable phrase ("irrepressible conflict") that made him anathema in the South, a long pro-immigrant record that made him vulnerable in states where the Know-Nothings were strong, and a number of enemies. Being more prominent than Lincoln had its drawbacks, as every time Seward rose to his feet in the Senate he was likely to offend someone or other. Lincoln sat quietly in Springfield. But Greeley's opposition was in large part out of his grudge against Seward.
  • "for Senate in the legislative election held in early 1867, to be defeated by Roscoe Conkling." As Conkling was a Republican, Greeley was presumably defeated in a primary. This should be made clear.
This was an election by the legislature. There was no primary yet. Sometimes the legislators from each party met in caucus to agree a candidate.
  • "The Democrats, when they met in Baltimore in July, faced a stark choice—either nominate Greeley, long a thorn in their side, or split the anti-Grant vote and go to certain defeat." So Greeley wanted to be a Republican president and suddenly he is adopted by the Democrats, accused of supporting the Ku Klux Klan and winning only a handful southern slave states. I think this needs more explanation.
Greeley was not in a position to turn down the Democrats' support. Remember, they adopted the LibRep platform. By the rules of the game, they crossed the bridge into the LibRep camp. He won the states where the black Republicans were not in full control.
  • A fascinating article, but I cannot quite make up my mind about Greeley. I cannot see his justification for turning against Seward, or joining with the Democrats at the end, but of course I am talking about a subject which I know nothing about. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Seward thing was in part for personal reasons. He and the Democrats had common ground, as is mentioned in the article, they both agreed on Reconstruction ending, and they both disliked Grant. Coalitions have been formed on less.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Casino Royale (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was Ian Fleming's first stab at novel writing, undertaken during his annual two-month holiday in Jamaica (the lucky so-and-so) to kill time before his wedding. It's the novel that led to a 46 other Bond books by Fleming and others, a commercially successful film series, and adaptations of the character for television, radio, comic strip, video games, after shave, mobile phones, toys, etc, etc. For all that, it's a decent spy story by a first-time author; to paraphrase Fleming's description of his work, it may not be Literature with a capital L, but it is a 'thriller designed to be read as literature'. This article has benefitted from an informal PR from a high-quality cast list, following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As one of the informal peer reviewers (I took my jacket and tie off) I have found it no hardship at all to revisit this article for FAC. It can't have been easy to get the images, and the page is as well illustrated as I can imagine possible. The prose is a pleasure to read, the coverage comprehensive, the text well balanced and the research wide and thoroughly documented. Plainly meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in good nick. Some minor points:

Lede
  • Why "continuation" in quotes?
  • "The book was given broadly positive reviews by critics at the time and sold out in less than a month in the UK, although US sales upon release a year later were much slower." I think it might be better to mention the date of release here rather than in the next paragraph.
Background
  • "Foreign Manager in the Kemsley newspaper group," -is the capitalisation official here? No article on Kemsley?
  • Is there any background information which might be directly related to his writing, had he expressed a previous interest in writing, or did he just begin with no experience? Later on you mention his brother being a writer which comes as a surprise. Something on the family's writing background might be good at an earlier stage here.
  • No other background on his writing, and the first he mentioned it was to do with wanting to do a spy book. I mulled about the family point, and if was the Fleming article I would have brought it up earlier, but as it's about the background to CR, I'm not sure it's as relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you don't want to go into too much anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creation
  • Perhaps link Estoril the town itself.
  • Do you need to link Bulgarians?
Themes
  • "Casino Royale was written shortly after, " -not exactly really, seven years later, shortly after you'd think 1946-8 or something, perhaps reword.
  • Do you think it might read better without the fairly short sections or is it essential for clarity?
  • Again something I've mulled over, and I'm still not sure which way to go on this. Perhaps we can leave it as is, until someone else agrees with you, and we can spin it at that point? - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure myself, I see the use in the sub section titles as they clearly define the themes, but they are relatively short, that was all I was saying!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "Concluding, Ross thought that... ", maybe just "He concluded that the book was both "exciting and extremely civilized".
Adaptations
  • The long sentence is rather long!

♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include accessdates for online newspapers
  • FN88: the bank is a publisher, not a work
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations
  • All ddone, except those which are obvious from the title (Manchester University Press, etc), which I think is in line with the MoS: please let me know if consistency is preferrable, and I'l fill inthese off couple of gaps too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With your explanation I'm happy with Griswold. For the locations, though, we can't assume that a Cambridge book is published in Cambridge - they do substantial publishing in New York. I would suggest including a location for that one, at least. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the clarification: I've added locations for all of them, going on consistency throughout (it would have looked odd with only a few without the location in there). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My concerns were largely addressed during the talk page review process. I have one point left over from that. In the "Anglo-American relations" section you refer to "the defections of two members of MI6 to the Soviet Union". Presumably these are Burgess and MacLean, and they should be named here. They have not been mentioned since the lead, and not everyone is sufficiently informed on Cold War treachery as to automatically identify them. That's all – an entertaining article that makes me (almost) want to read the book. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Recusing from coord duties, this hardly needs my support but I enjoyed doing the GA review (this being a personal favourite among the Fleming novels) and I was interested to see how Schro had developed and restructured it...

  • Prose looks good, I just tweaked a word or two.
  • Level of detail seems sufficient for FA. The only niggle I have is "Valentine Fleming, a wealthy banker and MP who died in action in May 1917". Most of us will know that means during World War I but if you could add where or in which battle, with a link, it'd help the uninitiated.
  • Structure-wise I think there's room for improvement. If you're using subsections it seems to make sense to have two or more but Style is the only one in Background and writing. Further, I wonder if there isn't something superior to Creation for the next section heading, since surely the writing, which you've described earlier, is part of the "creation". Development mightn't be ideal but I think it's better, or you might be able to come up with something else again.
    • Thanks Ian Rose; Doc Blofeld suggested that I should perhaps get rid of most of the sub-sections. Would you agree that this may be a way to go...? - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I checked out a few novel FAs, as well as MOS/Novels. I think you could afford to break Style out into its own section, before or after Themes, as you see fit -- but feel free to see if that offends any of the other reviewers... ;-) As for Themes itself, I see DrB's point about the smallish subsections, although I think only one is a single paragraph and therefore a bit of a MOS no-no (same with Publication history for that matter) -- call me neutral on this one, I won't complain if you leave as is or if you lose the subheaders. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK: I've moved Style down the page and into its own section (above Themes): I thought it would look a little too short and a bit lost, but it doesn't, which is good. I'm also still sitting on the fence about the Themes sub-paras, but there's still time for someone to chip in one way or t'other to swing the vote. In regards to the Publication history, I've split the para in twain, to give one on the UK and one on the US, as I'd rather keep the history separate from the critics comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several images have been added since the GA review so I'd prefer to see say Nikki or Crisco review licensing before I add my full support.
  • Likewise I'll hold off full support until Nikki has signed off on sources.

Well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Cheers Ian! Thanks for the tweaks: they're a great improvement. I've asked Crisco and Nikki to come back and comment on the two different parts, (which Crisco has now done so, since the edit conflict!) I've covered all the other points, except the sub-section one. I'm happy to remove them, if you think it would be an improvement, especially given Doc Blofeld's suggestion on this point above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your detailed tinkering, thoughts and comments - it's a much stronger piece now than it was. Hopefully I'll have another of the books to bring along in the not-too-distant future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
  • File:Hoagy Carmichael - 1947.jpg - Uploaded by light show, who is currently under a CCI. What evidence do we have that this was first published in the US? Also, if we do keep this image, we should rework it to remove that God-awful autoleveling. More contrast is okay, but this is ridiculous.
I don't think we can keep this photo. Here's a photo from the same session, but uncropped. When you zoom it, there's a 1946 RKO copyright at lower right. These are from The Best Years of Our Lives. We hope (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: in the Plot section, is the "The bitch is dead now." quote necessary? Seems oddly specific for a plot summary. I agree with the use of the "Opening lines" quotebox which illustrates the writing style as described in the Style section. But, unless that particular Plot quote is notable, I think it can be effectively summarized, "...Bond coldly informs...of Lynd's duplicity and death." --maclean (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Butting in, I see your point, OTOH it's a famous line in the Bond series (one of the few I recall making it intact into the 2006 film, great though the adaptation was IMO) so I'd be happy for it to stay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Ian. Very important part of characterization there. "Cold" just doesn't cut it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's an odd one, as I usually eschew quotes in plot sections (having taen all of Fleming's other books to GA a few years ago, I can't think I used a quote in the plot apart from this), but there is a hardness and finality to it that is diffcult to translate to encyclopaedic prose without losing the impact. If you look at the two versions side by side you'll see wht I mean:
          • coldly telling his contact, "The bitch is dead now."
          • coldly telling his contact of Lynd's duplicity and death.
        • Given some of the doubts Bond expressed earlier in the book about his job, this final hardness is his turn away from the Graham Greene-style philosophising secret agent, into the "blunt instrument" character that is shown in the following books. Thanks for your thought on this - it's always interesting to have to challenge one's own thought process! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EddieHugh

There's a common problem here that articles on topics likely to be familiar to many have: too much is assumed of the reader. Specifically, from the Plot section (and adding some things on problems for the reader):

  • "M, the Head of the Secret Service". Which secret service?
  • "assigns James Bond, 007". Who is this person? What does "007" signify?
  • "The Deuxième Bureau and the CIA". Again, just stating what countries these are from would help, as the reader wouldn't have to follow the links.
  • "wins the first round, bankrupting Bond". Bankrupting him personally? I don't think that "bankrupt" is an accurate word for someone who loses all the money he enters a casino with.
  • "In the midst of the torture session". Wouldn't "during" be more accurate, if the torture ended soon after?
  • "as he recuperates in the hospital". Why not use British English, given the topic (cut "the")? The next sentence begins "When he is released from hospital", which is British English.
  • Any indication of when the story takes place? EddieHugh (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except where indicated, and except the last point, which is no, not overtly within the story itself. Many thanks for your thoughts here - they are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with what's been done following my comments. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Laurence Olivier

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier is rated as one of the greatest theatrical names of the twentieth century, along with Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. His article is the last of those three greats to come to FAC following a joint effort. Many thanks for the all-star cast who turned up at PR, whose number consisted Crisco 1492, Jimknut, We hope, Brianboulton, Wehwalt, Ssilvers, Dr. Blofeld, Loeba and Dudley Miles (and, again, many thanks to you all from us both). – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awkward overlap with two images in the award and reception section looking at it in standard on safari, Olivier's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the image below it. Can you move the fame image to the reception section and use Template:Multiple image perhaps to keep them neatly side by side without the overlap. Also the main image, there's a strange background to it with the green and white, wouldn't the other image with the pure white background be better? I must admit I'd have expected to have seen a classic image of LO in the lede, the "brooding intensity" of some of his 30s and 40s portraits are sort of iconic in cinema. Personally I think I'd prefer to see a classic black and white image of him in younger years, but I suppose the colour one might be better quality, and looking in the commons I can't see any which are of similar quality or quite have that iconic look about them except File:Laurence_Olivier_Joan_Fontaine_Rebecca.JPG, which if cropped might look very good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ive done something slightly different, and put the multiple image vertically down. I'm normally not too over fussed by the overlap: with the proliferation of different screen sizes, from phones to monumental widescreens, it'll never fit perfectly for everyone. I quite like the current lead photo: like many of Warren's others, it's a stripped down and personal photo of the individual, rather than a staged one in a role. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN53: the bank is a publisher not a work
  • Fn124 is incomplete
  • FN228 is actually from the BBC's Magazine
  • FNs 275 through 277 are italicizing publishers, while 299 is missing italics on the work name
  • Location for Olivier 1986?
  • You include county for Richards - there are a few other places where county or state might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria; all covered except the final point, which will needa little more digging through to find the right details. Your keen eye is as welcome as it always is! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this article represents some of the best work on Wikipedia. It is well-researched and written, readable, comprehensive, neutral and well-illustrated. It gives one a thorough sense of this famous actor, illuminating both his good and bad qualities. I proofread this article at the time of the PR and made various suggestions and copy edits then and since then. My concerns have been satisfied, and I congratulate the nominators for their fine work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warm thanks to Crisco and Ssilvers for support here and invaluable input earlier. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same from me too! many thanks to you both. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I was a latecomer to the extraordinarily detailed peer review, and struggled to find even a few points to whinge about. Can't find any more now – I did look. The article has had a long gestation, and the degree of care it has been given is readily apparent; I endorse everything that Ssilvers says above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a fine and fair treatment of Laurence Olivier as an actor and as a person. We tend to think of him as an older actor who played some very memorable character roles because most of us weren't here when films like Wuthering Heights were playing at the box office. Hats off to you both for all the work you did on this! :-) We hope (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments, close to full support -- recusing from coord duties; I know I'm not badly needed here but couldn't resist...

  • Like Brian I endorse Ssilvers' comments. The prose is very good, with some neat flourishes that befit the subject -- I just tweaked a bit here and there.
  • I'll go with Nikki's source review but will await a formal image review before offering full support.
  • Structure is logical and the level of detail seems appropriate. My one niggle is that I'd love to see you work in a critic's comment that Olivier "looks like a man who could lynch a crowd", one of the most memorable quotes I've heard about an actor. Not sure if it was Tynan or someone else but I daresay it's in some of the sources you've used...
    • Checking further, the perceptive critic seems to be resolutely anonymous in all three places I've seen the quote, here and here online, and where I first saw it years ago, The Movie series (ch. 42, "Olivier's heights" by Sheridan Morley, p. 827), which offers the full quote:

      Olivier looks like a man who could lynch a crowd; he resembles a panther—just when you know where he is and that you've got him cornered, he springs out at you from some totally different direction.

Well done in any case Tim and Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Ian. I'm trying to track down the origins of the quote, but without much success at the moment. I always think it's preferrable to identify the culprit, rather than just have "a critic". It's an elusive search at the moment, but hopefully it'll come to hand shortly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. Perhaps the critic really was anonymous but one assumes they came from some media outlet that, if identifiable, would be enough to include it. Anyway, support wont't be conditional on the quote, much as I'd like to see it in there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Laurence Olivier on stage and screen should be linked a second time besides just the Early acting career section. Most articles on actors have a filmography or a link to one at the end of the article, and many readers would like to easily find this list, and that section is not the most intuitive place for it to be located. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 06:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds about this: I have previously done just that, but had several people complain about having just one link in a section, and had the link moved elsewhere. I'm not sure that there's any right or wrong on this one, as if we go with the separate section, it'll probably be taken out for overlinking and for being a single line section. Perhaps we could see what other reviewers say before we change it around? - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Brilliant work on the article of one of Hollywood's most esteemed actors. Hope to see it promoted. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 14:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support and your kind words. Tim riley talk 15:13, 11 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Rodrigues starling

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A shorter companion to the recently promoted hoopoe starling article, this one is about a related extinct bird with an interesting history. Most of what is known about the bird (which is very little) is here. The article has been copyedited and promoted to GA. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Fixed all but the first one, not sure how to do that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the colwidth per recs here : Template:Reflist#Columns --Gaff (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
  • "He stated that he was confined to the offshore islet of Île Gombrani, which was then called au Mât." He was, or the bird was?
The bird, not sure what happened there! FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an article written in 1875, British ornithologist Alfred Newton attempted to identify the bird, and hypothesised that it was related to the also extinct hoopoe starling (Fregilupus varius) of nearby Réunion.[4]" This is a slightly confusing sentence, as you jump from talking about eyewitnesses to assuming that the reader knows that the species is extinct. How about something like "Writing in 1875, some time after the species's extinction, British ornit...". Also, perhaps you could specify that this attempt was solely based on the descriptions
Tweaked it a bit differently, better?
  • "the British Transit of Venus expedition" Again, assumed knowledge on the part of the reader. "A naturalist visiting the island as part of a British expedition..." or something would perhaps be better
Took the part out for the entire sentence to flow better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as had magistrate George Jenner shortly before" Why not chronological?
Restructured the whole sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These bones were found in caves on the Plaine Coral, a limestone plain in south west Rodrigues.[5] These bones" Repetition
Changed to "they", is that what you had in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Nekros" and "psar" are Greek for "dead starling"" No- Nekros is Greek for dead, and psar is Greek for starling.
Added "and", better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More subfossils found in 1974 confirmed that the Rodrigues bird was a distinct genus of starling." I'm not keen on this certainty; "added support to the claim that" would be better than "confirmed that", and perhaps you could merge this with the following sentence?
Implemented your first suggestion, but not sure about merging the sentences. The bill was known long before 1974, so the sentences are not really connected... FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until then, the Rodrigues starling was the only Mascarene passerine bird named from fossil material." Subfossil, surely? Or are subfossils a type of fossil? (Technically, I would guess not, but I defer to your knowledge.)
Subfossils are fossils so recent that they are only partially mineralised, or not mineralised at all. So it is both the first fossil and subfossil Mascarene passerine named from such... FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He suggested that this was the bird mentioned by Tafforet, instead of the one described from the bones found on mainland Rodrigues. He suggested that N. leguati was another variant of Fregilupus." Could this prose be massaged a little?
Simplified it, better? It is a very confusing situation, hehe...
  • "between faunas" Odd
Better now? FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was smaller compared to other starlings" small compared to, or smaller than those of.
Changed to "smaller compared to those of other starlings", better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attacked the native birds and tortoises instead" As well as, presumably?
Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. Sources all look appropriate, but I've not done any spotchecks. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should be fixed now, J Milburn! FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great- I'll get back to this soon. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I haven't checked the images or spotchecked the sources. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: FunkMonk, this has been open for almost a month without any declaration of support. Have you reached out to other accomplished bird and general biology editors to ask for a review? --Laser brain (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the review above seems to be going towards support, this article was listed yesterday at the Bird project.[21] With obscure topics like this, I'm used to comments arriving only once it is way down the list (see for example [22]). FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't asked, perhaps Casliber, Ucucha or Chiswick Chap might be interested in taking a look? J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, seemed to work, thanks, I'll get to it now then! FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

I can't see much wrong with this, just a few comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What variety of English are you using (centimeter/behaviour )?
  • However, there was much confusion—"however" is unneeded padding
  • "Mascarene" has variable capitalisation
  • British scientist George Ernest Shelley— "English" is more accurate
  • noted that the pigeons only bred there due to persecution from rats— I think you mean the opposite (also ambiguous under "Extinction")
  • Cheke, A. S. (1987); reference lacks publisher
Thanks, all should be fixed now, not sure what happened with centimeters, I always just write cm, must have happened during copyediting... As for the pigeons and the islets, I think it's clarified now... FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

I'd meant to comment on this the other day. Will make some comments soon, but need to attend to a couple of things first. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - nt sure about "concluded" in passive tense in intro but can't think of a more apt word, so not a deal-breaker.
Would put greek words "necros" and "psar" in italics rather than quotes as they are foreign words
Changed "concluded" to "suggested" and added italics. Better? FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yep - support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Chiswick Chap

[edit]

It's nice to be mentioned, but I don't often attempt single-species articles myself. However I will try to make a few comments.

Overall, this is a nicely-written and well-organised article that anyone would be pleased to have written. I'm personally in favour of saying "the British scientist Xxxx Yyyy", "the British palaeontologist ..." rather than simply "British scientist Xxxx Yyyy" etc, especially as this article seems to be in British English.

Changed, I don't have a strong opinion on this. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the "Skull and temporomandibular joint" comes out rather grey and fuzzy; perhaps a better scan of the original could be obtained, but this is not a requirement.

It is actually from the same scan as the taxobox image, I left them different to have some "range", because using both was already a bit redundant... But there are so few images available for this bird that I used both, and had to illustrate the bird myself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. It seems to be actually a rearrangement of some of the same sub-drawings from the lead image, in which case it is both of lower quality and wholly redundant. If so, that makes its inclusion rather hard to justify, however short we are of images. Your image is very nice, however!
Thanks, yeah, I'll replace it if I find something better, a photo of fossils would be nice... But it's not entirely redundant, it has a scale bar! FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please wikilink François Leguat in the image caption in Behaviour and ecology.

Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an article on Julien Tafforet on English Wikipedia, but there is one on the French wiki (fr:Julien Tafforet); perhaps this could be linked (maybe in a footnote, which might summarise his story; or it could be translated and, ahem, sourced).

I've thought about this before, since I've mentioned him in many articles now... Will try to do it soon, translation from French is not needed, I have plenty of English sources describing him. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In "Description", a box provides "Tafforet's complete description". It occurs to me that the original French text would be worth including here, at least in a footnote and not unreasonably in the main text (a table could arrange French and English side-by-side), in case any subtleties of translation might offer interesting clues, given how little other material there is to go on.

I'll make it a footnote, most readers here won't have much use from it in the article body itself... FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that if Tafforet elsewhere mentions other ecological details (on pigeons and parrots, etc) then it would be valuable to provide a link to his complete text, in French or English, if there is such anywhere on Archive.org, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I've used that ref in other articles already. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll be ready to support as soon as that's linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should already be there, it's ref 3 (and the doi is a link to an online version)... FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, subtle - under another name and with a maskirovka'd link! Perhaps it would be nice to have it as an External link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now you mention it, too subtle, actually... I remembered I once found an edition of Leguat's book where Tafforet's account was included as an appendix, but turns out it is in volume two[23] (before he was identified by name, the only full online version I know of), and that there are apparently some internal link errors on the archive website. Will try to add it properly... FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I added the proper edition and page with this edit[24], and I listed Tafforet as author, but is this improper? He isn't listed in the original book, since his name wasn't identified yet... FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky one. It probably doesn't matter; if you're worried you could add "not listed on title page" to the citation; or add a footnote; or put an informal link to the source in External links, saying it's the source for Tafforet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem for me if it isn't for any reviewers, Tafforet is so well established in the literature as the author by now, and his name is hammered into the reader's mind so many times in the article that it shouldn't be too controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gaff

[edit]

This is my first time commenting at FA, so please go easy on me if I say anything stupid. This is a very well written and thoroughly researched article. The prose is crisp, the article is well illustrated, and from the looks of the support above, it will soon be promoted. I enjoyed reading it. A few comments/questions follow. --Gaff (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, hope this will encourage you to make future reviews! FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other carnivorous starlings? Since this was a point of contention in the taxonomy, it might be worth pointing out just how rare is this feature.
Apparently it isn't widespread (other species probably eat meat when available), can't find any reference to other carnivorous starlings, but that also means there's no real way to cite it... FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are an admin at Commons, so know this better than I, but consider clarifying sourcing File:Rodrigues Starling.jpg. Whose descriptions were used. Is it derived directly from a specific illustration or image of a related species?
I've clarified the Commons description a bit, I drew the image based mainly on the subfossil skull, and followed patterns of relatives that have similar colouration, and glanced at some older restorations. Julian Hume's 2014 restoration is not too dissimilar, though he has added some unexplained yellow to the rump. Here's his earlier restoration:[25] My drawing is closer in plumage to the old one, but the eye colour and skin around the eye is more similar to his 2014 version (black eye, yellowish skin). I drew the image after it was requested here (though with a lot of corrections since the first upload):[26] FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused about the first paragraph of the Extinction section. The timing is odd, because your references show Legaut publishing in 1891, much later than Tafforet's visit. Legaut was dead by then as well, and I see that the work was actually published by Oliver, so makes some sense. The ISBN you give for the Hume/Walters book is not searchable on Google Books, but there is another edition here, which mentions the Tafforet in many places, including a section which mentions the Rodrigues starling, but this is under the section titled oddly enough Bi-coloured chough. I can find no mention in this edition of Leguat. Can you confirm the sourcing of this paragraph? I think it is just my confusion and not having access to an offline edition.
Yes, the English edition of Leguat's book is from the 19th century, but the French edition was published in 1708, before Tafforet visited Rodrigues (I'll note this, thanks for bringing it up); Tafforet may even have had a copy of Leguat's book with him... The bi-coloured chough is just the bird Hachisuka imagined as the "true" carnivorous bird of Tafforet's account. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two redlinks in the lede are again redlinked in the first section of the body. Is that correct per MOS (presumable so, since noboday else mentioned it).
Red links are there to encourage article creation (I'll soon make a stub about Julien Tafforet), and words linked in the intro should also be linked at the first mention in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Images are here and all have valid licenses to my inexperienced eye. --Gaff (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems a bit too "political" in a sense, Réunion is part of the Mascarenes, but is greyed out for example, simply because it is not part of the current state of Mauritus, which did not even exist when this animal was alive, yet more faraway islands are included... The current one is also good because it shows proximity to Madagacar, which is mentioned in the article. An entirely new map, based on the current one but much bigger, would probably be the best... FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Madagascar has a distinct shape, including Africa and the northern half of empty water is probably not necessary - that would allow to reduce the zoom factor significantly. But anyway, the current map is also within FA-criteria (and the island's coordinates are easily verifiable). GermanJoe (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Money in the Bank (2011)

[edit]
Nominator(s): starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional wrestling (scripted, I know) pay-per-view event, held by WWE in Chicago in 2011. I'd say this pay-per-view and the storylines leading into it pushed CM Punk into top-tier status in professional wrestling. The main event between Punk and John Cena received a five out of five star rating from the most prominent wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer. The Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter ranked the event as the best PPV in 2011 against other PPVs from WWE and three other wrestling companies.

I'm hoping that the third time's the charm as the previous two nominations stalled. After the second FAC failed, I did a second peer review, which was definitely more successful than the first. The article has also received copyedits from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors since the last FAC by Valfury and Baffle gab1978. The last professional wrestling FA was promoted nearly three years ago and I am hoping to add to the list.

Hopefully this meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Thank you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • I wouldn't mention the sponsor in the lead (especially the opening line) unless it were in itself interesting in some way (it doesn't appear to be).
  • Well, I didn't restore it since you removed it. starship.paint
  • The Raw and SmackDown briefcases: the what?
  • Rephrased. starship.paint
  • while The Sun rated: coming right after Canoe, I'd have assumed this Sun was the Canadian chain (this isn't trivial---it's the largest newspaper chain in Canada).
  • Fixed. starship.paint
  • The event drew 195,000 pay-per-view [[Trade|buys]]: this couldn't possibly be linking where you intended---either way, it should be worded to be clearer rather than simply linked.
  • The reviews in the last paragraph are perhaps a bit too much specific detail for the lead.
  • I cut the previous year's event's rating. starship.paint
    • What I'm thinking is that the whole second and third sentences of that paragraph should go—that "Money in the Bank 2011 was broadcast globally and received positive reviews" sufficiently covers it at the scope of the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. starship.paint
  • [[wiktionary:Wikisaurus:sycophant|"ass-kisser"]]": this is WP:EGG, and not very helpful as far more people are familiar with the term "ass-kisser" than "sycophant". I'd just unlink it.
  • Unlinked. I'm not sure how to phrase it better - there were 195,000 customers who bought the pay-per-view, but there might have been more who watched it. starship.paint
  • By November 2010: "By" and not "in"?
  • A secondary source reported the date in November 2010, but WWE could have made the announcement earlier. starship.paint
  • Searched, couldn't find a better reliable source. starship.paint
  • John Cena defending the WWE Championship against: as in, Cena was the defending champion?
  • In addition to breaking the fourth wall: where was the fourth wall broken?
  • The source says that Punk "broke the fourth wall" waving to the camera before claiming to be the best wrestler in the world. What should be done? starship.paint
  • It's an extremely rare event for WWE. In addition, it fits in with his speech of rebellion. starship.paint
  • removed wikilink starship.paint
  • I see the words "signature ... maneuvre" with far too much frequency; I'm nto nearly familiar enough with wrestling terminology to know what other terms to use, though
  • Changed half of them. starship.paint
  • In a scene reminiscent of the Montreal Screwjob: what, and in what way? starship.paint
  • Montreal Screwjob was also orchestrated by Vince McMahon in a match for the WWE Championship. A wrestler was in a submission hold and did not submit, but it was ruled that he submitted and thus lost the match. starship.paint
  • despite Punk not submitting, McMahon signaled the referee to award Cena the match and sent Laurinaitis to ring the bell.: this is uncited.
  • fixed starship.paint
  • to immediately cash in his contract on Punk: what does this mean?
  • If Del Rio "cashed in", he would have an immediate match against Punk for the WWE Championship. I reworded. starship.paint
  • The Sun's Rob McNichol described the Raw Money in the Bank match as "a shade below it's [sic] Smackdown equivalent" but still "entertaining".: I don't think this is a good image caption—Wikipedia's not a magazine
  • I just want to get the image into the article. Since the image is in the otherwise picture-barren Reception section, I gave it such a caption. Would you like to suggest another caption? starship.paint
  • Changed. starship.paint
  • The Sun's Rob McNichol rated the event: again, following from a paragraph about Canoe.ca, many will assume this is about the Canadian chain (which is owned by the owners of canoe.ca)
  • Fixed starship.paint
  • Punk made a surprise appearance at a show hosted by the independent All American Wrestling promotion without: a show hosted by a promotion?
  • It's a wrestling term. Changed them. Infobox cannot be helped though starship.paint
  • , a wrestler with cerebral palsy: is his cerebral palsy important to the narrative? If so, it should be explicated; otherwise, I'd drop it
  • It's irrelevant to this event, but Punk's appearance, as per the source, was endorsing Iron as an inspiration for overcoming cerebral palsy. starship.paint
  • Explained. starship.paint
  • I've changed the hard number of columsn in {{Reflist}} to a colwidth, as it's friendlier to a wider variety of screen sizes and dimensions (browsers will automatically adjust the number of columns). Feel free to change the width if you think it's too wide or narrow
  • Fine. starship.paint
  • @Curly Turkey: Thank you for your comments. Do come back! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I guess I returned. I've copyedited the whole article; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I know almost nothing about wrestling (or sports in general) so I'll assume the level of play-by-play detail is appropriate. The article otherwise seems well organized and seems to hit all the bases but one: as this is the second Money in the Bank event, a brief description of what it is and how it came about would be helpful—it starts very suddenly with the WWE announcement of the event. Perhaps even a paragraph on it would be good. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curly Turkey: hmm, let me explain. WWE holds 12 or 13 pay-per-views per year, which are special events compared to WWE's weekly TV programs. Money in the Bank 2011 is just one of the PPVs. The previous and next year, WWE held Money in the Bank 2010 and 2012, but the only similarity is that they feature Money in the Bank ladder matches. Money in the Bank is a theme for the PPV. starship.paint
    • Okay, I've tweaked the opening line a bit more. If you're satisfied with that, then I'm almost ready to support on prose: I'd still like to see the background expanded as I stated about (and include the bits about the number of PPV events—everything in the lead should also be in the body), and I'd like to see that inline cite disappear from the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curly Turkey: I have shifted some information from the lead to the background section, I think everything in the lead is now covered in the body, including the number of PPV events. The reference has also migrated from the lead to the background. starship.paint
    • Hmmm ... it's just about there. I like how you've rearranged the lead. The "Background" section, I think, needs just a tad more work—it starts with the announcement, and it isn't until the second paragraph that we find out what it is. Try to imagine this article on the main page—there will be many who will click through who have only a casual interest in wrestling. How does the "Background" section as written orient such a reader? I'd expect it to begin with something like: "The Money in the Bank series is a blah blah blah that began in blooh blooh, organized by Joe Blough to burp burp burp" or whatever. Since there was only one previous event, it might even be good to recap it in a sentence or so—whatever would help orient that casual reader. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curly Turkey: the thing is that Money in the Bank is not really a series. MITB 2010 has nothing to do with MITB 2011 because they are one year apart in terms from storylines. The PPV before MITB 2011, WWE Capitol Punishment, would be more relevant because it is one month apart in terms of storylines. It's like Friends Season 2 Episode 6 is more relevant to Season 2 Episode 7 than Season 1 Episode 7 is. Capitol Punishment is already mentioned where it's relevant in the Storylines section regarding Orton and Christian. There isn't any real information on MITB as a series. It's organized by WWE. It began in 2010. That's it. starship.paint
  • @Curly Turkey: I apologize for the late reply. Is there anything from WWE Money in the Bank you would like included in MITB 2011? The extraneous stuff at that article seems to be talking about 2012/13/14 events, not the 2010 one. starship.paint
    • Well, something to clear things up---it's a series, but not really a series? It's an annual event, but it's just one of several such events in a year and there's no real continuity? It needs some sort of explanation for those who aren't steeped in the way the WWE works. There was an earlier event with the same name, which would lead someone (like me) to assume some strong connection with that event---which leads such a reader to think something's missing from the article. I sure wouldn't expect it to parallel something like your Friends example---for one thing, episodes don't normally share titles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have thought about it and I think I understand your concerns. I'll have to write up an explanatory note. This might affect other articles as well, those like WWE Money in the Bank. However, one problem I foresee is that I am not sure if I can find a reliable source doing the same explaining that I will be doing. starship.paint
  • @Curly Turkey: Check out the background section! starship.paint
    • Alright, I'd move that to the first paragraph, though, and rather than emphasize the lack of connection to the previous event, I'd simply mention that the storylines carry on from the ongoing season (year? I don't know how it works). How does something like this work:
The previous Money in the Bank in 2010 featured a main event involving John Cena. The ongoing storylines in WWE's weekly television programs provided the background to the 2011 event, which continued the storylines from the previous event in WWE's 2011 pay-per-view schedule, Capitol Punishment.
Of course, this will still need a citation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curly Turkey: Implemented. The first sentence is now cited. The second sentence is backed up by the entire Storylines section ... how about shifting this paragraph to Storylines? starship.paint
    • Alright, I guess it's fine. If you ever do find any sources that can give a bit more detail to the background of how the event came to be, I strongly urge you to add it. The article as it is I think is fine now, and I give it my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Gloss

[edit]

Article looks okay, but the prose needs some work.

Lead
  • "while Daniel Bryan won the match for wrestlers from the SmackDown brand for a similar opportunity for the World Heavyweight Championship." - isn't it the same opportunity? "similar" makes it seem like there may be a difference between winning it for Raw and for SmackDown.
  • "Money in the Bank 2011 was broadcast globally and received positive reviews" - the name of the event was "Money in the Bank" not "Money in the Bank 2011" (as it says on the poster) so it's probably better to drop the 2011 from this line - I know it's a re-occuring event but each event is only called "Money in the Bank"
  • Both settled. starship.paint
Production
  • "Tickets went on sale in May 2011 through Ticketmaster with prices ranging from $25 to $300.[3]" - I don't think ticket information is needed, is it? I don't know that I've ever seen pricing information in any concert/event article.
  • Umm, the information was out there, and I added it to be comprehensive. starship.paint
  • Raw and SmackDown should be linked the first time they appear in the "storylines" section
  • "he and not Cena was "the best in the world"" - rewording might make this sound better, something like "he, rather than Cena, was "the best in the world""
  • Done. starship.paint
  • while the image of Punk and Cena is good because it's from the event, a solo picture of Punk or Cena might be better in this spot (maybe of Cena, since Punk has a solo picture later in the article). The article has plenty of other pictures from the event and this one isn't of great quality and also only shows Punk's back, so it's not doing a great job of presenting him.
  • @Gloss: How's the new photo? Might be a bit old but it's the only good one of him with the championship. Otherwise I think I settled all your concerns so far. starship.paint
  • "Their rivalry started on the May 6 episode of " - might be better to stay "their storyline started" since the two have had a rivalry in the past, so to say it started on May 6th is slightly misleading
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "At Capitol Punishment, Orton defeated Christian" - can we give this a time frame? I'm not sure when it was but for example "Two months prior at Capitol Punishment" or "Three years ago at Capitol Punishment"
  • going back a little, "On the next Raw" should probably be "On the next episode of Raw" - I wasn't sure about it at first but later on in the article I see "On the June 24 episode of SmackDown" so it should stay consistent - also a little bit later on "July 1 SmackDown" needs to be kept consistent
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "The Raw Money in the Bank competitors were announced" - Raw should be italicized, I believe
  • In this case it refers to the Raw brand, not the Raw TV show, so no italics. starship.paint
  • "Show knocked out Henry" - has "Show" ever been used as a nickname for him? It's not his last name, so "Big Show" should be used whenever he's mentioned. It'd be like saying Taker instead of Undertaker.
  • "Show knocked out Henry before the bout began. This created a rivalry between the two; Henry interfered in Big Show's match with Alberto Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and on the June 27 episode of Raw in a cage match." - sentences should be mixed a little better.. try "Big Show knocked out Henry before the bout began, creating a rivalry between the two. Henry interfered in Big Show's match with Alberto Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and on the June 27 episode of Raw in a cage match."
  • The July11ST reference maybe. Never mind, "Big Show is better, thanks. starship.paint
  • the use of the word "advertised" in the last paragraph of "storylines" seems a bit awkward, "announced" would sound better
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Kelly had been feuding with the Bella Twins since May" - if not including a year such as "May 2011" then remove "since May" and say "for three months"
  • Done, thanks. starship.paint
Event
  • "Barrett got Bryan onto his shoulders and tried to throw him off the ladder" - the repetition of "the ladder" in this and the previous sentence is noticeable. you can leave it as "tried to throw him off" here (we know they're still on the ladder)
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Henry gained a two-count after slamming Big Show back against the mat with his World's Strongest Slam move. Henry then performed the World's Strongest Slam again and two running splashes for the pinfall victory" - repetition of "World's Strongest Slam" makes it sound awkward. the second time you can just say "Henry then performed the move again"
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Henry wrapped a chair around Show's ankle and injured it by jumping on it." - injured the chair or injured the ankle? Just kidding, but rewording this would help too.. as well as not calling him "Show" again --- "Henry injured Big Show by jumping on a chair wrapped around his ankle."
  • Reworded differently. starship.paint
  • "Orton was enraged; he kicked Christian in the groin" ---> "An enraged Orton kicked Christian in the groin"
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Punk kicked out of two of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustment move" ---> "Punk kicked out of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustment move twice"
  • Reworded differently. starship.paint
  • "thirty" --> 30 (with a number higher than ten, it's usually safe to not need to spell it out)
  • Done. starship.paint
  • the part about the Montreal Screwjob confused me a little at first. I would explain what happened at Money in the Bank first, and then say how it was reminiscent of the Screwjob.
  • Done starship.paint
  • Raw needs to be italicized again
  • See my comment above regarding Raw. starship.paint
  • references should read in numerical order. at the end of both paragraphs in the main event match section, it reads [5][4][25]
  • Done, thanks. starship.paint

Will return with comments on the rest later. Gloss 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
  • "which was an increase of 18.2% from the 165,000 of the previous year's" -- add "event" to the end of the sentence
  • link to the 2012 MITB
  • "Money in the Bank 2011 received" - again, the event is only titled MITB not MITB 2011 (this pops up again later in the section "Dave Hillhouse at the Canadian Online Explorer's said Money in the Bank 2011" and one last time at the end of the section)
  • Three comments above settled. starship.paint
  • the second paragraph needs to be expanded a little bit more, or just made a bit clearer. who was the event competing against for the title of Best Event? that's explained at the end of the third paragraph but it should be explained here as well… the last sentence can probably be tied into the one before it, just to ensure the reader still knows we're talking about a wrestling observer award
  • Settled. starship.paint
  • "Alex Roberts of the Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter attended the event. He criticized the ladder matches for exemplifying higher risks for smaller returns" - it's not really important that he attended. you can cut out "attended the event. He"
  • The live experience is different from the perspective of a person watching the PPV on television. He's better able to judge the crowd's response, which was a part in the review. starship.paint
  • The image caption needs a little re-wording. "Several wrestlers jostle on top of the ladders while trying to unhook the briefcase during the Raw Money in the Bank match." - the tense is confusing. maybe change "jostle" to "jostling" and then remove the period, since it's not a complete sentence
  • Settled. starship.paint
  • "Hillhouse rated the main event 8 out of 10 and the overall event 6 out of 10." - earlier in the section you use "five out of five" and "four out of five" but now we're back into numbers. these should all be written out
  • Settled. starship.paint
  • Actually, I think we're seeing way too much of how many stars are being given. Perhaps take some of those out. It feels like every other sentence is how many stars someone gave the event and it's over doing it.
  • Done starship.paint
  • The info about the rating on the 2010 MITB can be taken out. If there is a main MITB event page that talks about all of the events, it could go there. But it's not relevant to the 2011 event.
  • Done starship.paint
Aftermath
  • Links are needed all around for the first time some thing appear in the section: WWE championship, the arena, Vince McMahon, The Miz, Rey Mysterio, Cena, Del Rio, World Heavyweight Championship, Daniel Bryan, Sheamus, Kelly Kelly
  • WP:OVERLINK -> Generally, a link should appear only once in an article starship.paint
  • Give a time frame for SummerSlam and Survivor Series so the reader knows when it's happening. "at SummerSlam the following month" and "at Survivor Series that November" would work
  • done starship.paint

More to come, I'd guess. Gloss 19:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are also dead links and links that have had the path change. See here. Gloss 19:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updated the links to the best of my ability starship.paint
  • I'm going to go ahead and say that I support this candidacy. I may have a few more minor points to address for further improvement, but none will likely affect my support. Great job on the article, I can see that you went through almost a year of work to get to this point and I hope it pays off at the end of this thing. Gloss 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much!}} starship.paint

Coord notes -- just a reminder that this nomination will need:

  • Image review
  • Source review for formatting and reliability
  • Spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be the nominator's first FA if successful

Will post requests for these at WT:FAC in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK
I fixed all minor issues, listed points are merely comments and tips for future nominations:

  • Captions with full sentences should end in periods, incomplete captions should not (fixed).
  • File:Money_in_the_Bank_(2011).jpg - "fair use" OK, make sure non-free images do not exceed 100,000 pixels usually (fixed).
  • Make sure, all image source links are valid and active, or an archive link is provided, where possible (fixed for Cena image).
  • All other images are CC or Public Domain - OK.
  • Flickr-images have been reviewed and show no signs of problems - OK.
  • File:Cena_With_Spinner_Belt.jpg - technically the quoted permission statement would not be sufficient, but works by US military personnel are PD anyway, regardless of additional declarations - OK.
  • Included, probably copyrighted, elements like the WWE logo should be de minimis - OK.
  • All images have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference/Formatting Comments from Ceranthor
  • What makes wrestleview.com a reliable source?
  • What makes pwinsider.com a reliable source?
  • What makes profightdb.com a reliable source?
  • Easier for me to replace it with a f4wonline.com source. starship.paint
  • Why does source 31 include this blurb: "McMahon's actions included an attempted Montreal-esque Chicago Screwjob... Cena locked in the STF. It was then The Chairman of the Board made his way to the ring with WWE Executive Vice President John Laurinaitis for a potential screwing not seen since Survivor Series 1997."?
  • Removed starship.paint
  • No dab links.
  • HAT'S WHAT I DO starship.paint
  • You need to stay consistent in using both date and accessdate for {{cite web}} For example, why does source 62 list the date of publication while source 63 doesn't? ceranthor 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceranthor Cite web dates are gone. Are dates fine for cite journal or cite press release? starship.paint
Looks good to me. Sorry for the delay! And yes, dates are typically included for both so that's totally fine. ceranthor 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • YEA-OH! I mean ... the wait was nothing. Thank you! :) starship.paint

Technical note. Someone is a) using "blue" templates throughout this FAC, and b) not signing their entries, so I can't tell who is doing it. Templates are discouraged at FAC because they get double-counted when FACs are transcluded to archives, and template-limits can be exceeded in archives, causing FACs to be cut off (among other odd and random errors). Please sign your entries, and please remove all of the "Blue" templates from the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

@Nikkimaria: thank you, I have tried to fix both. starship.paint
@Nikkimaria: You okay re. the spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing -- generally, all paragraphs should end with a citation; pls take care of the first para in Storyline accordingly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Girl Pat (1935 trawler)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This decidedly quirky, slightly mysterious maritime adventure of 1936 created enormous public interest and press attention at the time, well out of proportion to its apparent significance. It has since been ignored by almost all the social historians of the period. Was there something unrevealed behind it? After reading a passing reference to the affair in Ronald Blythe's The Age of Illusion, I was intrigued, so I researched the story and here it is. You'd call it a nine days' wonder, except that it lasted more like nine months. The article has been polished by some helpful peer reviewers, and is hopefully ready for consideration here. All views welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I enjoyed this article extravagantly. On occasion, rereading something for FAC after one has fairly recently peer reviewed it can be a bit of a chore. Not this time! The lighter side of Wikipedia, at its finest. A delectable change from shipping disasters, mad racists, drug-doomed actors, and modern slavery (though fine articles all, by fine editors). This jeu d'esprit is well balanced, comprehensive, widely sourced and referenced, cunningly illustrated and an unalloyed delight to read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support. It was indeed a pleasure to write this, not least because of the utterly fascinating period newspaper pieces, provided with much help from you and SchroCat, which formed the basis of the article. Ah, well, back to the grim stuff (I am currently resarching the Mary Celeste...) Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Doctor

[edit]
Lede
  • "The Girl Pat was a small fishing trawler from the Lincolnshire port of Grimsby" -was it made in Grimsby or was it just based at the port, it's not clear to me. I don't think I can recall a boat referred to as coming from a place like that.
  • Information relating to the Girl Pat regarding its constructiion and technical features has been very hard to find, beyond what I have included in the article. Thus I don't know if it was actually built in Grimsby, but I should imagine it was, possibly at Smith's Docks. "Grimsby trawler" is a generic name for a wide range of fishing boats, large and small, based at the fishing port of Grimsby. I have altered "from" to "based at", but can't do more. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1936 Orsborne, with a crew of four and his brother James as a supernumerary, took the vessel out on what the owners authorised as a routine North Sea fishing trip. However, after leaving port Orsborne informed the crew that they would be going on an extended cruise in more southerly waters. Nothing more was heard of them until mid-May" -here it's unclear the duration of the trip, there's no date mentioned with May and nothing on how long they were actually away for, If you were precise with the date of departure then the reader would be able to gauge that it was a week or two or more or whatever.
  • "Îles du Salut off the South American coast". -that's a huge area of possible scope as most will not be familiar with those islands, perhaps add off the coast of French Guiana.
  • Why are some countries linked but not others? Is Bahamas really worth linking more than Senegal? I'd be consistent and not link countries. There's no link of Bermuda in the main body in the background section.
  • I agree that countries should not be linked, and have delinked Bahamas. Brianboulton (talk)
  • "In court, George Orsborne based his defence " -when was this? - needs some indication of timeline here I think.
Background
  • Do you think a major city like Liverpool is worth linking?
  • Not sure – same might be said for Aberdeen. I have been pulled up in the past for not linking major British towns, and told not to assume a worldwide awareness of British geography. I'll leave them for the present, unless there are serious objections. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the following ten years, his career, he " -the "his" and "he" so closely together here I find a little jarring
  • Do we know what month the trawler was completed? Is there nothing further to be said technically about it? What about it's features and anchorage?
  • See my earlier note. I'm not sure bwhat you mean by its "anchorage", but such specifications as I have found, I have included. Some newspapers have referred to different lengths and tonnages, but I have relied on them particulars included in a notice of sale. I wish I could add more, and will obviously do so if anything more comes to light. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is really the correct term, I have heard it used in sailing navigation books, but I mean details on its anchor and docking etc. I'd imagine info about them don't exist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice in the lede you initially refer to the vessel as The Girlpat using the definite article, but throughout you just refer to it as Girlpat. Which is preferable here?
  • Yes, I think either form is acceptable, but one should be consistent. I have removed "the", except for the first line (which I think needs the definite article, (and where the reference is to the Girl Pat "adventure", "crew", "affair" etc. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voyage
  • "where he would get rid of Jefferson, who was not included in his further plans." -seems a bit vague, why was this? The way it is worded seems as if he was desperate to get him off of the boat and makes me curious!
  • The previous section records that Jefferson became a crew member only because the enterprise was changed at the last minute from Gypsy Love to the Girl Pat, of which he was the regular engineer. Thus he was an outsider; he was left out of the wheelhouse discussions, and dumped at the first opportunity because he wasn't part of Orsborne's plans to go further afield. I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • English Channel not linked yet the North Sea and the Channel Islands are?
  • "Orsborne ordered changes to the boat's appearance: the bowsprit was altered, and the fishing registration number on the side of the hull was blacked out. " -where was this conducted?
  • Now here you refer to the port as the "small northern Spanish port" which I think reads well, but earlier you call it the "north Spanish", can you change the earlier example to "small northern Spanish port" too.
  • Some indication of where the Savage Islands would be good here, you could add something like "nearly midway between Madeira and the Canary Islands", although in looking in fairness you do give an indication in the next sentence, although it doesn't indicate where 170 miles is in relation to the Canary's which might be useful for reference.
  • "This small uninhabited archipelago, roughly 170 nautical miles (310 km) south of Madeira, had long been associated with stories of pirates' buried treasure; news that Girl Pat had been seen there gave rise to press speculation that she was engaged on a hunt for treasure.[28][29] Lloyd's of London sent a representative to Las Palmas, to investigate the sighting;[30] meanwhile Girl Pat made an unobserved call at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where she was repainted.[31]" -The semicolon seems heavy here, you probably disagree, but I think one could be avoided with a little tweaking.
  • Zapped one semicolon
  • "meanwhile Girl Pat made an unobserved call at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where she was repainted." -do we have a date here?
  • Mauretania is the incorrect modern English spelling I believe, we should probably use the official English name of Mauritania here with an i.
  • I'd delink the Bahamas
  • " the steamer Arakaka" -what nationality was this? You'd think Japanese or Polynesia with a name like that! Some indication might be useful
  • I believe there's a few "Daily Worker" papers, you might add "New York" before it for some indication it's American.
  • Shouldn't " "Kia-ora" be in italics like the other ship names?
  • "A Hull man" -used in an article on shipping this might confuse some people as to which hull you mean! A local man from Hull should clear that one, admittedly my initial reaction was a boat technician!
  • Do we have a link for Fugitive Offenders Act?
Hearings
  • " once the Governor's formal approval" -surely there's a name of the actual Governor of French Guiana at the time which could be directly mentioned here?
  • It was of course the Governor of British Guiana, and The Times does not name him. Some nonentity I expect.
  • "The brothers each entered not guilty pleas" ="The brothers pleaded not guilty"
  • "The trial began on 19 October 1936." -you should probably mention at the Old Bailey here despite the header.
  • "Profitable activities such as gun-running and smuggling were mentioned" -who mentioned them? Did Maclean specifically state his suspicions that Orsborne was involved with it? Can you clarify?
  • "being hazarded" -seems a tad awkward
Yes, that's better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "After the outbreak of war in September 1939 she was requisitioned by the Admiralty for naval use; she is" -repetition with "she was" and "she is" here as well as a conflict in tense.'
  • Not sure if is also customary to use a weight conversion for 60-ton, same with the weight of the ship mentioned earlier to kilograms for the Americans among us. I know a lot of people like to have a metric indication of weight, just nit-picking of course :-).
  • I have never seen the weight of a ship given in kilograms, not even American ships (I did lengthy research into this matter when working on SS Arctic disaster a few months ago). The whole question of ships' tonnage is muddled when the sources don't indicate if the figure is "gross tonnage" (based on the volume of cargo space), "displacement tonnage" (weight of water displaced by the ship", or whether these are long tons, short tons etc. Safest I think not to conjecture, and let things be. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't either! Yes, it's probably best left as it is. Does make you wonder though given that most other measurements and weights are converted these days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notes

Did you link Portsmouth earlier like Southampton? The last example of Portsmouth I saw wasn't linked but I might have missed an earlier one.

That's all, a thoroughly enjoyable adventure story, I think I need a rest now! My only significant criticism I suppose might be that there's very little technical information about the vessel itself. I understand that it's the story which is being covered here more than the actual boat itself, but you would normally expect a section covering its technical aspects and performance. What was its capacity in fish hauls? What equipment did it possess etc? If only the very basic figures exist though then of course there's not much you can do about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, the kind of technical information you mention is simply not available, or at least, I've not been able to find it. The great majority of the information on the story comes from newspaper sources, and they were interested in the adventure and the people, not the technical details of the ship. I dare say that these exist somewhere, in a long-lost report or book, that may one day come to light, and the stuff you mention can then be added. Many thanks for the trouble you have taken to read the article carefully, and in most cases I have adopted your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for addressing the points. An excellent piece!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and support) by RHM22

[edit]

This is an excellent, informative article which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I have some points in addition to some of Dr. Blofeld's commentary above, with which I mostly agree. I think it especially important that some technical specifications be given if they are available, even if only as a few sentences.

  • Capture, detention and arrest: This quote: "Like some coursing greyhound the faster Government ship stuck to the tail of the fleeing suspect which, harelike, doubled back on her course to dodge her pursuer" would be improved by giving the source in the body of the article.
  • Capture, detention and arrest: "A Hull man thought the adventure demonstrated "the spirit of Drake", and called for a public subscription to meet the crew's debts and expenses." I'm not sure what "Hull man" means here. Is it a nautical term, or does it refer to a man working at the Hull Daily Mail? If it's the latter, then "Hull" should probably be italicized as part of the name of the paper, or preferably (to me), the entire name of the paper should be given for its use. In the next sentence, the full name of the paper is given, so maybe just flip those two, unless "Hull man" is indeed a nautical term. I know very little about boats and boating, so apologies for my ignorance.
  • Dr Blofeld, above, made the same point and I have adjusted the wording accordingly
  • In Georgetown: "...and bail was again refused." I didn't see any previous reference to bail being denied the first time.
  • Bow Street, London: "The defence counsel did not answer the detailed aspects of the prosecution's case, but stated that at the forthcoming trial "very serious allegations" would be made against certain of the prosecution witnesses." I don't understand "would be made against certain of the prosecution witnesses." Is this a typo, or a remnant of a previous revision?
  • I did some research, and I was wrong to point this out. It's correct, as you said. I had never previously encountered "certain" as a pronoun, but it's definitely proper English. Maybe it's a regional preference.-RHM22 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Bailey: "It was put to Moore that he had instructed George Orsborne not to go fishing, but to "lose" the vessel..." Perhaps this could be reworded for the benefit of people who might not realize that the quotation marks around "lose" are meant to imply a euphemistic intent, such as "...not to go fishing, but to purposefully "lose" the vessel..."
  • Aftermath: "...that Harris drank up his share of the crew's newspaper money..." Does this refer to alcoholism? If so, I would suggest rewording it to make that a bit clearer and avoid what is, in my opinion, an overly-euphemistic phrase.
  • Aftermath: This section references the invasion of Singapore as taking place in 1941, but wasn't it actually early in 1942? Malaya was invaded late in 1941, but Singapore wasn't invaded until the next year, as far as I know. Does it refer to something distinct from the Battle of Singapore?

That's all from me. As stated by myself and others, this is a very interesting article and a great read.-RHM22 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and kind words. I have done my best to respond. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Comments by Llywrch

[edit]

I'm not going to address whether I think this should be considered a pass or fail for FAC. But I will make a few comments here:

  • I made one minor edit to remove "that" from the section "Orsborne's alternative account". I think this better transitions into the account of the contents of Orsborne's memoirs which are (properly) in the present tense.
  • One change I considered, & am recommending here, is to mention the title in this section. There is an ambiguity in the third paragraph of the next section "Aftermath" in the sentence "Of the other Girl Pat crew, Orsborne mentions in his memoirs that Stephens went straight back to sea after the adventure, that Harris drank up his share of the crew's newspaper money, and that "Fletcher" (Stone) emigrated to Australia" -- since the previous sentence states George Orsborne died, I thought "Orsborne" here might refer to the brother James, & wondered why this was the first time I had heard of this book. Changing this sentence to read "Of the other Girl Pat crew, in his Master of the Girl Pat Orsborne mentions etc."
  • Like the evil good Doctor pointed out above, the mention of the Fugitive Offenders Act left me wanting more information. Not being versed in British maritime law, I don't know what this means. Obviously Orsborne stole a sailing craft; this could be considered piracy -- although due to how Orsborne gained control of the vessel & its value, another portion of the British criminal code might better apply. In short, if this were a FA, I'd expect some discussion why the Fugitive Offenders Act was selected in charging Orsborne.
  • I have clarified the reference in the text to the Fugitive Offenders Act. According to the source they were "arrested on a provisional warrant issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act, charging them with the alleged larceny of the Grimsby trawler, Girl Pat". In other words, the Act merely provided the legal basis whereby the brothers could be arrested in one jurisdiction for crimes committed in another. It was not in itself the statute which covered their crime; they were charged with conspiracy and theft. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote in the peer review, I'm missing some explanation for this joy-ride. Then again, at this time we may never understand Orsborne's motivation. As an example, there's Trevor-Roper's book on Sir Edmund Backhouse, which contains enough details about this eccentric to allow the reader to sense why Backhouse habitually indulged in numerous fabulations.

I could probably say more, but my off-wiki life has me pressed for time. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and thank you for giving the article the time you have. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. A fine article, and an entertaining read. I had some trouble finding even minor nits to pick; the points below don't amount to enough to prevent me from supporting now.

  • Why isn't the article titled "Girl Pat"? Surely there's nothing to disambiguate it from?
  • This matter was raised at the peer review. There have been at least two other vessels of this name, one of which is mentioned in the "Aftermath" section. I agree that this one is the only really notable Girl Pat, and your comment makes sense. However, the extended title does make it absolutely clear to casual readers what the article's subject is, which the shortened title might not. I'd prefer to leave the title as it is, at least in the duration of this FAC, and perhaps reconsider at leisure thereafter.
    OK; after FAC, I would suggest moving it -- we don't typically disambiguate unless there are or are clearly going to be other articles with the same name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there quotes around "stowaway" in the "Crew and vessel" section?
  • The caption of the leading image reads "Girl Pat, photographed during her period of service as a Port of London Authority, circa 1945": I would guess the word "vessel" is missing after "Authority".
  • This isn't an article about Orsborne, but in case you didn't spot it and are interested, there's an account in the El Paso Herald-Post for 17 November 1952 of Orsborne claiming to have been tortured in Venezuela; the article also mentions that he was accused of gun-running but acquitted.
  • I did know about the Venezuelan torture claims – they are mentioned in the short biography that I created for Orsborne, here. If the El Paso article is online I might use it to add detail to that article.
    It's available via newspapers.com; if you don't have a subscription let me know and I'll clip the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Stone and Jefferson had reprised the evidence they had given in Bow Street, George Orsborne took the stand": I don't think you need "had" before "reprised".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Full disclosure on this: I forwarded Brian a selection of news reports from local British newspapers during the article's development. I took no other part in the writing until the peer review, so I'm confident that there is no conflict in my further involvement.

  • Spot checks on ten randomly selected citations from newspaper and online sources confirm they support the text in the article;
  • FNs 37, 38, 56 and 82 need the double quote marks in the titles to be single (i.e. "Trawler "Girl Pat"". Hansard -> "Trawler 'Girl Pat'". Hansard);
  • FN115 is inconsistent in the capitalisation of the title compared to the other refs;
  • FN115: Just wondering why this is shown as Grimsby Telegraph online (unitalicised paper name and "online"), when the other online news source without a page, FN66, is shown as The Nashua Telegraph.

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. The minor fixes are done. On the final point: Ref 66 links to a facsimile of The Nashua Telegraph, so the newspaper itself is the source rathre than Google News (in the same way that we cite directly to books hosted by Google Books). In ref 115 the source is not The Grimsby Telegraph itself, it is the paper's website, which is a separate non-print medium. I hope that's clear. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine for me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Fork-marked lemur

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rarely studied genus of lemur. Information about them is patchy, dated, and sometimes inconsistent. I have completely re-written the article, added images and illustrations, and successfully run it through GAN. I now feel it's ready for FAC. Unless I've missed something, the article should cover everything known about these lemurs. Please note, however, that there is a discrepancy between this article and some of the source regarding the breeding information. Sources published in 1999 or earlier tend to state widely different birthing dates and infant handling because they were based on the account of a single local "informant". This information was inconsistent with what is known about cheirogaleid breeding, and the more recent material cited should be more accurate. Otherwise, the article should be comprehensive. – Maky « talk » 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Added. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Following your advice and going by what I learned on WikiCommons regarding file types, I added a JPEG and changed it in the article. However, the thumbnail looks worse to me, even after a purge. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review. As for the refs, I agree... but wasn't sure where to cut it off since there doesn't appear to be any precedent for it. The template Template:Cite book and others don't seem to cut off long lists, such as editors, and the IUCN template just has a general "contributors" field. The recommended citation from the IUCN shows the entire list of contributors, too. Just let me know where to cut it off and I will. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Also, I added one more illustration, File:Phaner furcifer 1868.jpg. Sorry for the trouble. – Maky « talk » 23:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite book automatically goes first author et al. after you put four or more authors in.
I'll do that then. Thanks! – Maky « talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare JPG and PNG side by side. The PNG is considerably blurrier, meaning you can't see any of the fur details.
I see what you mean, but the PNG looked smooth (because of the slight blur), whereas the JPEG looks grainy. I guess it's all a matter of taste. Anyway, thanks for teaching me about the difference between PNG and JPEG on Wiki. – Maky « talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Phaner furcifer 1868.jpg - To claim PD-70, you need to know when the author died. This is certainly PD-1923, but without more information on when the author(s) died, claiming PD based on the time since the author(s) died is impossible (if this were 18th century or earlier, I'd let it slide, but it's conceivable that a young person in 1866 was still alive in 1945). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched it to PD-1923 for now. Before I added the image, I thought I had identified the artist as Pieter Willem Marinus Trap (1821-1905), but I started to have slight doubts that he was only the lithographer and not the artist. The original has abbreviated in the bottom corner "Steendr. v. P.M.W. Trap" ("Steendrukkerij van P.W.M. Trap", Dutch for "Lithography of P.W.M. Trap"). It seems like it's his... but does the lithographer count as the artist if not otherwise specified? I've noticed that a lot of artists around that time are listed as both lithographers and artists, so I suspect it's very likely his. If so, it should be PD-old-100. Otherwise there is nothing else to go off of, either on the drawing itself or in the front of the book. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not well versed in the relationship of lithograph and author (not as much as, say, Adam Cuerden, who deals with these quite often), but I'd think that, if he was the only one credited, then copyright duration would consider only his lifespan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, if it's hosted on commons, you cannot use PD-1US-923 for a non-US image. That's not good enough. You can move it to en-wiki, and use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, but Commons requires the image to be PD in its source country AND the US, and only the US has the statutory cutoff at 1923. Oppose for the brief period it will take to fix this: It will get deleted on Commons eventually if unfixed, so this must be done. Now, the thing to remember with books is that the label doesn't need to be on the picture. So let's check the front and back matter. Nothing that appears relevant. As such, we're good. It's well-known that assistants tended to be used for these things, but as long as they aren't credited, they are pretty much the definition of anonymous, particularly this far back, and can be ignored. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your expert opinion. I'm glad to see that all my careful digging and attempt to understand what "Steendr v. P.W.M. Trap" meant have paid off. I have changed the license to PD-old-100 per what you said. – Maky « talk » 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take it, then, that you are unaware of commons:Template:PD-old-auto-1923? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best, by trying to find a new home for the mention of nocturnality. Unfortunately, "strepsirrhine" and "primate" can't be split. I could link them together and point to Strepsirrhini and not have a link to primates. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed link to primate. – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • who named it - named what? You've been using "they" to refer to the lemurs
Fixed – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They sleep in tree holes and nests. - most recent subject was "females", implying that only females sleep in tree holes and nests
Fixed – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It was something I preserved from the original article (before my re-write). It's been removed. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fork-marked lemurs were originally called "fork-marked dwarf lemurs" by Scottish naturalist Henry Ogg Forbes in 1894 and "fork-crowned mouse lemur" by English naturalist James Sibree in 1895. - do we need "originally" here?
Gone. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:REDLINK, we shouldn't redlink names of people
Didn't know about that one. I use the red links to make sure the first names are preserved for when I go to make the article. Anyway, a few redlinks have been removed, and otherwise I created articles for the others (hence the delayed reply). – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to jump between using "they" and "it" to refer to the lemurs a lot. Please standardize
Very good catch! Thank you. I hope I've fixed it. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (On each side of the mouth, top and bottom, there are two incisors, one canine, three premolars, and three molars—a total of 36 teeth.) - Footnote? Or remove the parentheticals in place of a semi-colon?
I opted for the semi-colon. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The testes of males are relatively small compared to those of other lemurs, and their canine teeth are the same size as those seen in females. - The subject of the previous sentence was "testes", so unless lemur testes have teeth, I'd recommend reworking this sentence
Lol! Fixed, I hope. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently - Per Wikipedia:As of, we should use an alternative phrasing that will not "date quickly".
Good catch. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my articles (FAs, GAs, and all) tend to link items in the lead, image captions, and body *independently* of each other. (The reason is that people tend to read the lead only, skim the images only, or skip directly to a pertinent section in the body. I did find a few true duplicates, even by my standards, and they've been removed. If you want to discuss further or name specific cases, please do. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do I. I still see a duplicate link to Adansonia (the tool also picks up three links to Molar (tooth) and two to anatomical terms of locomotion, but I see what you're doing there) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed extra link to Adansonia. Thanks for catching it. – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bleating" call when they have infants. - I doubt the sound itself is "bleating". Per WP:WORDSASWORDS, this is not a word as a word, but a description of the sound. As such, it shouldn't have italics or quotation marks.
I put all the calls named by the source in quotes and italics. If I removed the quotes and italics, should I do that for the other calls, too? Or do I have to judge them individually? – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it that they identified it as a bleating noise, and not the noise "bleating". The others (ki, kiu, and kea) are all onomatopoeic representations of the sound and thus alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "Bleating" (quotes and italics), just like with ki, kiu, and kea. – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Females have not been observed giving birth in consecutive years - Even in the case of a young dying prematurely?
Sources don't say... sorry. I'm guessing that losing young will result in new breeding opportunities... at the right time of the year only, though. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These trees are often parasitized by beetle larvae that burrow beneath the bark. - relationship of this sentence and the rest of the paragraph is unclear, suggest removal
Clarified. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other nocturnal lemurs are sympatric with fork-marked lemurs, and in western Madagascar, interspecific competition is reduced by restricting activity to specific levels of the canopy, such as using only the highest sleeping sites at least 8 m (26 ft) above the ground. - This long sentence could be split
Broken up. Thank you. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion added. Let me know if it reads okay to you. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review and support! – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the read-through and support! – Maky « talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. – Maky « talk » 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the base tail is the same color as the dorsal fur[24] and is usually tipped in black[4][24] and bushy." Perhaps one or two of these ands could be snipped?
Good call. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has also suggested that undescribed varieties may also exist elsewhere on the island." Double also, could perhaps be snipped.
You're finding lots of these little gems. Thanks for the careful eye! This has been fixed. – Maky « talk » 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, at this point it's just, uh, ant-loving... I'll no doubt support when I've read it through. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate the effort. After the article Lemur passed FAC, someone found an obvious typo two years later. Some are just bound to slip by, but I'm glad to see that you and the other reviewers are catching them. It's just one of those things about the human brain—it's specially wired to fill in the gaps when our attention is overloaded and omit extraneous details—all before any of it is passed to the conscious mind. (Read about the Invisible Gorilla Test.) Hence all the duplicated or omitted words and other weird typos, even after I carefully proofread. – Maky « talk » 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I read the rest, and no gorillas. Incidentally, "half-apes" (halvabe) is the common Danish term for Strepsirhini... Unlike English, the word for ape and monkey is the same... FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Males females usually form monogamous pairs, and females are dominant. - grammar - also consider some way of not having two "female" in one sentence.
Fixed. Thanks for spotting the typo! Let me know if it's better. – Maky « talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source of this specimen is thought to be Antongil Bay, but remains speculative. - "speculative" always makes me think of the one doing the speculating, not the object.......
Also fixed. Clearer? Anyway, thanks for taking a look! – Maky « talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise looking fine. hence support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha

[edit]

Note: I'm a co-author on one of the cited references (Dunkel et al. 2012).

  • " who named it after a character in the British comedy The Palace of Truth by W. S. Gilbert." This was really fun to discover, but I don't think it's important enough for the lead. Similarly, you may have put too much weight on the etymology in the body of the article—it's not that important in the grand scheme of things.
Removed from the lead. I wasn't sure how much of the story to trim when I wrote the etymology section up. I felt all three names had to be mentioned to explain how it was shown to derive from the play, and I felt your original ideas about being a "feigned Lepilemur" merited mention because that may have had something to do with the name selection. Admitted, I did not want that story to span two paragraphs. What would you suggest trimming? Maybe the "feigned Lepilemur" stuff? – Maky « talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should trim a bit anything about Mirza and Azema and about the other etymologies we initially suggested. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section has been trimmed. However, brief mentions of Mirza and Azema were needed to explain why the play could be definitively labeled as the source of the names. If you have a moment, please read it over and let me know what you think. – Maky « talk » 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their own genus, Phaner, within the family Cheirogaleidae". Not true, he put them in Lemuridae.
Thanks for catching that. The newer source makes no mention of this dated family assignment, so if I want to include that history, I'll have to cite Gray himself... which I know can sometimes be seen as borderline OR. Does Gray's family assignment need to be included in your opinion? – Maky « talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's important. Ucucha (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Distribution and habitat", is there any published research about the biogeographic pattern formed by the species? For example, do they occur in areas of endemism that also have endemic species of other lemur genera? Also, any subfossil records?
I checked all of my sources for the topics you mentioned, and none mentioned Phaner. In one (the book "Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar"), there's a table that compares four subfossil sites and their nearby forests. In this table, Phaner is listed as extant for two sites, but not among the subfossils. However, the source does not speculate on its absence in the subfossils. – Maky « talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Terminalia (known locally as Talinala)" If that's not a scientific name, italicizing it is confusing.
Sorry, I'm used to italicizing local names. So just quotes on local names? – Maky « talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems clearest to me. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A comprehensive and well-written overview of the subject. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, fixes, and support! – Maky « talk » 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: No, I have nominated many articles as Vision Holder, all of which were promoted. I've just been away for a while. But if you want a source check still, that's fine. – Maky « talk » 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and welcome back! Since you've been away from FAC for a while, I'll request a routine spot-check on WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm going to stroll down to the British Library next week I'll be happy to do the spot check on this article while I'm there. Tim riley talk 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, Tim. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. If it helps, I've included links in the refs to online sources. Many are Google Books previews, and with a careful search, you should be able to preview the pages I worked from for many of them. Others will require a library visit, unfortunately. – Maky « talk » 04:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: I checked refs 1 a–j, 43, 46–48, 50–52 and 54–56. All absolutely fine. If I'm being hyperpicky I could have done with actual pages for refs 1 a-j. True the page range is only three pages, but it's pretty dense stuff and the ten statements took a bit of tracking down. Still, this affects only the spot-checker; the general reader won't mind a bit. The article passes the spot check with flying colours. – Tim riley talk 14:43, 11 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [30].[reply]

Trinity (nuclear test)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the very first nuclear test, and the most famous. I promised last year that I would do my best to get it through FAC in time for the 70th anniversary on 16 July 2015. It has been nearly ten years since its previous nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check consistency of wikilinking in citations
  • Compare FNs9 and 37
  • FN49 should name the speaker
  • FN52 et al: should be "Restricted Data" not "Restricted data" (and why do FN55/105 include subtitle but the others not?), and should include publication date
  • FN70 should italicize publication, and the source site has more details on the original publication (page numbers, etc) that could be included
  • FNs73, 86, 126, 127 are incomplete
  • FNs76, 103 need publisher
  • Compare FNs 26 and 85
  • Compare FNs 92 and 93
  • FN132 has a formatting error
  • Bainbridge 1975 publication shouldn't include quotation marks, italics are sufficient
  • Some books include locations, others don't
  • DC or D.C.? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is called "Washington, D.C.", so we'll go with that. All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User SkoreKeep disagrees: "DC, without periods, is the (ANSI/ISO standard) designation for the district, just as MD is Maryland and NJ is New Jersey". So standadised on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "))" (multiple): MOS frowns on this.
    I'll take your word for it. I'be reverted back to the original form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Bethe stating that he was swayed with his authority over a more junior member": I'm not sure what that means.
    One of those odd ones where you have to think about, and once you follow it, are unsure why you had to think about. Rewritten thus: Bethe's choice of 8 kt was exactly the value calculated by Segrè, with Bethe stating that he was swayed by Segrè's authority over that of a more junior member of Segrè's group who had calculated 20 kt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of factors went into the choice of date and time. Most were meteorological. ... It was therefore scheduled for 16 July, the earliest date at which the bomb components would be available.": The last sentence seems to contradict the first two.
    Well spotted. Deleted the first two sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours.": ?
    Part of a caption left over from a deleted image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which together with diet questionnaires, will attempt to close this gap": IMO "together with diet questionnaires" raises questions that aren't answered (such as, why isn't it considered part of the study?). Could that part be omitted?
    Yes. I think it is more comprehensible as: In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which will attempt to close this gap. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited part of this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you once again! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few small comments:

  • The McDonald Ranch House could use a sentence or so to explain that the government seized it.
    Added. When I bring an article up to featured, I normally create a "spin off" article. In this case it is McDonald Ranch House, which is itself a GA. It has its own spin off: Niles J. Fulwyler. Like most Americans during World War II, the ranchers strongly supported the war effort until the government asked them to make a sacrifice. Then it was, "why pick on me?" The government acquired the land by condemnation (in Australia, we would say "resumption"), a process called eminent domain. The MacDonalds, for example, held 640 acres (260 ha) of patented land and grazing rights on 22,535.87 acres (9,119.94 ha) of Federal and 4,468.34 acres (1,808.27 ha) of state land. Ranchers were paid for the land they owned, and in 1942 Congress amended the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 to provide for compensation for ranchers whose permits were cancelled. The government suspended the grazing rights in the area for the duration, as the War Department was unsure as to whether the land would be required for military purposes after the war. Only in the 1970s did condemnation and cancellation replace lease and suspension at White Sands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought "amongst" was British English and "among" was American. Could be wrong about that.
    No, they have the same meaning but different usage. We use them both. I found an Oxford Dictionaries article on Abolishing angst regarding among versus amongst which says that "amongst is comparatively rare in US English but ... this spelling is by no means unknown across the water. However, many authorities (such as Garner’s Modern American Usage) and language blogs state that, in US English, amongst is now seen as old-fashioned, and even 'pretentious'." I have switched to "among", but it reads awkwardly to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice article. I hope to see it on the Main Page soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review! I am hoping that it can be promoted in time to run on 16 July 2015, the 70th anniversary of the event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sometimes the comments are almost as much fun as the article. Amongst, among, etc. Friends to the north (Canadians) use the -st but we Yanks think of it as pretentious. On the other hand, what do we know? I reviewed this at the last go around at A-review in Mhist and the (prose) questions I raised there have been resolved. I'm happy with it, and look forward to seeing it on the front page soon! auntieruth (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Have the few issues with the images all been resolved? Graham Beards (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they have all been addressed. @Crisco 1492: Is everything okay? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read through the article and I found only a couple of issues:

  • "although its tower did not" so there was a separate tower for it asides from the one where the explosion actually took place?
  • "calculated by Segrè" mention here who is him and what is his authority
  • "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is discussed twice within several sentences distance

Nergaal (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. it was hoisted up a steel tower 800 yards (730 m) from the explosion
  2. Added: the head of the Los Alamos Laboratory's P-5 (Radioactivity) Group
  3. Re-worded.
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Sega Saturn

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Sega Saturn, a video game console that has been the object of intense Internet speculation and rumors, yet which I believe Wikipedia covers as accurately and impartially as the available reliable sources allow. Improvements have been made since the previous FAC, which included a thorough source review, and I will add a few more tweaks in a moment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix let's talk...:

TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm so glad you've decided to bring this back to FAC. I am declaring my intention to review this article and will be doing so in the next few days. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress, Red Phoenix?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to proceed as soon as I can. Real life is kicking my tail right now; hopefully it won't be too long until I can devote some time to this. I do really want to give this a review. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheTimesAreAChanging: One quick one here to start: All of your images look good and properly handled except for File:Sega Saturn with Netlink inside.jpg. Take a look at your Pluto source; it's exactly the same image but zoomed out. I've also seen it in IGN as well, and as a result I really don't think it's actually a GNU from the uploader; it's more likely it was ripped off from the internet and is actually a copyright violation. The uploader even said on the page that it was an image he had on his computer and doesn't provide a decent source. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to use the WayBack Machine to archive Allgame links; the site is going down today. I know I'll end up with a lot of articles I'll have to do this with myself.
  • Fourth paragraph of Technical specifications seems a little small and isolated in the middle of nowhere. If it can't be expanded, can it be combined?

We'll start there; hopefully during this busy season I can find time to go through this more in depth. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

As a Sonic fan I've learned to accept projects not quite being finished before their deadlines, but I don't want this to experience the same fate like last time. I thought it looked great before, but a further look can't hurt... and I am too tired to give one now. Be back in short order. Tezero (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I know the page is on the large side already, but I'd prefer the second paragraph of the intro to be cut down. As a rule of thumb, if an article's intro, including only the actual text, doesn't fit entirely on my laptop screen, I consider it to be too long. In this case, I'd trim this paragraph something like so, only keeping the bold information and wording, and possibly also trim a little of the first and third:

Development of the Saturn began in 1992, the same year Sega's groundbreaking 3D Model 1 arcade hardware debuted. The system adopted parallel processors before the end of 1993, and was designed around a new CPU specially commissioned by Sega from Japanese electronics company Hitachi. When Sega learned the full capabilities of the forthcoming Sony PlayStation console in early 1994, the company responded by incorporating an additional video display processor into the Saturn's design. Successful on launch in Japan due to the popularity of a port of the arcade game Virtua Fighter, the system debuted in the United States in a surprise launch four months before its scheduled release date, but failed to sell in large numbers. After the launch, Sega's upper management structure changed with the departures of chairman David Rosen and Sega of Japan CEO Hayao Nakayama from their roles in the American division, and Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske from the company altogether. This led to the additions of Shoichiro Irimajiri and Bernie Stolar to Sega of America, who guided the Saturn to its discontinuation in 1998 in North America, three years after its release. Although the system is remembered for several well-regarded games, including Nights into Dreams..., the Panzer Dragoon series, and the Virtua Fighter series, the Saturn's complex system architecture resulted in the console receiving limited third-party support, which inhibited commercial success. The failure of Sega's development teams to finish and release a game in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, known in development as Sonic X-treme, has also been attributed as a factor in the console's poor performance.

  • "Prior to development of the Saturn, the Sega Genesis was Sega's entry into the fourth generation of video game consoles. It was released in Japan as the Mega Drive in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe as the Mega Drive in 1990." - Awkward organization. I'd simply say that the Genesis, known in Europe and Japan as the Mega Drive, was...
  • Development looks fine from a skim, but the technical aspects of consoles and computers bore me to tears so I couldn't give it more than that.
  • "1:1 ratio" - using Arabic numerals seems a little informal
  • "Sony subsequently unveiled the retail price for the PlayStation, with speaker Steve Race taking the stage, saying "$299", and walking away to applause" - the "with [pres-prog.-verb]" form is awkward; try "Sony subsequently ... PlayStation: speaker Steve Race took the stage, ..."
  • "at Sony Computer Entertainment of America" - why hasn't SCA been linked or mentioned earlier, given how much the PS1's already been talked about?
  • "in "a series of outlandish TV commercials" starting in 1997" - why quote this? The wording doesn't seem important; we don't even know whom it's from.
  • "including Virtua Fighter RPG" - First of all, the link should be to Role-playing video game. Second, introduce it like the person hasn't heard of it before, more like "including a role-playing game in the Virtua Fighter series".

Read everything until the Sonic X-treme section. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will incorporate every one of your changes, except your proposed lead. I appreciate a short lead, as seen in Dreamcast, and may try to trim this one even more than I already have. However, I believe that dropping off mid-sentence after "visual display processor", removing the names of the Sega executives, and compounding the skewed weight towards the unreleased Sonic X-Treme by removing well-regarded games that were actually released would be a mistake.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and by the time the Saturn was discontinued had sold 2 million consoles in the region" - Um... how should I parse this? Sega sold 2 million or the Saturn had? Or the PlayStation had?
  • "Lack of distribution" - ???
  • "installed base" - I know what you mean, but that's a confusing choice of wording.
  • "The decision to abandon the Saturn effectively left the Western market without Sega games for over a year" - Effectively? How many were released? Could you name a few that were?
  • Why is "Sega Pluto" bolded?

I'll look at the rest later. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sega sold 2 million Saturn units. Is "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998, and by the time the system was discontinued had sold 2 million Saturn units in the region, compared to 10.75 million PlayStation consoles sold by Sony at that time" any more clear?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may check the source on Google Scholar, but it doesn't provide much additional detail. As discussed in the "Launch" section, only four retailers carried the Saturn during its surprise launch, and this prompted others to drop Sega from their lineup. Whether or not the author is overstating the significance of this problem is difficult to assess, because few sources discuss it, but anecdotally it does seem the PlayStation and N64 were easier to find in the U.S. at least. In addition, Sega themselves (or Sega of America) infamously released Saturn games from Burning Rangers to Panzer Dragoon Saga in extremely limited quantities in their rush to make way for the Dreamcast (or because they thought such games could appeal to no more than a small, niche group of Westerners). On an unrelated note, this is also something that should have been considered for the Sega Genesis article, as Sega's aggressive advertising was largely an attempt to break Nintendo's "monopoly" by raising enough of a stink to get retailers like Wal-Mart to carry the Genesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't asking for detail, only for clarification about the vague wording. You might change this to something more specific about lack of stores carrying it, since "lack of distribution" could imply, among other things, that plenty of stores carried Saturns but didn't have many units in stock at any given time, or that not a lot of them got sold-through. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the latter interpretation is tenable, but I have revised the sentence: "Lack of distribution has been cited as a significant factor contributing to the Saturn's limited installation base, as the system's surprise launch damaged Sega's reputation with key retailers." In the hope that this may aid the reader, I have also added a little more detail to "Launch" and provided a quote from the source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the Saturn dried up by early- to mid-1998. There was The House of the Dead (March 1998), Panzer Dragoon Saga (April 1998), Shining Force 3 and Burning Rangers (May 1998), and not a whole lot else. Offhand, I can't think of any first-party Saturn games from 1999 leading up to the Dreamcast's September 9th launch. The language used echoes the source exactly, so I don't see what the issue is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, in the preceding paragraph the reader has already learned that "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998". According to the source, those games were The House of the Dead, Shining Force III, and Burning Rangers. They were not the final first-party Saturn games (parts 2 and 3 of Shining Force III, for example, were released in the following months in Japan), and this announcement does not sync up precisely with IGN's vague reference to "the Western market", because the Saturn lasted somewhat longer in Europe. However, if the reader already knows that the final North American games were announced in March 1998 and that the Dreamcast would not reach the West until late 1999, I'm not sure further explanation is required. Launch games, last games, ect., are not necessarily notable on their own terms (if they are, they might be better covered in "Game library"); and it's not our job to question a reliable source for using terms like "Western market" or "effectively", unless we can prove they are mistaken.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't be sure, but there may have been a stub article about the Pluto, which would have been deleted. At the moment, there is an anchor ensuring that any search for "Sega Pluto" leads to the brief mention here, hence the bolding. I unbolded for now, as it may put unnecessary emphasis on the alleged prototype.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a port of Sonic 3D Blast" - might be worth saying that it was an enhanced port, with better graphics, different music, and new special stages
  • Also, Sonic 3D Blast has an article, and Sonic Jam at least has a section in a larger article. Bug! should also be linked.
  • "failed to catch on with audiences in the way Sonic had" - ambiguous: the Sonic series as a whole, X-treme from what the public knew of it, Sonic R, 3D Blast, or Jam?
  • "and retrospective coverage of the game has been less positive" - a brief explanation of why (even just an extra clause caboosed on) would be nice
  • "Some of the games that made the Saturn popular in Japan, such as Grandia[18] and the Sakura Wars series" - Put a comma after "series", and consider mentioning that these were RPGs, not 3D platformers.
  • "At the time of its release, Famicom Tsūshin scored the Saturn console 24 out of 40 possible points, higher than the PlayStation's 19 out of 40" - Any fuller review?
  • The first paragraph of Reception and legacy is seeded throughout with the word "score" and variations thereof; I suggest rewording a few.
  • Also, I have no idea how well the Saturn stacked up in review scores compared to the N64 and very little compared to the PS1.
  • Did any of these so effusive critics explain what was so gilded about the Saturn's library?
  • I'd prefer the categories to be alphabetized, but not a big deal.

And that's it! I'm trusting that the sourcing hasn't changed much, so I won't be doing a source review or spotchecks. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have access to more period-specific system reviews from the gaming press, certainly not Famitsu (which has been there since this article included only about three dozen citations), but I have done my best to address most of your concerns. BTW, if you want a good contemporary review of Bug!, try this blog. I distinctly recall trying to track down a critique of comparable quality in reliable sources, to no avail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Seems like no matter whether a reviewer does or doesn't let a game's "classic" age blind them when reviewing it, I'm unsatisfied. Ah, whatever, that's too bad that more detailed reviews weren't available. I can support this article's candidacy now, at any rate; nice work. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from hahnchen

[edit]

Comment (citations)

[edit]

The article looks comprehensive and generally well-structured, but it is overcited in many sections; multiple citations should be considerably trimmed (improved, see below):

  • Simple statements of fact should only have 1 source. If multiple sources exist, the most reliable one covering the whole statement should be used.
  • Several review or critic summaries include up to 7 citations, but actually lack factual details. It would be a lot better - and informative for the reader - to limit such overviews to the 2-3 most comprehensive reviews and include some details from those sources.
  • If multiple citations are used to source a possibly controversial fact, 2-3 of the most reliable sources should suffice. Any more citations will actually weaken the sourced claim.
  • In general, single statements should not be pasted together from multiple sources, whenever possible (sometimes it's unavoidable). See WP:SYNTHESIS for a possible risk of such sourcing.

Please check the whole text and remove redundant citations; the current usage is jarring for readers (and makes verifying the content difficult for reviewers). I'll leave detailed reviews to the game experts, and will strike out my oppose, when the handling of citations has been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe, I have trimmed dozens of citations. Does the article now meet your expectations, or are further cuts needed? On the reviews front, I have emphasized the common criticism that Daytona was not accurate to the arcade version, expounded on the short length and limited availability of Burning Rangers, and consolidated several reviews into single citations (the esoteric and mostly 2D nature of Nights was already discussed). (I would love to go even further and explain that Daytona ran at 20 FPS versus the 60 FPS arcade game, whereas a few months later Virtua Fighter 2 ran at 60 FPS with better than arcade resolution, but the reviews I found weren't that informative. Moreover, its hard to get too detailed without crossing into WP:UNDUE territory.) No more than three citations are currently used for any statement, and there are specific reasons in each case why I used the citations I did. Many of them lead simply to a "cf." or additional note that provides further context to the narrative covered in the body.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the trimming, I have changed my vote to "comment" above. There are probably a few more possible spots, but I agree, it's a case-by-case editorial decision. Just avoid overciting relatively uncontroversial statements. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dank

[edit]

I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

[edit]

Generally a very good read. The only things that jumped out were a few mistakes with the citations in the body of the article, and upon checking some links that needs dealing with.

  • In first paragraph of "Launch" section - "Virtua Fighter, a nearly indistinguishable port of the popular arcade game, sold at a nearly one-to-one ratio with the Saturn hardware at launch and was crucial to the system's early success in Japan.[10][32][11]" The citations are out of numeric sequence. This needs addressing.
  • In the third paragraph of the same section - "Within two days of its September 9, 1995 launch in North America, the PlayStation (backed by a large marketing campaign[57][42]) sold more units than the Saturn had in the five months following its surprise launch, with 100,000 units presold in advance and sell-outs reported throughout the U.S.[41][58]" Same as above, for the first pair of citations.
  • In final paragraph of same section - "Tekken surpassed Virtua Fighter in popularity due to its superior graphics and nearly arcade-perfect console port, becoming the first million-selling PlayStation title.[68][64][69]" same as above.

That's the references and now for the other stuff.

  • The link to Sega Pluto points straight back to this page.
  • The links to Chris Senn and True color both lead to disambiguation pages.
  • You should go through the article's references and make sure the dating method is consistent. While most used the numeric ymd method, there were more than a few that used month-day-year (eg, June 11, 2007). Citation dates really need to be consistent in an FA.
  • The game reviews from Edge are redirecting. It's just a simple matter of the old url featuring "review" and the new ones saying "reviews". It's a very simply matter of updating the urls.

Once these are dealt with, I think I can Support this article's promotion. Once they are dealt with. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of your comments, with one exception—I don't see where Sega Pluto is linked in this article?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked too, and I can't see it either. I did use the Disambig links rather than my eyes. And speaking of my eyes, I've seen a couple of things I missed: Ref 77 as red "Check date values in: |accessdate=" message that needs dealing with, and Refs 19 and 130 are unarchived 1Up references. As the site is pretty much dead, this needs addressing.
Fixed the date. The 1UP references are archived.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. As I said above, I support this article now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

[edit]

I'll review this either later today or tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fantastic read; it's been a while since an article of this size kept me as interested as this one did. The article is certainly broad in its coverage and well focused, and I must commend the amount of work that has been done in preparation for this FAC. I've come into this conversation late, after all outstanding concerns were already addressed, so it wasn't a total surprise that after a full read nothing strikes me as falling short of FAC standards, though I should note i'm relatively new to reviewing at FAC. Accordingly, I limited my previous two reviews to source checks, though I note Ian Rose requested a source review from either Nikkimaria or Laser brain on December 30. Ian, is a source review still needed for this to pass FAC? And if so, considering nobody else has done one would you accept one that came from me? I don't want to go to the effort if you'd only accept one from a considerably more experienced reviewer. Freikorp (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Freikorp, thanks for commenting and the offer to source review. I don't want to in any way discourage you from undertaking source reviews (this discussion at my talk page goes into what's needed, including a link to Nikki's guide) but in this case I would prefer to see Nikki or Laser brain involved, partly to follow up on GermanJoe's points above re. citations. Just FTR, as I understand that this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, I'd normally also be looking for a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, but a very extensive content check of references was undertaken at the article's first FAC, so I don't require that this time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox do not appear to be sourced in the article body
  • "Silicon Graphics subsequently collaborated with Nintendo on the Nintendo 64" - do we really need three sources here?
  • Quotes of longer than about 40 words should be blockquoted
  • Don't use formatting like |publisher=''Chicago Tribune'' - publication titles should be in the "work" parameter, not publisher
  • Some periodicals include publisher, others don't - be consistent
  • Nintendo Power is a work and should be italicized
  • FN27, 106, 167, 193: missing italics
  • FN38 is in Japanese
  • FN123, 124: page(s)?
  • FN125: volume formatting doesn't match other periodicals
  • How are you ordering the Bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put the titles of the books in alphabetical order. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with a few recent edits, except with regard to the Japanese language source (given this article is about a Japanese company, is that really such a problem?) and footnotes 124/125—I will have to see if I can find that information, because those citations appear to have been copied from the FA Sega Genesis by another user.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they meant that you should have "|language=Japanese" in the reference since the text is in Japanese. I added it for you. --PresN 19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anyway, while I was able to find this scan of the Man!ac source, the page number is not visible. As for Screen Digest, something tells me Red Phoenix would have provided the page if he had it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: just to confirm, are you happy with responses/actions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing some details in the infobox that are unsourced - I don't know enough about video games to be able to tell whether these would be common knowledge, but my sense is that some at least would not. I would also suggest adding the scan of the Man!iac source to the citation, for convenience. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Manufacturer", "type", "retail availability", "discontinued", "units sold", "CPU", "storage", "graphics", "online services", "predecessor", and "successor" are all sourced in the body; "media" is sourced either with the provided citation or in the body; "generation" isn't directly stated in the body but should be common knowledge.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So... are we good? Tezero (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [32].[reply]

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

[edit]
Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the worlds first photorealistic digitally animated film. I am aware the 'Themes' section is a bit thin for FAC, but it's the best I could do; the film was not well received critically, and while countless sources discuss the impact of the groundbreaking animation, I found very few sources that discussed the film's themes. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs an image review. I'd help there, but I'm pretty shaky on fair use rules since they're so ambiguous. Also, I'm not sure what the guidelines for passing have evolved into, but generally the coordinators are looking to see that the article was thoroughly vetted and not given drive-by supports. (In other words, although a certain number of supports are needed, the quality of the reviews also matters.) I'm guessing you're fine there. After that, the coordinators sweep through the entire list of nominations once or twice a week, promoting and archiving nominations as necessary. Following an image review, you'll just have to sit tight and wait like the rest of us. – Maky « talk » 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Maky

[edit]

I loved this film and would be glad to review it. I, too, am working on getting an article like this one to FAC (pending GAN), and though I'm not an expert in the requirements for these articles, I'll review it to the level that I've taken my own anime articles. I don't think the minimal discussion of the film's themes is a problem. The articles I've written so far have suffered the same problem—everyone praising the animation but giving only shallow to non-existent discussion of the themes. As long as you have combed as many sources as possible, I feel you're fine there.

  • I don't think the cast section is needed. All but four of the voice actors are already discussed in the plot section. If you have a source for those four characters, I'd just note somewhere else in the article that they were also part of the voice cast.
I might wait for a second opinion on this one, if that's OK with you. Freikorp (talk)
That's fine, but read WP:FILMCAST. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sid finds the eighth spirit at the crater site of the alien asteroid's impact on Earth." This sentence seems out of place. I'd put it at the start of the next paragraph.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
I hope you don't mind, but I moved the second sentence back up to the previous paragraph since it pertained to another escape. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot section, I would clarify that there are two Gaia's, the alien and Earth versions.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
Again, I tweaked it a bit. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "raised interesting questions" – It's not our place to judge questions as interesting or not.
This is the opinion of the source, not original research. Do you think it should still be removed? Freikorp (talk)
You're right—the article clearly says that the source states that. My bad. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was selected by Sakaguchi based on his decision" – sound redundant.
Removed. Freikorp (talk)
  • "blew out from" ... sounds a bit like slang.
Reworded. Freikorp (talk)
  • "extremely positive reviews" – trim the adverb
Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • "Dan Goldwasser from Soundtrack.net also gave the film 4 out of 5" – the film or the soundtrack?
Soundtrack; my bad. Thanks for noticing. Freikorp (talk)
  • With Rotten Tomatoes, are we supposed to use "All critics" or "Top critics"? I honestly don't know... You might want to check to be sure.
I've seen 'all critics' cited the most, though i've noted that some articles will also cite the top critics in addition to this. Freikorp (talk)
Again, I'm not sure myself. I'll just leave this one open and see what other reviewers think. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) See: MOS:FILM#Critical response and MOS:FILM#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess this one is taken care of now. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in particular if the presence of her unconsciousness in the film..." – I'm not sure I understand what is meant here.
I didn't add that text to the article, and searching through the eBook preview oddly doesn't even get any matches for 'Final Fantasy': [33]. I'm not 100% sure what it's implying either, though my best guess is it's implying a 'cartoon' character would appear more human if she was seen to be vulnerable. As I can't confirm this, and as I'm now questioning whether this information appears in the book at all, i'm just going to remove all of it. Freikorp (talk)
Good move. I would strongly recommend verifying any information you did not add to the article before you submit to FAC... if possible. This raises questions about what else might not have been checked. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough for saying that. In my defence, here is the version of the article before my first edit [34]. I have added almost all the information to the article since then, and also successfully nominated it for GA. The only thing that isn't really mine is a sufficient chunk of what is now in the 'Reception of Aki Ross' sub-section, so that's what I haven't checked. I'll make an effort to check it now. It was well written and referenced so I accepted it in good faith. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've since checked all the sources in that sub-section. All of them check out, with the possible exception of the last one, Action and Adventure Cinema. Google preview [35] shows that 'Aki Ross' does indeed appear in the book (though it's unclear as to where) , but i'm not getting any hits for the direct quotes "into an erotic fantasy machine" or "least overtly eroticised". The eBook is $35, more than i'd like to spend. You're thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The preview Google gave me and what the preview search on Amazon turned up was limited due to bad OCR. On Google, I read 3 brief mentions of Aki and one about the role of the military and the counsel, but nothing confirmed what is cited. Admittedly, one or more pages were omitted from that part of the book's preview. Using WorldCat, can you request a copy through your local library? – Maky « talk » 17:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My local library said that only universities held a copy of the book. While public libraries charge $5 for inter-library loans, university libraries charge $21.50. As it was only an extra $14 to have my own permanent copy of the book, I took the plunge and bought it. At first I thought the information wasn't in the book; there is definitely something wrong with the books character recognition, but manually searching the book after one successful recognition of the name 'Aki' found the information is indeed there. I reworded the information a bit based on the source. Freikorp (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know the page numbers, do you mind doing the Sfn thing for this source as well? After that, I'll strike this issue. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surprisingly for a film loosely based on a video game series, there were never any plans for a game adaptation of the film itself." – How about "atypical" or something with less emotion.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • If The Making of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had so much information about the film, why is it only cited once in the article? Same with the "Making Of" featurette.
The book wasn't as helpful as I thought it would be; most of the pages were just pretty pictures. There were an awful lot of detailed biographies of not only the characters but also weapons/vehicles etc used in the film, which weren't useful to me. I only got access to the book after i'd finished writing the article, when the production section was already sufficient. I'm sure I could pull something else out of the book if I tried, I just didn't feel a need to. The only information the book had that the article was lacking in was the 'themes' information, which I promptly added to the article. I haven't seen the making of featurette, as I only own the iTunes copy of the film. I haven't felt the need to get a copy of it for the same reasons. Freikorp (talk)
I own the DVD and can watch the featurette for you. However, if there is information there that needs to be added, I can't really add it if I'm going to support this article. At least I can tell you whether or not it's worth getting your hands on. I'll get back to you. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched the featurette, and I do recommend getting a copy of it for inclusion in the article for the sake of comprehensiveness. Although there are large chunks of trivial and superficial information, there are important bits, such as the origin of Aki's name, discussion of the Gaia theme, how the production progressed, and key issues faced at each stage in production. – Maky « talk » 08:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to know, but this will take me a few days. I live in a small town; my local video store says their copy is missing, and the library doesn't have a copy either. I've just ordered a copy off eBay for $5.59 (so happy DVD's aren't worth anything anymore lol), now I just have to wait for it turn up. I should have it by next Wednesday. Freikorp (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maky: Just an update to let you know I haven't forgotten about this. The ebay seller I purchased the DVD off only marked it as 'posted' today, so I expect to get it by mid next week now. Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I haven't forgotten either. I figured shipping might take a bit. Sorry, but if I had the software to rip and encode the featurette I would have just sent it to you. – Maky « talk » 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maky: I got the film and added info from both the 'Making of' featurette and also the 'Matte Art Exploration' featurette. Have a look and let me know what you think. I'm not sure if the information regarding Sakaguchi's mother best belongs in 'Themes' or 'Production'. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information looks good, and I tweaked the placement and wording of the mention of his mother. I hope it's okay. – Maky « talk » 07:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information about how much the DVD was able to recover financially?
I haven't been able to find any. If anybody else can i'd be happy to add information on this, i'd certainly be very interested to know how much it made. Freikorp (talk)
  • The last sentence of the lead should be incorporated in the body (with its references).
Thanks for spotting this. I added the information to the 'Legacy and related media' section. Freikorp (talk)
You might also note the "box-office bomb" in the "Critical reception" section.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is information in the infobox that is not mentioned and cited in the body of the article.
I assume you were referring to the premiere - I added that to the release section. Just in case anyone was wondering, WP:RSN indicates the source I found is acceptable: See here. Freikorp (talk)
I was talking about the "Produced by", "Screenplay by", "Cinematography", "Editing", "Distributed by", and the release date for the premiere. They are not given in the body nor cited. Some of it can be cited to the film itself if you can verify it in the credits. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I cited some of this information to the book The Making of Final Fantasy. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Edited by" with "Christopher S. Capp" is not cited. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited information about him in the home media section (he features on one of the DVD's audio commentary tracks). Is this sufficient? Freikorp (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To help maintain this article after FAC is done, I strongly recommend archiving your web refs with WebCite. The Cite web template has parameters for storing the archive url and archive date.
Done. I didn't archive the World Soundtrack Awards reference as the archived version didn't allow the pop-up window to view the cited information. I also didn't archive Rotten Tomatoes or Meta-critic, as information may change slightly in the future, and they are both established sites unlikely to shut-down anyway. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last part of the discussion of Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams in the Themes section—particularly this: "and also by the animation software and the electricity powering the computers that were running the software"—left me scratching my head. Have you verified this source?
Yes, that was all written by me. I own the source (Kindle format). I thought the author was making a bit of a leap with that sentence as well, but I was desperate for 'Themes' comments, so I added it in. Source reads: "The aliens are not exactly dead people but spectres of long-deceased creatures. They are (re)animated by several kinds of forces: by the energy of the red Gaia; by the human spiritual, bio-etheric energy; by the animation software used to create them; and, quite literally, by the electricity feeding the computer workstations where the ghostly invaders were born." Feel free to reword as you see fit. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way you focus on the "reanimation" aspect (bringing these specters back to life in the film), there's no need to dive into that "animation" aspect that the author is trying to draw a parallel with. If anything, it creates confusion. I think I'm just going to delete that latter part for clarity. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, good job so far. – Maky « talk » 21:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Maky. I've replied to all your concerns, please let me know if anything requires further detail or clarification. Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maky. With the exception of the DVD featurette (which i'm still waiting for in the mail), the film cast (which i'm leaving in until I get one more opinion, I don't disagree that it's not necessarily needed, but it isn't hurting anything and I know IP's are just going to constantly add it back if I remove it) and the archive URL advice (which is a good idea, and I may get to it later, but it isn't a requirement to pass FAC) i've addressed all concerns again. If you could provide strikethroughs or comments to let me know how i'm going that would be appreciated. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. It's been a busy week. I've struck some more points and left some responses. Don't worry about IP edits—let's see what other reviewers say, and if they agree that it's redundant and unnecessary, then revert anyone who adds it back. I'll be waiting for the additional info from the new source and will give my support then. The article is looking really good. And please don't forget to archive the web refs. ;-) No, it's not required for FAC (though it should be, IMO), but it will help prevent this article from making its way back to FAR. I won't strike that point until it's done, but I'm not going to withhold support until then either. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived the refs, see above. I'm very much hoping this DVD turns up tomorrow lol. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All of my concerns have been addressed. Excellent job on the article! For the future, though, please try to cover all the sources (meeting the comprehensiveness requirement) before submitting to FAC. Otherwise the handling of the other various issues is pretty much par for the course. – Maky « talk » 07:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by I JethroBT

[edit]

Oh boy, I remember having a very chilly reception to this movie when I saw it during its theatrical release. Anyway, let's get on with the source review:

Minor stuff
  • Consider using Ucucha's script for referencing errors, albeit there are only two related ones which appear in this article. The Tasker (2004) citation doesn't point to anything in particular, when it looks like it should point to the source in the bibliography under O'Day (2004). Looks like it's just an issue of the authorship being in the wrong spot in one place or another.
Fixed the O'Day/Tasker author problem. Freikorp (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ruth La Ferla (2001) citation reads, "pp. 9–1." Is this supposed to be "pp. 9–10"?
Hmm, it's actually supposed to be 1–2, not sure what happened there. Fixed in any case. Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher field for citations like Template:Cite book read, Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). This means you can probably nix the New York Times Company in the Ruth La Ferla citation.
Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More involved stuff
  • Are pages numbers or a specific chapter title available for the multiple citations for the Bolton et al. (2007) publication?
I've now added the chapter name. Unfortunately I only have the kindle version of the book, which does not have page numbers. If there is a way to reference a specific area in a kindle book I am unaware of how to do so. Freikorp (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chapter title will be sufficient. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Time Magazine article seems to be behind a subscription paywall. Can any claims that it currently supports can be verified through an existing or different source?
When I first added that source to the article a subscription was not required to read it. I'm fairly certain I won't be able to find an alternate source for the last 3 of the 4 inline citations it is used for, thought the first one (use of motion capture) should be easy to find a replacement for. Freikorp (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I figured it was situation like that. Articles behind subscription walls can definitely be used, but their use should be minimized as much as possible. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found an existing source used in the article that backs up the motion capture usage, and added that as an additional inline citation. Freikorp (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional sources to consider incorporating
Interestingly this last source is the same text that appears in chapter 10 of the Bolton et al. (2007) book. Same author and text, just published under a different title. Freikorp (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I can provide these sources if you cannot access them for any reason.)
In general, the sources look decent at a cursory glance, but I'll do a more through review later today or tomorrow. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: Just wondering if you're still able to provide a more thorough review, as i'm fairly sure this article only needs one more 'support'. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Right, sorry. I will be finishing up with the sources tomorrow, thanks for the reminder. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Finished with the source check-- current sources in the article look solid, and I did not see any OR or other issues with regard to phrasing in the article compared the source. Any impression of that interview with Cortina in the source above? Seems like it could be used to expand the character modelling section a bit more, which afterall, the film in known for. Once I hear back from you on it, I can consider supporting this for FA. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: I added some new information from that source regarding the software programs used to create the characters. This information was really helpful, thanks. Other than that though, I don't think there's any further information in this book that can be used. Freikorp (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Looks good. Glad the source was helpful. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the addressed revisions and improvements regarding sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]
Done. Never worked on a video-game inspired film before so I didn't know I could put it under the project. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done some copyediting, mainly in the lead; feel free to revert.
Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "render farm" - possibly jargon
It's wikilnked to an article of the same name that clearly explains what it is, so I don't see a problem, though I am more than happy to accept suggestions for alternate wording. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capable of killing humans by physical contact" - how? By venomous stinging cells like jellyfish, by sharp blades like rays, or with something supernatural? The talk of infection implies the first - unless that's different from how they kill?
Clarified that "physical contact with a Phantom separates a living creature from their Gaia spirit, killing them instantly". Feel free to reword. Freikorp (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "barrier city"?
Clarified. Freikorp (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it "Dr. Sid" or "Doctor Sid"?
Consistently formatted as "Doctor", this is what appears in the credits. Freikorp (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is revealed that Gray was once romantically involved with Aki." - Is this important to the plot at this point? If not, you might consider mentioning it earlier or just leaving it out.
I suppose it's not important to mention in order to understand the film, though it does play as a sub-plot throughout the film,and this is its first appearance, so i'd rather give it a brief mention than leave it out unless that's going to be a problem. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the leadership council" - what leadership council?
I don't think it's specified, it's just referred to as the leadership council, and implied it is the leadership of what remains of humanity. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "delays the use of it by revealing that she has been infected and the collected spirit signatures are keeping her infection stable" - haven't seen the movie so perhaps there's context I'm missing, but how would this delay an attack on the Gaia?
Clarified this revelation convinces the council there may be an alternate way to defeating the Phantoms than the Zeus cannon. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This revelation convinces Hein that she is being controlled by the Phantoms." - Correctly? Does the infection also include mind control?
Specify incorrectly. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her dream reveals" - only to the audience, or to Sid?
Aki realises it herself (and accordingly the audience becomes aware); i've stated she becomes aware of it. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which form of English are you using for the article? The lack of Oxford commas and the date ordering suggests British, but then there are constructions like "authorization".
I write in British English, though I may have missed a couple American English words. I've fixed this one and will look for more. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be back with more of a review later. Tezero (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During her development, he altered the model to appear more intelligent looking, shortening the hair, and removing makeup from" - ambiguous; were the hair shortening and makeup removal part of his attempt to make her more intelligent-looking (should contain a hyphen, by the way) or separate entries in a list?
Reworded to clarify. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Matrix setting" - link to the article of the franchise, the first film, or Animatrix
Done (franchise). Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much to studio president Jun Aida's lament" - not sure this is relevant; can you detail why he was upset about this or why it's otherwise significant?
Removed, it's probably not surprisingly they were unhappy about retiring a character they had put so much effort into. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acknowledged as a technological tour-de-force" - possibly non-neutral; should probably move to Reception anyway
Reworded to simply say it was well received. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John DiMaggio as BFW soldier #1" - seems unusually specific for a Wikipedia film cast list - was this soldier especially significant?
No. I think someone just added that because DiMaggio is a regular voice actor for the video games. Removed. Maky actual suggested removing the entire cast section as per WP:FILMCAST. What are your thoughts on this? Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see how those guidelines would support removing it, though I guess I wouldn't object to its culling. Tezero (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is mostly redundant since the majority of the cast are discussed elsewhere in the article. For the remaining three cast members, there is no citation to support their mention, either here or in the infobox. – Maky « talk » 18:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does there need to be a citation? Isn't that information, like the plot, implicitly covered by the work itself? Or is this under the expectation that if they're not covered by a secondary source, they're probably not worth mentioning? (If the latter, while I think this argument tends to be overused in situations when articles aren't really comprehensible without certain primary-sourced information, I'd understand it more here.) Tezero (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I'm used to working with film articles where the original work gives credits in kanji... so I never know if people are going to object since they can't read it to verify. But the redundancy is still a minor issue. The last three cast members could easily be added to a relevant section of the article, negating the need for a "Cast" section. It's not a *huge* deal though. – Maky « talk » 19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK

[edit]
  • File:Ffmaxim_aki_ross.jpg - needs a slight reduction, the general limit is 100,000 pixels.
  • File:Elliot_Goldenthal_-_Final_Fantasy_-_The_Phantom_Plains.ogg - FUR is OK, but the sample needs to be shortened, the general limit is the shorter value of ("30sec" or "10 percent of original length"). Exceptions are possible, but the soundtrack's "atmosphere" can easily be conveyed by the sample's first part (the original length is mentioned as "1:42").
  • Fair-use rationales for all 3 images are OK, the first image for identification, the other 2 significantly increasing the reader's understanding and with detailed coverage of their content within the article itself. Time for a disclaimer: the term "significant" is a relative term with varying interpretations - it's entirely possible, that someone else will disagree here. If this happens, a discussion at WP:non-free content review will need to find a consensus.

See WP:NFC for more details about minimal usage of non-free media. GermanJoe (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Done. Image and track both reduced. Track is a couple seconds over the 10% length, but I thought it was appropriate to hear the entire bar of music (it played the whole bar on my computer but after uploading and listening on wikipedia it seems to have cut it half a second short, never mind). Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, no worries over single seconds :). We should just be in a reasonable range of this guideline. GermanJoe (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [36].[reply]

Brachychiton rupestris

[edit]
Nominator(s): Melburnian (talk · contribs) and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unusual succulent tree native to Australia. Melburnian (talk · contribs) and I have scoured all sources we can find to produce another plant article. It's succinct and comprehensive and tries (hopefully successfully) to balance plain english and exact technical language. Anyway, have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually might not be eligible as almost all major work done last year. So will leave it off. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HalfGig

[edit]
  • You have one sentence on insects but it doesn't say if these are harmful to the host tree, or anything else about their effect on the tree.
I've found some information on the kurrajong leaf roller and added it. I can't find reports of any damage caused to this species by the pale cotton stainer bug, but I have added that it is a pest of cotton crops.--Melburnian (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information available about toxins?
The only thing that I could find related to that is nitrate poisoning of stock, which is mentioned under uses. I added a link.--Melburnian (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all own works and with free licenses.

HalfGig talk 13:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx/much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brianboulton

[edit]

I don't usually comment on biological/botanical articles, but I thought this looked interesting and worth more FAC attention than it's had in nearly four weeks. I'll leave further comments in a day or so, when I've had time to read it properly. In the meantime I'll draw your attention to just one point, in the lead. The word "succulent" has a general meaning of "tasty", as in "a succulent steak", and a somewhat different biological meaning. Only biologists will be aware of the latter meaning, so most readers will assume from "As a succulent, drought-deciduous tree..." that the tree has a delicious taste. Is there any other way of putting this, that won't mislead your non-specialist readers?

gosh, I'd never thought about it like that as I've grown cacti since I was a kid and just used the word. Have bluelinked to succulent plant and switched the word order to make it a bit more nouny...does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

These are mainly requests or suggestions for tweaks to punc and prose, in addition to the few which I been bold enough to do myself. My main object is to improve where possible the readability for non-experts:

  • link "deciduous" in lead and text
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trees in their native habitat are typically leafless between September and December," – the comma needs to be upgraded to semicolon or full stop. Alternatively you could replace "however" with "but".
semicoloned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...with 12-25 pairs of lateral veins that are more prominent on the upper surface arising at 50-60 degrees from the midrib" – maybe needs a little more punctuation to make the sense clear, and perhaps "rising" rather than "arising", which has a rather different meaning?
added a comma. used "arising" rather than "rising" as it means originating rather than going up here.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " that occurs only in the vicinity of Proserpine" – despite the link, it would help readers if you said "the town of Proserpine"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The undescribed Ormeau bottle tree". Perhaps "the then undescribed"? I believe "undescribed" has a specific botanical meaning, but this needs to be clearer for non-specialists
yes, it has yet to be officially described. (see Species description, which I have now linked to. was vacillating whether to add "as yet" before "undescribed" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sinking the genus into Brachychiton. What does this mean in lay language?
it means von Mueller considered the genus part of the larger genus Brachychiton. "sunk" is just so wonderfully Anglo-saxon....changed to "incorporated". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was followed by Achille Terraciano" – not grammatically sound, as "which" relates to the name, not the naming. "Accepted" would work.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "clade"?
I have bluelinked it - if that is not enough I was tempted to add "(lineage)" there as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in referring to its loose seed coats" → "a reference to the tree's loose seed coats"
done partly - as a genus name it refers to a whole bunch of species, not just one species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the specific names then incorrectly amended" – when was this incorrect amendment?
over many decades! the time is at the front of the sentence as this follows on Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you give the common names, e.g. "Queensland bottle tree", these should be in quotes
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brief final paragraph of the Taxonomy section seems a bit detached, and could be better incorporated with a little more explanation beyond thr biological terms.
this might be tricky as information is hard to come by...will see what I can do Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservation section: I'd rejig the last sentence so that it reads: "The species is conserved within its natural habitat in a number of National Parks:" – followed by the listing of names.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aborigines" → "Aboriginal peoples"?
done...showing my age here as the former usual in the 70s.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (same sentence) – " as well as" → "and by"
aaah, good catch. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not being facetious, but can you explain "bottom heat"?
Aha, it's gadgets like these that you can use to warm roots/root formation in cool or cold weather. linked now to Plant_propagation#Seed_propagation_mat Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation in the footnote (an errant comma) needs attention. Also "and now sunk" → "and is now sunk". Statements given in footnotes are subject to the same citation standards as apply to text.
reffed now and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general this looks like a neat and efficient job and a worthy addition to the "intelligent" dimension of the encyclopedia. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'll leave the experts to discuss and tidy any remaining specialist issues; otherwise, the article is I think in fine shape, concise and readable and friendly enough to the non-expert who likes trees (saw some fascinating shapes in Madeira recently). Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks this one I drive by on the way to work and I have seen its trunk double in width over about 7-8 years. Some person just planted it on their nature strip outside their back fence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

[edit]

A nice article. Just a few comments - (you may disagree with me on the conversion measurements I mention):

  • "... up to 11 centimetres (4.3 in) long and 2 centimetres (0.79 in) wide." - The second conversion seems too precise.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... The adult leaf blades are 4–11 centimetres (1.6–4.3 in) long and 0.8–2 centimetres (0.31–0.79 in)" - Ditto.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... 4–14 centimetres (1.6–5.5 in) long and 0.3–1 centimetre (0.12–0.39 in) wide." - And I would reduce to one significant figure here also.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These arise from axillary buds on end branches." - Could be better expressed.
it is linked - having a hard time thinking how to rephrase this one.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each flower is 0.5–1 centimetre (0.20–0.39 in) long and 1.3–1.8 centimetres (0.51–0.71 in) wide." - More conversion over-precision.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the male flowers but not the female ones. What of the stigma, style and ovary?
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The undescribed Ormeau bottle tree ..." - Is this a recognised species that nobody has bothered to study?
funnily enough i was talking to someone this afternoon about this - it comes from botanists and lack of free time I suspect. Guymer is apparently going to officially describe it soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of synonyms in the taxobox seems incomplete.
oops, missed one - in now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus Brachychiton is only distantly related to Sterculia, belonging to a different clade." - Could you be more precise here?
have rejigged it as I realised the discussion on classification at genus/subfamily level takes place in the next para Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other common species include broad-leaved bottle tree (Brachychiton australis) and belah (Casuarina cristata)." - Do you mean that it is often found growing in association with these trees?
yes. added "while" to link the two sentences Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain "emergent tree species".
emergent trees are those that grow above the canopy layer of a forest. The only place to link to I can find thus far is Tropical_rainforest#Emergent_layer, but this is a bit of a problem as it is on a rainforest page. Some moving of target material might be in order as it would be better on Canopy (biology) article. Am about to go to sleep now and will try to do tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and rolls individual leaves to pupate within." - Could be better expressed.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and Queensland farmers often leave them for this purpose when land is cleared." - the subject of this sentence is "leaves".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bottle trees grown from seed may take up to 20 years to flower, and only after adult leaves have appeared." - This sentence needs attention.
tweaked--Melburnian (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plants are readily propagated from seed. Collection requires care as they are surrounded by irritating hairs." - A little more information is needed to link these juxtaposed sentences.
tweaked--Melburnian (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency on how you number pages in the reference section.
all to 2 digits now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some book sources lack page numbers.
numbers added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency in the book source citations with regard to publishers names, printers, etc.
I think I got all these... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency on whether foreign language sources mention their language (#15, #16, #44).
languages added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These improvements seem satisfactory and I now "Support" this candidate on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Melburnian (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

I can't see much wrong with this, thanks to previous reviewers, and I assume Cwmhiraeth's outstanding queries will be fixed. Just three minor suggestion follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tessellation— fairly technical with no link or explanation.
I've linked now to Tessellation#In_nature, though the botanical info therein is meagre and could be buffed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • extremes of wetness—"rainfall" might be better
done--Melburnian (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • whole trees have been felled—why not "were felled"?
I used "have been" as it has happened in the past and I suspect still happens now, hence use of perfect tense.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Melburnian (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [37].[reply]

Interstate 8

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 02:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a year since I've been at FAC, and this time I'm bringing Interstate 8, a road from San Diego to Casa Grande, Arizona. It somehow involves the mafia and plank roads, so it should be an interesting read for one of the main roads between California and Arizona. --Rschen7754 02:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

[edit]

Definitely seems to be thorough. I made some edits; as usual please undo if needed. Some additional comments:

  • There are two dead links.
    • Fixed the first one. Unfortunately the Patch article seems to be completely gone, after 2 years of working on this. Thankfully, I found most of the material in another source and changed the references. --Rschen7754 05:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a bit short for this size article.
  • I-8 continues eastward, bisecting the area known as "Hotel Circle" that has several hotels. As the freeway enters Mission Valley, it has interchanges ... Hotel Circle is in Mission Valley, so the order of the description seems misleading.
  • However, the state put its plans on hold shortly thereafter, following several concerns from the public, including state senator Jim Ellis. Not sure a member of the legislature should be described as "the public" in this context. Maybe 'and from' instead of 'including'?
  • While using nuclear power to conduct blasting operations... Wouldn't that be nuclear explosives? In my mind "nuclear power" conjures up electricity generation rather than blasting.

Some of those points are arguable; only the first definitely needs to be fixed to get my support (on prose, as I did not check sources or images). --RL0919 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review from Laser brain

[edit]

--Laser brain (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All replied to, and thanks for looking! --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [39].[reply]

Josh Hutcherson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about actor Josh Hutcherson, most well known as of late for his role as Peeta Mellark in The Hunger Games film series. Hutcherson has also been in well known films such as Firehouse Dog, Bridge to Terabithia, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Kids Are All Right. The article was up for a peer review in December 2013, which closed without a single review, passed its GAN in February 2014 and then failed a FAC in April 2014 due to a lack of reviewers. I began working on the article again and brought it to another peer review which closed a few weeks ago again with very little success, put a little more work into the page and now I'm back with it and hoping to gain some more reviews and pass this one through to become featured.

As always, I'm open to any suggestions for improvement and welcome the feedback. Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark Miller

[edit]

Image review

  • There are 6 images being used in the article. All have proper license and attribution. However I believe there may be too many images with little EV. I would suggest losing File:Josh Hutcherson 2012.jpg as it does not add very much to the article and another 2012 image is represented of the subject in another section. Also File:Josh_Hutcherson_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg is decorative and redundant. It has no relevance to the section or list.
  • The main image had a proper free license but was uploaded as a very small version and was very washed out. I have taken the liberty at Commons to upload a newer version in the cropped but full size version of the original and corrected the washed out look of the image from this to this.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed those two images, good point. And wow! Thank you for uploading a new version, that looks much better. I'm no image-pro, so the help is much appreciated. Gloss 03:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well written?

  • The article needs a bit of a general edit to help the writing, just a bit, to be more engaging, and more focused.

Lede section

  • "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American actor." should actually read: "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American film, television and voiceover actor." Here is where it is important to be focused and precise. As an actor we want to know what kind of actor and what genres.
  • The line that follows goes directly to his acting career and skips over his personal life. At least add some mention of his being a native of Kentucky and having working parents. The personal life section is short and could use some expansion but something along the lines of: "A native of Kentucky who's working parents held careers in the air line industry and US Government, Josh began his acting career in....."
  • He received eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor in those five years, half of which he won. is awkward. That should read something like: In that five year span, he has won four out of eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor.
  • The line: Beyond entertainment, Hutcherson is heavily involved in a gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, "Straight But Not Narrow." Should read: Aside from the entertainment industry, Hutcherson is heavily involved in the gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, they call "Straight But Not Narrow." Be sure and say "the" gay-straight alliance not "a" as we are being specific to a particular group the subject created.
  • Also...there is a mistake here referring to Hutcherson as a co-founder of "Straight But Not Narrow." He is actually an "advocate" but is not listed as a co-founder. See this Facebook image with its caption.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I have more but this is some this to start)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: Given I've gone a year with this article getting very little feedback, I just want to say how much I appreciate you reviewing this! I've taken care of all of these points.
I agree with you about the writing needing to be a bit more engaging. I've read the article 500 times over, so it's hard for me to think of different ways to word things. I brought the article to the WP:GOCE and a user copyedited the article. However some further rewriting/rewording could definitely be beneficial.
As for the personal life section, are you referring to the early life section? The personal life section I feel accurately covers a good amount of information. The early life section is rather short, however not too much information is out there on his early life. I'm going to look into this some more and see what I can come up with.
Thanks again! Gloss 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry but I can't be neutral on this part. The personal life section must be expanded. He's not gay but he does support gay rights. So...uhm, the personal life section is almost entirely about his advocacy for gay rights. He has to have more of a personal life than that even at the age of 20 something. It isn't that I am looking for a long personal section. They tend to be a little short, but his advocacy is only about philanthropy. We don't want gossip and who he is "dating", but if he is in a serious relationship that may be mentioned in a reliable source.
  • I think the early life section has more that could be added (it also doesn't need to be a long section, just comprehensive). There also should be some education background. Did he attend college? I don't see mention of that.
  • The career sections are great but the reception section seems rather small compared to the career section. He may be young, but he has a large body of work and if you are including a reception section it should cover from his first notable work to his most recent notable work and touch on the biggies in between.
I think at the very least, if you can expand on the personal life section at least 2/3 larger with maybe a mention of politics and other interests (see Jake Gyllenhaal and Ethan Hawke) and, either incorporate the existing reception section into the career section (they go together anyway) or expand on it a bit to have broader coverage of critics reviews etc., I could support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding some more comments. I'm very eager to keep this ball rolling, so I'll put some serious thought and work into these suggestions. Just to answer one of your quick questions… no, he didn't go to college. He didn't even go to high school. Gloss 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Update: He did apparently attend high school for one semester. Information added. Gloss 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also just to note, there isn't really any confirmation on a relationship at all right now, let alone a serious relationship. Neither the previous relationship or supposed current one have ever been fully confirmed in the first place, so I've come to 100% agree with that information being removed. Gloss 07:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would look for a source for his home schooling and I would also look for a source for his relationship/s or I would take a moment to reconsider the overall size of the personal section and the undue weight of the gay advocacy issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: - check out this version of the personal life section. This is from before the GA review. The reviewer felt a lot of that information was irrelevant and some more has been chipped away over time. Is there anything in there that you think could be re-inserted? I'm going to re-add the political information back in… that seems ok. Gloss 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] @Mark Miller: So what are your current thoughts? You made some of your own changes to the personal life section. Is that something you feel looks OK now? You mentioned about the reception section, which has been the hardest section to find information for, but I'm still searching. Most comments tend to be about him in a specific role, so finding comments about him as an actor outside of a role is tricky, but at least for now I'm happy with the information in there so far. Gloss 23:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

=/ can't say I'm not trying. Gloss 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: -> have you seen Gloss' latest comments? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more or less a lost cause. I pinged Mark Miller twice here and was also ignored with attempts to contact him on his talk page. Gloss 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, but I seem to remember discussing the issues on my talk page and I made a number of suggestion after those pings and even addressed a few on the article myself. Collapsing a !vote that is clearly opposition is wrong on many levels. Whether you feel it is a lost cause or not, never collapse a !vote in a FAC and title it as if the concerns were all addressed. Some stuff you made excuses for and frankly the writing is not on a par with other Feature Articles yet and seems to fall short of comprehensive to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to contact you four times since the last time we spoke. You addressed your concerns here and I've taken care of all of them. After four messages with no reply, it seems pretty safe to assume you have no more interest in the FAC because I've taken care of everything. If you still stand by your oppose, that've great. But ignoring me just showed me you didn't feel you had anything else to say about the article. Gloss 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am not sure that you are using the FAC to the standards this venue is used to in the way you closed that !vote but for now I am not neutral or supportive, please respect that. I have and continue to watch the article but was not inclined to support it then. I can look again but much of what I find wrong is the writing and general comprehensiveness of the article. I will take some time to look again and re-review the article but please respect whatever the opinion is.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that if closing off your comments was wrong in terms of how things work at FAC, then I apologize. You seem pretty upset about it. But as I did with Snuggum's comments, I used strike-through to show which concerns were taken care of and then once all of the concerns were taken care of, the text was collapsed. Thought it was safe to do the same thing here. But like I said, if that's not how things work, I apologize. Been well over 5 years since my last time at an FAC. Gloss 22:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC) moving comment down so this conversation makes more sense Gloss 22:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-review by Mark Miller
[edit]
  • The Personal life section still has the same issue as before...it has nothing that is not gay related. The section has an undue amount of content on his gay advocacy but nothing else (if nothing else, move the last two sentences from the early life section about inspiration to the Personal life section as that does not pertain to his early life really and find at least one more sourced piece of content for that section that isn't puffery etc to be as comprehensive as possible).
  • Filmography - add notes to all the sections in the film boxes or remove the notes section (but for comprehensiveness it should have notes in all)
I support that if you do what was done on the Gyllenhaal article, split off to a separate, free standing article and just add a link to it at the end of this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Hutcherson has enough to split it off to a separate article, so I'll leave it as it after making your suggested fixes. Gloss 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is a young and very determined actor. I don't foresee his career stalling from everything I see and believe at the rate he has been working the section will grow rapidly. Splitting is not required but may be a good idea and would certainly help towards keeping these articles consistent, if not I wonder if collapsing is commonly done with FA articles? No, seems not, but it does appear just from the selection of FA actor biographies linked below to be an "either or" situation. Either use the current set boxes for the filmography or split off and just link here, so just adding a note is fine.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other FA's listed below, none of them have all of the spaces in the notes section filled. Is there something specific that you think should be filled into the blanks? Sorry, I'm just a bit confused. Gloss 07:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I had not noticed that much. I will not hold you to a higher level. You have done a good deal of work and I feel good enough to support this now.
  • Under Awards and nominations you have the GLAAD award listed. That needs to be moved out of the box as it does not strictly pertain to that sections awards for performances. I suggest simply removing it from the Awards box and leaving the prose as is where it mentions it.
  • The writing in general needs copy editing for clarity. For instance, the line: "The day following Catching Fire's United States release, Hutcherson hosted his first episode of Saturday Night Live.[69][70]" This needs a date (and probably quotes around the title of the film for clarity) if even just the day and month or even just the month as context and a point of reference for the reader. Another thing is the way it reads. It states this was his first episode...has he done others? Legitimate question. If he has not, that is a presumptuous statement and if he has, a mention of how many times would be encyclopedic. Also, that whole part is really a mention of his reception so I would move that content to the reception section. Guest appearances on SNL are more public reception subject. In general, the article needs a good copy edit for flow and some clarifications here and there. I believe the reception section may have too many quotes. We don't need to have that many. trim back to just discussing or summarizing what has been said. It seems to "magazine like" coverage to me.
  • I've taken care of the specific requests in this comment, however the need for a copy edit is something I strongly agree with. I believe the prose is pretty good but I do think there's room for improvement. The only problem is getting somebody to copy edit. It needs a fresh pair of eyes. I've read the things on this page 500 times by now. I'm crossing my fingers someone bored looking for a task will come along and see this and copy edit it. I don't have many connections with good copy editors on here so I'll continue to do my best in the meantime. Gloss 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are my major issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums doesn't often receive pings, for some reason. But I really appreciate your support Mark, and thanks for coming back to re-review. Means a lot. Gloss 12:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I DID recieve this ping, though. I don't know why Justin Timberlake was re-added when being a fan is not by itself worthy of inclusion, and I'm not sure about the second paragraph in "personal life" with sports and such. Still at a neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Timberlake stuff was never removed. And as for the second paragraph, I was going off of Mark and Starship's suggestions that something else needed to be added to the personal life sections and Hutcherson is actually pretty vocal about his fitness and sports love in different interviews. There's at least 5-6 different interviews/sources in that paragraph which show how it's a pretty big part of his life. I also used got some inspiration from Julianne Moore where it discusses how she is with her fame and personal life, so I figured I'd transition into that and give it some attention as well. Gloss 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Oppose

I'm very sorry Gloss, but this doesn't meet FA criteria.

1a: Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. As Mark said above, this could use work.....

  • "A native of Kentucky who's working parents"..... whose
  • "Josh" should read "Hutcherson" per WP:SURNAME.
  • "In that five year span" reads somewhat awkwardly and isn't really needed
  • "He is the son of"..... this suggests he is the only son. Try a son of or the elder son of since he only has one younger brother.
  • The Kids Are All Right should only be linked once in the "Early roles and breakthrough" section
  • GQ should be italicized
  • CNN should not be italicized- it isn't a print source
  • "In Little Manhattan, he appeared alongside his younger brother, Connor, for the first time"..... why include "for the first time" here if not mentioning Connor was featured in any of his brother's other films?
  • "Peeta’s" → "Peeta's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • "Hutcherson previously dated Journey 2 co-star Vanessa Hudgens, and they have been seen together in public"..... it would help to include when they dated, and something about "they have been seen together in public" doesn't seem like the best phrasing
  • "revealed that they are now simply 'good friends'"..... were simply

1b: Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Definitely not. In fact, I'm not sure it meets 3a of GA criteria.

  • There is no detail on how Hutcherson first became interested in acting
  • There is nothing on who influences him and his work aside from one brief mention of how he cites Jake Gyllenhaal as an inspiration
  • I've looked into this one a great deal. Gyllenhaal is the only one he's cited as an inspiration for his work in entertainment. However he does say his two gay uncles passing influences him with his LGBT advocating, and that is mentioned in the article as well. Gloss 01:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no quotes from Hutcherson himself on his influences or film/TV work except for Peeta losing his mind in Mockingjay
  • "Early life" is rather short with only one paragraph.
  • I'd also include more critical commentary on Hutcherson's performances; for example, why is there no commentary on him for Catching Fire when there is for the Part 1 of Mockingjay and the first Hunger Games movie?
  • It would also help to include quotes from critics on him as an actor in general, not just pertaining to specific roles.
  • The fact that he won the MTV Movie Award for Best Male performance in the first Hunger Games is definitely worth noting in prose

1c: Well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. Needs work. EthniCelebs (the source used for ancestry) is NOT a reliable source, and neither is SugarScape. I'm not too sure about "Bustle.com" or "Zimbio" or "MovieVine".

  • As for SugarScape, that was an interview with Hutcherson. I don't think we're pulling out controversial information, but a quote from an interview, which is likely OK. Bustle.com is just one writer's review of Hutcherson in the Mockingjay film. The two reviews found were the only ones around that didn't review only Lawrence's role in the movie. As for Zimbio, MovieVine, and EthniCelebs, I've removed them. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1d: Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. No complaints here.

1e: Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. All good.

2a. Lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections. Looks pretty good.

2b. Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Nothing of concern.

2c. Consistent citations: consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). Not exactly.....

3: Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Looks better with Mark's input, though I'm not sure the pictures with Vanessa Hudgens are needed. If anything, I'd only use one image.

Removed one. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4: Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Needs cleaning, and might not meet 3b of GA criteria.....

  • I'm skeptical about including hobbies.
  • No need to talk about a friendship with AnnaSophia Robb, or how she did not read Bridge to Terabithia prior to the film or awards she won. However, mentioning that Hutcherson hadn't read it beforehand is fine. Maybe add quotes about that instead.
  • Removed the Robb information, however the quote from the website is about the pair not reading the novel first, and would look awkward to rework the quote to not include Robb.
  • Is "He was described as very patient and confident while working on set with the animals" really needed?
  • For the Catching Fire box office, only the $420 million figure is needed- the span between 2013 and 2014 isn't very long compared to things like 1972 to 2002.
  • "Being from Northern Kentucky, Hutcherson has been a lifelong fan of both the Kentucky Wildcats and the nearby Cincinnati Reds. He was invited to throw the ceremonial opening pitch before the Reds' game against the Miami Marlins on April 7, 2012." is completely trivial and unneeded.
  • Dying his hair to match Justin Timberlake's is something I'd also scrap. If anything, it would be better to discuss things like how Timberlake influenced Hutcherson. Being a fan isn't by itself worthy of inclusion.

I suggest withdrawal as there's simply too many flaws to address during an FAC. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure all of the above cannot be addressed in a timely manner and I would be willing to edit the article to help Gloss address the issues raised. However, withdrawing the article does not mean that it can't be put back up at a later date for FA. I have not really opposed or supported the candidate, just commented on the things I saw at a glance. I think it is clearly not FA at the moment. Withdrawing really depends on if Gloss feels the issues can be done quickly and whether or not Snuggums feels there may be more still not addressed. But thank you for the comprehensive list. Clearly a direction to go.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: Withdrawing is absolutely not an option for me at this time. I've been looking for feedback for over a year, and to finally get something to work with is great. This can all be dealt with pretty quickly, I've run into a lot of free time as of late. @SNUGGUMS:, I've noticed, has a habit of suggesting withdrawal on a lot of GAN/FAC that he doesn't seem to want to bother spending time on. I'll address all of these issues very shortly. Gloss 17:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of a bunch of these concerns. I hope you don't mind that I've crossed out the ones I've completed. I find it easier to see which issues remain. Anything I didn't comment on or strike through, I will be working on soon. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor may simply have felt the amount was more than the nominating editor could handle by themselves in the amount of time a FAC runs. That is surely a matter of a good faith opinion. I know I have declined GA nominations after finding and listing a large amount of work I thought was too much for the single editor to handle in a timely manner. I have since stopped doing that as I feel that once you list issues, editors should give some time to see if they are addressed before either declining/opposing or asking for the article to be withdrawn. Not everyone will support an article even after all the issues are addressed. But I did think, even with the amount of work I was sure there would be, if it could be addressed it might become FA through this process. I hope SNUGGUMS will reconsider the oppose !Vote after the work is put in but also hope others will comment and add to the consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's usually best to give the nominator time to address issues (in my experience). I've taken care of I'd say 90% of the issues listed and will remain working on the others. Gloss 00:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I believe I've taken care of or responded to all of the issues. @SNUGGUMS: So if you have a desire to add any additional comments or collaborate with me on the items I replied to you about, please feel free. Gloss 02:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but I still stand by my oppose. My main concern is comprehensiveness. It might not be an easy find, but I'm confident that Gyllenhaal isn't the only one who inspired him in acting. Keep looking for quotes from Hutcherson himself on his work and how he feels on acting in general. Do more research and look into cover stories such as this piece from Out. As for other bits.....
  • No need to mention that AnnaSophia Robb, Jennifer Lawrence, or any other costars won awards alongside him. Their awards belong in their own respective articles.
  • "A more negative review came from Peter K. Rosenthal of The Onion who criticized the casting of Hutcherson saying" seems somewhat long, break it up with commas or even split into two sentences.
  • The info on Gyllenhall doesn't belong in "personal life", I'd probably place it in "early life" as this gives me the impression he was a role model to him while growing up
  • "were now simply" → "were simply"
  • Even if the exact time he began dating Hudgens is unknown, it would be useful to include when they first met.
  • Looking into sources, I see this was originally from Glamour. In cases where one source replicates a previous publication's word, I'd go with the original source. The cover story linked above from Out is worth using as well for the bit on his sexuality and perhaps more. Here is the review from The Onion on Catching Fire.
  • FN49 incorrectly italicizes MTV
I know you've put substantial work into this, and commend your efforts, but this isn't FA-material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Before I address these, care to explain why? You laid out the FA criteria and your only remaining concern outside of a couple of easy fixable problems seems to be comprehensiveness. But what about it? Is the "actors who inspired him" issues your only issue or is there something else you're not sharing? I'd also invite you to search for information on that bit, since you're convinced something else HAS to exist. Gloss 03:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might not have listed all my concerns at first (sorry for not doing so sooner), but it simply seems too lightweight to be FA. Yes, comprehensiveness is a big concern, and I believe the use of cover stories (such as the Out piece I linked above) would add to comprehensiveness as FA criteria 1c includes "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If available, books on him would also help. It also does feels empty with only one influence. I'll look into more myself, and will let you know if I can find anything on my own. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Just to note, I've made the adjustments from the comments above. As for books, there is one that exists that is accessible over the internet, which Mark Miller found and has used as a source in the article. Gloss 04:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: @SNUGGUMS: That's OK about the Oppose !votes. Frankly, I'm not too concerned about it. What I am concerned about is improving the article as best as I can and since you both seem to have legitimate concerns, I'd still appreciate the help you both were offering and the feedback, either with me as I continue with the article or along the sidelines throwing some tips my way. The Jennifer, Liam, and Josh book is a great find, and I thought the OUT article was covered more or less, but it doesn't hurt to see what else I can squeeze out of it. And by the way, Snuggums.. found another inspiration :) Gloss 13:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And then there is this which removes a bulk of the personal life section. That's an edit I tend to agree with, however I've never been too sure on whether or not past relationships are notable enough for inclusion on any BLPs, unless it resulted in an engagement/marriage. Gloss 21:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: @SNUGGUMS: One way you guys could additionally help me out a bit is to help me figure out what the article is still missing, if you feel it's still missing anything. As comprehensiveness states: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" - and since you've both last commented, I've added a good chunk of information to the article, mostly using the book but also with the help of the OUT article.

One concern was that the personal life section is too short, and I noted in the comment above that all of the relationship stuff was taken out by another user, shortening it even more. Is there any topics you guys can think of that aren't covered that information may exist on? Gloss 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, might be worth looking more into his career outside of acting. Overall, I'm neutral now, and will end with that. His relationships can stay or go, no preference there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK after seeing substantial improvement since I last commented, I had to revisit and just have a couple things keeping me from supporting: 1) When including in prose a nomination Hutcherson did not win, also say who the winner was (see for example how the Robert Downey, Jr. article says that he lost his Academy Award nomination for Chaplin to Al Pacino). As for the sports, I see they made it difficult for him to gain weight for playing Peeta, so maybe connect any mentions of that to ways it affected his career. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the sports suggestion, I'm not sure I understand. Did you see somewhere that mentioned it affecting his career? I've never read anything about him gaining or losing weight for another role out of all of my readings, only for The Hunger Games, but if you saw something about it affecting his career, it's very possible I missed it. Hutcherson isn't an actor known for having weight issues whatsoever, but his Hunger Games character was supposed to be more buff than his actually body type, so for that role alone he had to gain some weight. Gloss 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "The Hunger Games and breakthrough" contains In preparation for the role, he had to bleach his hair and gain 15 pounds, which he found difficult due to his dedication to sports. I'm saying that if including sports later on in article, they should have connections to his career like this bit did. It otherwise just looks like a trivial interest listing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I think it may lean towards being too trivial, so I've removed that bit. I also added in who the winner was of that second YAA nomination. Gloss 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now we just have that bit in "personal life" to either connect or remove. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think it could be connected? It's not really related to his career. It's his biography personal life section, and it seems like sports are a big part of his personal life, but don't have anything to do with his acting career. Gloss 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm..... I don't see how it fits for one's "personal life" section. However, one portion says Hutcherson has been a keen sports enthusiast since his youth, playing on his high school's soccer team, also displaying a passion for football and tennis. At the age of 13, he participated in a triathlon. After giving this some thought, it's probably best to move that to "early life", and could perhaps be used for commentary on school experience. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very good suggestion. Moved it! Gloss 23:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, so I'll support. Kudos for your dedication! If anything seems subpar to me in the future, I'll adjust it later on myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving it a third look and now supporting, and yes of course please fix anything as you see fit. Gloss 00:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from starship.paint

[edit]
Resolved concerns from starship.paint

Lead

  • I have concerns about the length of the lead. Having taken a look at other FAs of others like Eric Bana, Reese Witherspoon, Kirsten Dunst, Cillian Murphy and Jake Gyllenhaal, they all have had at least 6 more years of acting experience, but shorter leads in their articles. My own notions of popularity is that I have heard of all of them except Gyllenhaal, and I haven't heard of Hutcherson either, so I'd expect the rest of them to have more success and notable stuff, though I might be mistaken.
  • How notable (commercially successful) are all the films in the second paragraph of the lead? I only know of The Polar Express, Zathura and Journey to the Center of the Earth.
  • I don't doubt the importance of the Hunger Games, but there's no need for the play-by-play with timeline in the lead. In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role ... based on Suzanne Collins' novel series ... time-frame which would prove the keep the young actor busy ... were released in November 2013 and 2014, respectively, with the final film Mockingjay – Part 2 scheduled for release in November 2015
  • Don't think the Basketball game is needed for the lead.
  • Howl's Moving Castle (film) states that the English dubbed version of the film was only released in 2005. It was the original Japanese version which was released in 2004.
  • I'm still finding the lead too long. Red Dawn (2012), 7 Days in Havana (2012), The Forger (2012) should all be cut from the third paragraph, I feel that they are all relatively minor films. Forger is in the fourth paragraph anyway.
  • Proposing Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in the box-office record setting The Hunger Games film series, which has released films annually from 2012 to 2014. Then talk about Journey 2 and Epic.
  • Escobar: Paradise Lost should be hidden until the film is released. Once it is, it can be lumped together with Detention (2011) and The Forger (2012) as Hutcherson is also playing a lead in Escobar, it seems.
  • I found a website Box Office Mojo. I hope it's reliable, because it has left me questioning the choices of the films in the lead. Even if Hutcherson has lead roles, the worldwide grosses for Manhattan, Firehouse and Kids are 1, 17 and 34 million dollars. In fact, almost all of Hutcherson's other films (before 2010, then I stopped checking) grossed better. Kicking, Zathura and RV grossed between 55 to 90 million dollars. Seeing as he won an award for Zathura and Kids and was nominated for RV, I'd swap Manhattan and Firehouse for Zathura and RV. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, seems reasonable to assume these are more notable for the lede as described by Starship through Boxofficemojo.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office Mojo is reliable, and that's a very valid point. I've made the switches and taken care of the comments above. Gloss 06:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, now, I'd like to propose changes to the third paragraph of the lead.
"In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in the box office record setting The Hunger Games film series, which has released films annually from 2012 to 2014. He has ten minor award nominations for the released films, having had twelve nominations. Please Explain The time-frame proved to the keep the young actor busy, with During this time, Hutcherson also played a lead role in the adventure comedy film Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012) and a voiceover role in the animated action-adventure film Epic (2013)." starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Regarding his younger brother, the Ellen source doesn't say anything about a brother in the text and I'm not getting video playback. Biography.com does not mention the name of his younger brother. Found a source and added. There's more stuff in the source I added, like triathlons and Justice League. I think Justice League warrants a mention later, would like to see information on that.
  • Nevermind, I'm an idiot. But like I said below, I've heard concerns in the past about including sports hobbies, which would probably include the triathlons. Your point about Justice League brings up a good question though. Out of the television appearances he has (listed in the table in the filmography section) only the television films and the episode of ER are included in the bio. I think the times where he's appeared in one episode of a TV show are likely not notable enough to talk about in his career section, though. So I'm thinking the move here is to remove the ER prose. Does that sound right to you? Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't read the Northwest Herald source. Could you use an archive version with Archive.org or WebCite?
  • MoviesOnline.ca interview has stuff on his sports interests and something when he was "three or four".
  • I've had sports interests on the page before, but they were removed once and argued about the second time re-added. It seems the feeling is that everyone has their hobbies and to list that he enjoys playing football and soccer and basketball would belong on a fan site and not an encyclopedia. And the info about when he was three or four is already in the article, just worded a bit differently since sources vary about what age he actually started bugging his parents about acting. In the article it says "Although his parents were hesitant, Hutcherson's interest in acting developed and blossomed at a young age." - but let me know if you don't think that covers it. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • I saw the old version of personal life you brought up above. With reliable sources, I would add the fandom of the Wildcats and the Reds. The house he bought might be relevant if he lives there currently. His previous dating of Hudgens is worth a mention.
  • Before I get to the rest of the comments later, it seems like most users agreed that teams he roots for and housing information is irrelevant, as well as only the rumors of dating Hudgens. It was never confirmed outside of some side comments that media people twisted into what they wanted it to mean. Gloss 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: sports interests, sports teams, Mark Miller has concerns about the over-abundance of gay-related content in the personal life. This content will address that issue in my eyes. Unless you have better ideas?
  • RE: Hudgens, I watched that interview on YouTube. The "we're really good friends now" is telling. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems telling but that isn't a reliable source confirming a relationship. Seems just like a (likely) way of reading into his words. And I have an idea for the sports stuff, I'll try again with adding some of the information in. Gloss 06:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each year since 2012" is not a timeless statement. I'd edit to something like "annually from 2012 to 2014".
  • Good job on expanding the Personal life section.

Reception and acting style

  • I used Julianne Moore#Reception and roles to help me put the section together. There aren't any negative comments in there, and I feel like the sections in general are to show how critics have found the actors growing and their abilities developing. It's usually unlikely for a review about a certain actor to be negative unless they hit some kind of downward spiral along the way in their career. But for someone like Moore or Hutcherson whose careers have only gone upwards, you'd have a hard time finding negative comments about them as an actor. Gloss 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

  • What is a "television film"? found out, I wiki-linked Television film
  • What's the difference between "Short film" and "Television film"?
  • A short film is simply a film not long enough to be a featured length film, I believe. See short film. And a television film would be a film that was made for and released on television rather than in theaters. Gloss 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what is House Blend? It's a discontinued pilot episode of 22 minutes? That's not of feature length right? Similarly Becoming Glen is 22 minutes long. In the same vein, could you find out how long Eddie's Father was?
  • Not sure why those were listed as television films, this section was the first thing put together on the page way back when and the spot I've focused the least on, admittedly. I'll go back over and double check the notes on everything. However all three of these are shows he appeared in only a pilot episode for, so I've adjusted the note to say that. Gloss 07:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acting career

  • The quote on Peeta -> It seems more relevant to the character than Hutcherson, especially the first two sentences. So essentially the quote regarding Hutcherson is along the lines of "I'm excited and nervous about portraying a PTSD-suffering person because I've never gone crazy before in a movie". Reading it like that, it doesn't seem worthy of a standalone showcase quote to me. Naturally, there will be more to come regarding this section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved this quote into the article, it's something I've been thinking about for a while but someone else bringing it up confirms that it should have been moved. In place, I took a quote from the reception and acting style section and put it into a quote box and I think it added some extra flavor to that section. Gloss 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a review by The Onion, a humorous satire site, in the article? It's not a serious review.
  • It was the only negative review I found, and didn't think much about how it may not be a serious review. Not sure I have a strong enough opinion about it though, so I've removed it. Gloss 04:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That role is so key to have a boy that can use language. That’s how Peeta navigates the world, that’s his gift, and Josh was the one who could bring that to life in such a real and natural way - Collins reference [49] - worth a standalone quote?
  • Is there anything that could be written in this section for the television film Party Wagon?
  • I personally feel it wouldn't be necessary, being that it was a small TV film, with very little coverage and his role was also particularly minor. Like I've said, it's impossible to cover everything he's done, so in the career sections I feel it's best we stick to the notable appearances. However, if you feel strongly that it should be added, I suppose something small can be added in. Gloss 07:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once in Hollywood, Hutcherson got a start by appearing in various television commercials. - I would like to get a sense of timing of this, which year or how old was he? The source is a book, so I can't read it.
  • I prefer Metacritic's rating system than Rotten Tomatoes, but if other FAs use it and nobody else has objected then ignore this.
  • For the Polar Express, the source states that Hutcherson was the young version of the Hero Boy, the adult version is played by another actor.
  • Mention Polar and Howl's are fantasy films?
  • Since Zathura was much more commercially successful than Manhattan, perhaps it should get more weight.
  • Any comments on Hutcherson's performance in RV? Any genre for Cirque?
  • While these two can be done, we don't want the bloat the prose by going into major detail about every film, since the article is about Hutcherson and not really supposed to be a movie-by-movie review of him in all of his roles. There's a reason some films have very little while others have a solid amount of content. It depends on what the sources have to offer. Little Manhattan for example had some good stuff in the interviews and reviews which is why there's a lot of content on it. And we don't want to get too repetitive, so if we give comments on his performance in one paragraph, it helps the flow a bit to talk about some different things in the next paragraph, especially for a film like RV which received such negative reviews and isn't considered any kind of big point in Hutcherson's career, and then go back to talking about his performance the next time some good content comes up. Gloss 03:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is - first things first I'm judging by the film's commercial success - and therefore exposure for Josh. RV had about five times the commercial success of Little Manhattan. What then matters to me is not if the film was good - it's whether Josh's performance was good.
  • He was nominated for an award for Motocross Kids. Is that worth a mention?
  • I'll put some thought into the RV/Zathura situation. Motocross Kids was only a young artist award, and only a nomination and not a win. The YA award is mentioned 2-3 other times in the article usually around a spot where he actually won one, and this isn't a very notable film. Gloss 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in a bit more about Zathura since it was more on the successful side. Threw in a genre for Cirque. But like I was saying, we don't want it getting too repetitive and if the film wasn't a big part of his career, I feel like it's better to not bloat anything up when the rest of the article contains plenty of reviews on his performances and a whole section on him as an actor. Gloss 04:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Fraser. But owners of a fan site aren't experienced at all in how Wikipedia articles work and the kind of information they should consist of. They're a fan site, we're an encyclopedia. Our ideas of what should belong in an article are likely to vary. Gloss 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I acknowledge that. I was just thinking, it is possible that our article has missed out on something we haven't even read about, especially something not related to film, and who would have read more on Hutcherton than his fans?
  • I don't see need for mention of Beyonce and Farrell for Epic.
  • In Early Life, Fightmaster needs a source.
  • Journey 2 is his most commercially successful non-Hunger Games film. I'd like to see more on that film.
  • Prose seems fine, I copy-edited what I saw, but not sure if His father stated "Ever since needs a comma in there. Otherwise, that's it for the article. I'd be on Wikibreak the next few days, will pop back in to check on the changes eventually. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've taken care of everything! Hope you enjoyed the holidays. Gloss 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'll go ahead and collapse, this page is getting long. Gloss 04:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

[edit]
Lead
  • He is an "American film, television and voiceover actor". Simply saying "actor" should be sufficient in the opening paragraph, as a high number of American actors work in both television and film.
  • "...he landed his first acting role in 2002, in the pilot episode of House Blend. " The comma seems unnecessary.
  • "...and the film adaptations of Bridge to Terabithia (2007), Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008), as well as The Kids Are All Right (2010)." Awkward phrasing, as The Kids Are All Right is not based on a book. I would suggest removing "film adaptations" here.
  • Any reason why his success at the Young Artist Award is in middle of his career description?
  • It originally was about how he won those awards for his work in the films that are mentioned in the previous sentence. But someone had suggested I just leave it as the way it is now. I'm not opposed to taking it out though, so I'll do that. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...also played with a lead role". "Played with" is awkward. Simply "played" should be enough.
  • "Throughout his career, Hutcherson has expressed an interest in the other side of the film scene, including directing and producing." Awkward phrasing. Can be shortened to simply say: "Hutcherson has expressed an interest in directing and producing".
  • Since he is "heavily" involved in the gay-straight alliance, he must be active in it, so the final sentence seems like repeated information.
Early life
  • "..Hutcherson took it upon himself to go through the yellow pages.." Just saying "went through the yellow pages.." is sufficient.
Acting career
  • "Hutcherson got a start.." Can this be rephrased to something more encyclopedic?
  • "His character Laser in The Kids Are All Right was a teenager with a lesbian couple as parents". Awkward phrasing. Can be changed to "...was the teenage son of a lesbian couple".
  • "Hutcherson's role in the film was seen as a pivotal point in his career where he assured that he would be continuing his acting career long past his days as a child star". According to whom?
  • The heading "continued success" seems like a case of POV, since the previous section doesn't mention anything about achieving success.
  • Too many quotes in the first paragraph of the The Hunger Games section. And why is there a separate quote from Collins in a quote box when a quote already exits in the prose?
  • "Hutcherson again had to get his body in shape". Not very encyclopedic. Please change this.
  • I am not sure why the Rotten Tomatoes rating is mentioned so often in the article. Most biographies simply go with "positive", "mixed", or "negative" reviews. Also, the 92% audience approval for Catching Fire seems unnecessary.
  • Hutcherson's quote on Mockingjay - Part 1 is huge. Can this be trimmed down and/or paraphrased?
  • "..assured the executive producer role "wasn't just a vanity credit"" Maybe instead of the quote, his production contributions can be mentioned, if available.
  • I've actually looked for more information on this in the past, and I'm not sure if maybe it's because the film hasn't been released yet and still has about a month before the release, but all I've been able to find is the mere fact that he was an exec. producer. Hopefully info on his production contribution shows up when the film is released, or around then. For now, I've removed that bit. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reception and acting style
  • Per WP: OVERLINK, his film credits don't need to be wikilinked again.
  • Any reason for Mark Levin to say that it was "impossible" for him to have turned him away from the leading role? Without a reason, this sentence serves no real purpose.
  • The purpose of the quote "For me, I like to do all different types of films and to go from having that awesome [indie] kind of thing that I love doing so much with great characters and a really great script to a bigger kind of studio film, to just cover the whole kind of spectrum of movies is really, really cool." seems limited. This can easily be paraphrased into one short sentence and not lose it's essence.
  • "Over time, he has become known to many, including Lawrence, as "the biggest prankster on set"". Redundant and unnecessary POV.
Personal life
  • ".. he had experience running in a triathlon under his belt and was continuing to train for more". "Under his belt" is not an encyclopedic phrase. Please rephrase. Also, what does "more" signify here, since the triathlon happened when he was 13?
  • "He has always held true to his belief that his fame has not changed him as a person". Again, "held true to his belief" is quite redundant you see.
  • Good job on the last paragraph. Very well-written.

I appreciate the hard-work that has gone into this article, and I must praise Gloss for all his efforts. This article seems to be moving in the right direction, although I believe some trimming is in order to tighten the prose and remove some POV and excessive details. I would also like to see comments from seasoned editors like Dr. Blofeld who can guide us more thoroughly. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I've taken care of all of these notes, and your praise is much appreciated. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be willing to support this, given that the excessive praise, as pointed out by Dr. Blofeld, is trimmed down in the reception section. I believe the Jack Lemmon comparison can go, as can Lawrence's overwhelming praise of him. Something about how he chooses his roles, how he prepares for them, his acting style etc. can be included here, instead of giving an undue amount of praise from his directors and co-stars. For actors such as Philip Seymour Hoffman or Julianne Moore or Meryl Streep such "toning" down isn't necessary, as they have established themselves in the industry, but for an up-and-coming actor like Hutcherson, who hasn't had much award success, some trimming down is definitely in order. IMO, it will be beneficial to come up with some negative comments from critics about his performances in general. Surely there are critics who have criticised some of his performances or his choice of roles. Again, I appreciate all the hard-work, and I can understand that sometimes the FAC is a frustrating experience, but the article does need a dose of neutrality. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding the frustration. I do look forward to this being over. But I'm hoping I can resolve all of these concerns in the meantime. Gloss 09:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: So I've since removed a ton of praise, added in a negative comment here and there to help with the balance, and overall added in some things I believe improved the article. I'd love to hear some feedback from you, on the current state and what (if anything) is left to do. Gloss 03:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: Only pinging you incase you haven't seen this, as it's almost been 5 days. Gloss 18:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support! Gloss 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

[edit]

Not had a chance to really look at this and read fully but in glancing at it, Red Dawn really was a bog standard film. I can't see any review, even "escaping embarrassment" as a credible one. I wouldn't mention anything in quotes for that one. I guess at least you don't say it was a masterpiece though! A young Jack Lemmon?? Seems excessive to me, I've seen 5 or 6 films with Josh in I think and I wouldn't consider him anywhere near Jack's level of brilliance, wishful thinking by the director? The prose in numerous places doesn't really appear to be up to scratch, "Hutcherson does his best to maintain a normal life, and says he will often go to a local park to join in on football or soccer games, even if he gets recognized." for instance reads like a narrative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Removed the Red Dawn quote. The Jack Lemmon quote is from the director of the film he made his breakthrough in, so to remove it would make me feel like we're taking personal feelings about the comparison into consideration. I've also cleaned up the sentence about his personal life. If you have any other comments about the prose, I'd very much appreciate it. I've been working on improving this article by myself for the past year or so instead of with a partner or two like a lot of editors are able to do, so it's mostly based off of one editor's writing style, assisted along the way by a variety of reviewers helping to clean it up. Gloss 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, it does seem rather generous that's all! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source the Washington and Chicago Times reviews for Bridge to Terabithia. Also you should name the film critic and say xxx of xxx where possible. Especially if it's somebody like Roger Ebert!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews were sourced from the book (reference #1) but I tracked down the original articles and have added them in. I've also added in the names of the film critics in wherever it had been left out. Gloss 06:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the prose I believe and did some merging which looks more appropriate I think. You can't really have an acting style and reception section on such a young actor really without it looking like puffery, which it largely was with gushing tributes from directors and costars. It would be different if there was really a fair bit of decent book coverage analysing his acting. I merged in some of the material to the body into production but I do still think that this still needs to be toned down, more quotes removed or paraphrased, and I'm not sure his film work is really strong enough yet to have the material to make this a really good FA article. I know he's been around for over 10 years but it just seems to be lacking something. It's a fairly satisfactory account of his career to date but difficult to support as an actual featured quality article at present. If it passed, would I and others genuinely consider it an example of our best quality work? I wouldn't, would you? It's not your fault Gloss really, and I don't think there's much you can do about it at present. I think it would be best to wait five years or so and wait for more depth and coverage. It's decent for GA but really doesn't have the material for me to make it worthy of further promotion. I'm pretty sure attempts to make it look more worthwhile like that reception section make it look like puffery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, saying to wait five years or so for more information seems completely opinionated and not based on any kind of criteria. The article covers his entire career, despite how short of a career it may be compared to some other actors' articles. There is no criteria for an article to be featured that states their career needs to be a certain length. Give him another 5 years and you'll probably get another 4-5 films added… is that really a big difference between then and now? If you wouldn't consider this to be an example of our best quality work, then you wouldn't support this FAC which is obviously OK. But I wouldn't have nominated it for FAC if I didn't think it was. The section you're referring to is something that a few other editors have requested, so that's why it's there. Going off the information that exists for his career, I'm doing the best I can to avoid it being puffery but still containing a solid amount of information. Over time, I'm sure as new information is added, some may become less important. But that doesn't mean the article as it stands is suffering. Gloss 00:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like to discuss this here further. You completely removed the reception and acting style, and personal life sections. You put info on his inspirations on top of the section where we talk about his early life. Surely you see that doesn't make sense. It's not like he cited them as inspirations when he was 10, while getting his career started. But I'd like the other editors who commented here to weigh in if you feel so strongly about removing those sections. Your claim that he's too young to have a reception and acting style-type section feels like another personal opinion. If he's an actor that has been widely discussed during his career, there's absolutely no reason to say he's too young to have a section for that information, I feel. Gloss 00:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much he is too young as such, he's had a fair career already, it's that he obviously yet doesn't have a wealth of scholarly material discussing his actual work to make such a section valid, it reads as pure fan cruft. If you had some scholarly material on themes and style in with some of the gushing quotes it would be more valid and stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mark Miller:, since a lot of the review he gave centered around these two sections. Gloss 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld is pretty much right on everything but waiting five years. Time is not an issue with a feature quality article, even if the artist is young. It is the body of work and the coverage. What this article really lacks is a smooth copy edit, more sources, better summaries of the sources and really looking at other FA quality biographies, not juts actor biographies of a similar type.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean Mark is that it doesn't have the scholarly material to really look like anything other than a recital of imdb with some gushing quotes and tributes. So in that respect, I do think time is an issue. When there's clearly a distinct lack of biographical or a wealth of material other than fluff to add depth to the article, I can't support that as an FA until there's more "meat on the bones" so to speak and it reads better. Perhaps there is actually a lot more biographical material available but Gloss has not seen it. Does he have access to Highbeam and Newspapers.com etc? I think you'd be amazed at how much material can be gleaned from such sources. It is possible to get it to FA on technical merit and fairly comprehensive outline of his career, I can think of several younger actor biographies at FA which passed without much real coverage, I wish you luck with it, but I don't think it's worthy of it. The main obstacle is really depth and neutrality. As if it's not enough for all those gushing comments in the acting body, you then have more of them in a section dedicated to it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main concern here is the excessive praise in the reception section. Although I believe him to be a good actor, I agree with Blofeld that Hutcherson has very little experience to warrant such high praise, like the Jack Lemmon quote. I believe that some trimming is really in order. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely understandable. I'll work on this so more and get back to you (hopefully tomorrow) when it's all done. Gloss 08:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose I see the cruft section has been restored despite my efforts to neutralise it. I'd be most concerned if this was passed in its current state.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made a very bold choice in completely re-working the article. I've explained above why I wanted to discuss the changes here first and attempt to work with you to fix the issue you've presented but also not completely getting personal opinions involved. Gloss 08:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out a big chunk of the reception section just now, as per you and the other's comments above. I'm absolutely open to making big changes if that's what the article needs. But I'm afraid you're jumping to an oppose means you're not willing to continue collaborating with me on this since I reverted some of your edits in an attempt to discuss. So if that's the case, I'll accept it and move on. Gloss 08:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to discuss changes with you. You don't own the article. You kept on and on for me and others to review this so I did, and I made some major changes which I think improve how encyclopedic it is and at least give it a better chance of passing. If you insist on having an acting style and reception section you'd better make sure you can find the scholarly material and decent analysis and coverage to make it stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to own the article. You made changes I disagreed with and wanted to discuss. That's how this encyclopedia works. Discussions instead of edit wars, at least that's what I think. You made changes where his influences were moved to the top of his career section and it all didn't make much sense. I didn't keep on and on, I asked twice and when I was ignored the second time I dropped it and let it go, while another editor pinged you into this discussion. Please, don't stick around if you feel like you're only doing me a favor. I'm only interested in improving this article, not gaining the review of someone who doesn't want to be here. Gloss 09:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose You might want to examine this blind revert. I spent a fair bit of time last night copyediting it and improving readability and neutrality. It was more than simply removing those sections, I merged a lot of it and rewrote a fair bit of it in places which I believe was an improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, tattle-tailing? Please don't call my edit a blind revert, unless you're openly admitting an assumption of bad faith. If you'd even looked in the history, I've since added back in a large majority of your changes. Gloss 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not tattle-tailing, just a concern that this has been open a full month and when an experienced editor stops by to try to make some considerable improvements and state their concern with it you become all defensive. I was asked by several people, including yourself to take a good look at this. I did so, and made changes I thought necessary. You seem too hostile here to real criticism, so I'm not sure FAC is for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An editor's first FAC is usually a little difficult to handle. Given the work Gloss has put into it, I think he was a little rattled with the major changes, and thus reverted your edits. I think he has realised that it wasn't the right move, and will hopefully not be as defensive to criticism from here-on. Gloss, I have known Blofeld for far too long to know that he his edits will only improve the article, and I hope you can see that now. If we can forgive Gloss for that revert, I think we can manage to get the article into good shape. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His second, and looking at the current article does not seem to have yet realised that it wasn't the right move as my prose and paraphrasing improvements to the career do not seem to have been fully restored, even if he insists on the reception and personal life sections. I agree the article visually might look better with a reception section and personal life section for balance, but when you really read and look into it you'll see how weak it is when you remove the puffery. If Gloss could really find some strong material about his acting and some decent personal life info, at least a compromise could be made once dialling down the gushing tributes. I'm not sure how presenting Saturday Night Live and being a prankster is encyclopedic coverage of his acting! You move that to the appropriate section in career and what are you left with? "Josh is awesome!"♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now made some updates while retaining as much of the material I could and tried to tone it down a little. Hopefully the current version will be acceptable, and it can be worked on from there. I included the recent negative quote you added. It could still really use some further research in things like Highbeam I think to really try to glean some more material to reinforce it and push it over the line, but my subscription has not yet been renewed. Perhaps google books will pick something up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I was right on Highbeam, fortunately I can pick up a bit of text but not access the full articles. Google books on the other hand has virtually nothing of substance written about him as I suspected. At some point it would be good to have some critical commentary on his acting by authors and scholars to reinforce it. I'm sure eventually there will be biographies published. You can only go by what material is available right now though. It's not too bad in its (current) condition, but I still think it's lacking that little something to really make it passable. There's still quite a few unsourced reviews too, the BBC and Chicago Times ones stand out in particular.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're now sourced. Gloss 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Can you try to add a bit more background/production info and character descriptions on some of them to try to make the article more readable/informative? Obviously nothing excessive, but I think in some places you can afford to be a bit more detailed over certain films and reinforce the article. If you do that I think it'll improve the overall tone too and disperse some of the reviews. Other than that it's difficult to really find a wealth of information. If we can get this to a level where it's good as it's going to get based on the limited resources available then I do think it is possible for this to pass, we do have similar FAs on some of the Indian and other younger actors. I do think that it may be a long time before there are really biographies and a wealth of biographical material about him though. There's a fair few self-published recent resource books on him and The Hunger Games cast from people looking to make a quick buck but still very limited.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can do that later tonight when I get back home. If there are specific spots you're looking for more information, let me know. Gloss 17:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The period between 2007 and 2010 I think is a bit weak at present but in a fair few areas I think you could elaborate a little. Even if some films were not mega successful blockbusters, although not for the very minor earlier roles. Every film doesn't need it of course, but a nice mix in places of filming info which implicates Josh, a character/plot basic summary or a brief critical analysis of the film or character, or some brief background info on him and CGI during production and how certain things were done to make his characters on film or whatever might also be of some use. It depends on the film, whatever you think somebody reading about Josh might like to know about his film work. Something though that won't be enough to detract and bloat it, but which succeeds in making reading it a bit more pleasurable and informative if you know what I mean. Don't worry about overcooking that aspect for now though as it can always be trimmed afterwards. I'm pretty sure afterwards it'll read better for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've added in a good amount of information on some of the films that were less-covered before. I'm trying not to bloat it but also not trying to add in irrelevant information on films that were very small points in his career. What are your current thoughts? Gloss 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Only pinging you incase you haven't seen this, as it's almost been 5 days. Gloss 18:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792

[edit]

Nope, I am not going to seriously review this, but I have only two comments: please empty the lead of ref's per WP:LEAD, and try expanding the infobox. Otherwise, just remove it per WP:DISINFOBOX. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I've added his residence to the infobox, as that's sourced in the article. But I'm not sure what else would belong in there? Do you have any suggestions? I've also removed the ref from the lead. Gloss 18:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added nationality in. It's rough with this one. He has no specified religious views, did not attend college to have an alma mater, he doesn't have a spouse, children, or notable family members, etc. For an FA like Jake Gyllenhaal, if he didn't have those notable family members, his would be even shorter than Hutcherson's currently is. Gloss 18:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for solving my comments. Hope this FAC gets promoted. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

[edit]

Oppose after a review of the prose and sources. Two big concerns:

  • I'm of a mind to agree with Dr. Blofeld about the "Acting style" section. There is no real body of journalism to back up a section like this. It's mostly comprised of sources in which he's talking about himself and the types of roles he takes—that has nothing to do with acting style or any serious journalists writing about his acting style. The only statement in that whole section that might pass for "acting style" is "With a comic acting touch and timing that has been noted from an early age, Hutcherson has been both compared to Jeff Goldblum and a young Jack Lemmon." Unfortunately, it's sourced to a questionable book (White, more about that below) and one snippet from a news article. That's not sufficient to do any kind of serious writing about Hutcherson's acting style.
  • On the topic of the White book, which you cite ten times: Who is this author? A former football player? How/why is he qualified to write serious entertainment biographies? I sought more information about the "Unauthorized Biography" and found no serious reviews, no references to it in other reliable sources, and a tiny publisher that accepts direct submissions (a sign of a vanity/self-publishing house). Reviews of White's books are mostly comprised of school-age girls (the primary audience) commenting that they keep the book on their bedside table. Those are a lot of red flags for a source you use so prominently. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed more than half of the uses of the book. I think the spots it's left in should be okay, but please do let me know. I've also removed the acting style section, merged some information into other sections and removed the rest. Gloss 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's probably OK for anything that is a straightforward fact and not analytic in nature, if that makes sense. I thank you for your quick response. I will review the changes you made and revisit my comments very shortly—I know it can be frustrating to get new opposition when the nomination has been running this long, so I thank you for your patient response as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that, Andy. Gloss, would I be right in gathering that this will be your first successful FAC if it's promoted? If so it's common for the coordinators to request a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and perhaps Andy could look at that (unless he's done so as part of the above review and I missed it)... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose: Second, although it's been years since my first (under my old username). Gloss 17:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that I'm content with the neutrality and prose work on it now and would lean on weak support, but still remain relatively neutral given what I've said previously. The problem I think is the lack of scholarly and biographical material which can add weight to the article. A lot of existing material is too weak really to justify an acting style section, glad to see it's been removed. Given time I think it will improve. Me personally, I'd have waited a few years until it becomes more resourceful, but in fairness he's no spring chicken as an actor compared to some and we do have similar FAs on some of the younger actors which also suffer from a real depth of coverage. You can only go with the material you have at the time of writing, and I've had a good look through my sources and am convinced it's pretty comprehensive. What I might suggest Gloss, is if you can try to access more of Josh's interviews, whether on camera or from magazines and try to glean more biographical content from them. I did a similar thing with Dolph Lundgren, given the lack of real biographical coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd be surprised if there's a written interview with him that I haven't read while putting this article together! But in reality, I'm sure there is. Good suggestion though, and regardless of if this FAC passes or not, I'll undoubtably look into this more. Gloss 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks found some problems:

  • "Also born and raised in the state of Kentucky, his parents met in high school in Dry Ridge" is cited to pages 6-8 of this source - the first part appears on page 5, I don't see the second anywhere
  • "He attended New Haven Elementary School in Union until he began his career at the age of 9" - source doesn't specify when he left school
  • "he returned to Kentucky to go to school for only one semester at Ryle High School" - source only says Ryle is his alma mater; this detail is actually in FN15
  • No on both counts, for the moment - one fix above yet to be made, and checking a few more sources I find that "displaying a passion for basketball, football, tennis and bowls" is not in the source given. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Above fix has been corrected, and the source for the sports passion is after the following sentence (about his triathlon) so I've added it in again in that spot.. and removed basketball (not included in that particular source) and bowls, I'm not sure who put that in there. I'd be very confused if it was myself, because I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Gloss 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. There still seem to be problems with sources supporting text - for example, the source for "Hutcherson and Queen Latifah presented trophies together to four young actors" says that the trophies were presented to young volunteers, not actors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for catching it. Please do let me know if you find anymore. Both of these examples are text added in a recent copy edit by Dr. Blofeld which I didn't fully review, rather AGF'ed that all of the sources added supported the text added. I've made the correction here. Gloss 05:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: It's been over a week since I've last gotten a reply, though I have tried. I'm not sure what I should be doing, if anything at this point, or just continue slightly stressing over this FAC still being open! Cheers, Gloss 04:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

[edit]
Resolved comments from AJona1992
@AJona1992: Thanks for the comments, I've taken care of everything. Gloss 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several films not mentioned in his filmography. Best, .jonatalk 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AJona1992: You said several but I only found one, a short film (The Third Rule) which I've added in. Everything else is there. There's something written into IMDb called "Krystal" but a google search turns up no reliable sources for that film or Hutcherson's involvement. Gloss 19:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing about his philanthropy work, and this one, this one, and this one. Best, .jonatalk 20:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's also a film listed there called "Journey 3: From the Earth to the Moon" however sources I've found all are from 2012/2013 which say the film was to be released in 2014, but it's now 2015, and there don't seem to be any updates on the production of it, if it's even still happening. There are also no sources confirming Hutcherson would have been reprising his role in the film, though one source did say that the character would return (but didn't confirm Hutcherson to be portraying it). Gloss 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the philanthropy, the ice bucket challenge doesn't seem very relevant. It wasn't an extravagant effort by him for the cause, he was just another celebrity who posted a 10 second video dumping ice on his head. Similarly, the Sean Penn benefit doesn't seem notable for inclusion since it looks like a benefit event that he simply showed up at. Celebrities are always showing up at various benefit events, but searching through information about it, it doesn't seem like he did anything significant there. The same unfortunately goes for the Ebola campaign. It was Jeffrey Wright's campaign that the entire Hunger Games cast made an appearance in, rather than philanthropy work that Hutcherson himself had a major part in. The gaystarnews website strikes me as slightly unreliable, but I've looked up the "Power On" campaign and found a better source to include and have added in information on "Power On". Gloss 20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a dablink that needs to be fix. Best, .jonatalk 18:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Gloss 18:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

[edit]
  • Support - This is not going to be a long review. The article looks good to go. My only suggestion is: Reword the sentence "Growing up as a child actor," to "Growing up as an actor," or maybe just "As an actor,". Because when you are "growing up", you are not a child through the whole process or even when growth is completed. Regards, MaRAno FAN 12:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

Oppose - with sadness and for the time being. The prose is not quite up to scratch. I have mad a few edits (two obvious errors, others more stylistic) but I think the article lacks the shine of a Featured Article. It suffers from proseline in parts and some of the language is too colloquial. I would like to see a further copyedit, preferably by a competent editor who can bring fresh eyes to the article. Also, have Nikkimaria's concerns been fully addressed? Graham Beards (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: I'm not sure, I've tried pinging her two times but she hasn't returned for further comments. Do you know any competent editors who can bring fresh eyes to the article? Gloss 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask User:Eric Corbett politely, he might have the time. Graham Beards (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that would be great! Eric's been a favorite of mine for a few years. I'll leave this here instead of his talk page, as your comment probably pinged him. But that would be amazing, if Eric could give this article a copy edit. @Graham Beards: I absolutely agree with you on some of the language being too colloquial, and not just because I had to look up what that word meant. I've never prided myself on mastering the English language. Gloss 18:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: - looks like that one isn't going to work out. Anyone else in mind? Gloss 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Ssilvers can tale a look at it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached out to Ssilvers and they responded that they do not have the time. Graham, is there any specific spots you're concerned about? Can we possibly identify issues here and work them out together? Gloss 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article a light copyedit, since it has been about two weeks since I've looked it over and have some fresh eyes of my own to put to use. I'm not sure if it's what you were looking for, but hopefully it's a start. Gloss 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Eric Corbett has completed his copyedit of the article. Many thanks to him. Gloss 15:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do so very much really, but if there are any outstanding prose issues I'll be happy to help with those as well. Eric Corbett 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

[edit]
  • "A breakthrough in his career as a child actor came in 2007 when he portrayed Jesse Aarons in the fantasy drama Bridge to Terabithia." — Can be rephrased as "Hutcherson's breakthrough role in his career as a child actor came in 2007 when he portrayed Jesse Aarons in the fantasy drama Bridge to Terabithia."
  • With regards to his film's reviews, can you explain the critics' impressions of Hutcherson's roles, especially in the Mockingjay section of "2011–present: The Hunger Games and breakthrough"
Sure, took care of the first one. But could you help me understand what you mean with the second point? Gloss 16:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a ping @Ssven2: incase you didn't watchlist this page. Gloss 20:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at fixing it, but if what I've changed is not what you meant, please do let me know. Gloss 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, Gloss, that's all from me. This article has my Support. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:32, 9 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [40].[reply]

The Thrill Book

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Thrill Book was a missed opportunity; a precursor to the pulp magazines that began to specialize in fantasy and science fiction in the 1920s. It's famous now mostly because of that failure, and since it was never common to begin with its reputation has led to it becoming fabulously rare -- one historian commented that a full run of 16 issues would cost about as much as a luxury car. Despite the fact that it is no longer regarded as an sf and fantasy magazine, its reputation means that it gets quite a bit of coverage in magazine history sources, so I've been able to put together a fair amount of detail about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

[edit]

Seems like an interesting subject, and I like the selection of illustrations. I'm not an expert on this and have only had time to give this a surface read, but some initial notes/concerns:

  • I added a couple of categories. As always, revert if you feel I've done harm.
    Those look fine; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the intended WP:ENGVAR here? The magazine was from a US publisher and apparently only circulated in the US, but the dates are all formatted dmy. I don't want to copyedit without knowing.
    It should be U.S. dates; the English dates are just me being careless. I think I've fixed them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll re-read later and copyedit if needed now that I know what I'm looking for, but I'll call this one handled.
  • The references are formatted inconsistently. Some are shortened refs and some are full cites in the note, some use comma separators and others use periods, some ISBNs are fully separated and some aren't, some of the city locations for books have a comma between the city/state and some don't.
    The intention is to use {{cite book}} for the references, and short form in the footnotes for those; and to use {{cite web}} in the footnotes directly for the web page citations. Is that inconsistent? I'm pretty sure I've seen other articles use this approach, though I'm not a partisan of it and can switch if you have a better recommendation. I've switched one book cite in the wrong format to use cite web, since that reference has a more current web version. I'm not seeing the comma/period or city location inconsistency -- can you let me know which citations you're referring to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the comma issue, the first book under References has one, the rest don't. Having the comma would be typical for a US city/state combo. For the shorted vs. full, since all the refs have author names and dates (unlike some cases where a web page might have neither), I do think it would look better to handle them all the same. But it's clear enough once explained that I wouldn't oppose over it.
    The commas are fixed. Re the ref formatting: I'm not opposed to the alternative but if you're OK with it as it stands I'll let it stay the way it is. If you have an example page that does it the way you're describing, please let me know; I'd like to see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Several current FA nominees do this, such as Night of January 16th, I Never Liked You, and James B. Weaver, if you want to take a look. But as I said, not worth opposing over, so striking this one as handled.
  • Citations 4 and 5 are to broad page ranges (18 and 27 pages respectively). I haven't checked the actual sources against what is claimed, but it seems likely that the citations could be a little more specific than that.
    I'll make them more specific; it might take me till this evening to finish this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've divided up the refs to have more specific page numbers, and it was troublesome enough to do that the process has convinced me it's unfair to the reader to give a range of more than four or five pages. I'll try to stick to the more specific ranges in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, marking this one handled.
  • The guidance at WP:REDNOT is to avoid redlinking personal names, so there are several that should probably be delinked, unless your next project is creating those articles.
    Done. It must be years since I last read that guideline, and I wasn't aware of that change; after thinking about it I see the reason for it, though it's a pity in some ways, particularly when the person is clearly notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed this myself recently. Anyhow, striking this one as done.
  • There seem to be a lot of sentences with semicolons that might deserve full separation.
    Yes, semicolons are a weakness of mine. I've eliminated a couple, but please go ahead and fix any others you feel need changing, or let me know which ones to work on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep an eye out on the re-read.
    Another editor beat me to the punch on copyediting, so I will let you respond to his comments first. Marking this one handled.

Will await responses (especially on the ENGVAR question) before doing anything more. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I've struck anything that seems completely handled. Will re-check for the rest on a second read. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything you mentioned is now dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry it took me a while to circle around on this one, but I think subsequent reviewers have helped keep it moving. After another read-through, I'm now happy to support promotion. --RL0919 (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • I appreciate that you have removed redlinks to author names (I understand the guideline, though I think it could be better put...) but any authors/editors with articles should be linked. Have you checked for all of them? I note you hadn't linked a magazine and a novel which both have articles.
    On looking through I just realized I had failed to include some links in the lead, so I fixed those. I can't guarantee I haven't missed anything, but I think anything that should be linked is now linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a lost-race in Africa" Why the dash?
    Fixed. I suspect I initially had this as "a lost-race story" and didn't remove the hyphen when I rephrased it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to contemporary cover art" Ambiguous- it's unclear whether you mean contemporary to us, or contemporary to The Thrill Book
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some writers now long forgotten" I appreciate what you're saying, but I fear that this is slightly too prosaic. How about something (I appreciate that this is probably too wordy) like "writers whose work is no longer read but may have been familiar to readers at the time"?
    Not quite sure what to do here. The source says "The authors featured in the first eight issues are almost entirely forgotten today. Many were ex-dime novelists, like George C. Jenks and John R. Coryell, both of whom penned stacks of Nick Carter stories." How about something like "The contributors included Sophie Louise Wenzel, who later published stories in Weird Tales under the name Sophie Wenzel Ellis, but most of the writers from Hersey's editorship, such as George C. Jenks and John R. Coryell, are no longer well-known names", dropping the dime novel details? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think the dime novel point is fairly important; it was the hyperbolic "now long forgotten" that made me think twice. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the sentence proposed above, tweaked to mention the dime novels. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked it a little further- how does that look to you? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manuscripts in inventory that" Is "in inventory" a recognised phrase? Should it perhaps be hyphenated, or changed to "in their inventory"?
    I'd like to keep this -- it's a standard phrasing, as can be seen by googling "manuscripts in inventory" vs. "manuscripts in their [or the] inventory". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been purchased for it" The "it" here (grammatically) seems to refer to the inventory- perhaps you could change it to "the magazine"?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Sea Stories worth linking? Love Story Magazine? Clues? Mystery? The Avenger? Odyssey Publications? If they're notable, they should be linked, whether the link is red or blue.
    I haven't linked these because I don't have sources that would justify it. The sf field has more sources for some reason, so any sf magazine is always going to end up with an article, but the other genres are much more patchily covered. These particular ones are hard to search for. I suspect the Westerns are the next best covered after the sf and fantasy mags but I only have one of those reference books, and none of these are Westerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reviewed the remaining Thrill Book manuscripts" Perhaps this could be rephrased so that you don't lose the "The" from the title? (Other instances of this elsewhere)
    This form of abbreviation (and others, such as referring to magazines like Startling Stories as just Startling) is standard in the sources; Murray has "In time, the Thrill Book inventory was forgotten", for example. I'd like to keep this unless you feel it's jarring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the name "Denby Brixton"," As written, this suggests the title of the novel changed.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular reason you haven't included a bibliography table?
    I had a hard time seeing how to make it useful -- it's primarily a visual aid, showing how issues are distributed over multiple years, and showing irregularities in publication. It works well with months, or seasons ("Spring 1942") but for publications dated with the day it is a bit clumsier. I thought it would be ugly to have a one-row table, and I didn't think the reader would gain much from it. Do you think it's worth adding? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you're happy without it, I am too. The explanation seems reasonable. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category for the publisher location? Also, is there perhaps a scifi category that would be appropriate?
    I added New York. It's already in the defunct sf magazines category, though I'm somewhat conflicted about even that -- as the article says, it's not really an sf magazine at all. I included it in the navbox just because aficionados know about it and would expect it to be covered, but I believe there were other magazines of the era that published more sf. It does seem to have published more fantasy and weird stories than most magazines of the day, so it's listed in the fantasy fiction magazine category too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

A well-crafted article, but I have to point up some minor issues to prove I've read it, so here goes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Thrill Book was a pulp magazine published by Street & Smith in 1919— as a Brit I get no sense of location in the opening sentence. Perhaps insert New York publisher…?
    I made this "U.S. pulp magazine"; Street & Smith were a New York firm but since they had national distribution I think the U.S. point is the more important one to make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quentin Reynold's 1950s history of Street & Smith—
  • If his surname is "Reynolds", the apostrophe is misplaced
    It's "Reynolds"; I've fixed the apostrophe. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • was the history written in the 1950s (if so, why not a specific year), or was it about the company during that decade? Depending what you mean, an apostrophe may be needed
    The source says the book was written "some forty years later". I know from other sources that the book was published in 1955, but I don't have a reliable source to hand, and didn't think it was necessary to give the date. I can see that just saying "1950s" doesn't really help, though, so I've cut it, since I mention the forty years gap right afterwards. I've also made it "almost forty years"; technically I don't have a cite for that but I hope it's not controversial. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format change may also have been part of an attempt to copy the format of Adventure... In addition to the layout change, the contents page was changed to resemble that of Adventure, and a question and answer department, "Cross-Trails", was begun, in imitation of a similar feature in Adventure.[18] — two "formats" in one sentence, three "Adventures", could be tweaked to reduce the repetition
    I've had a go at this but I'm not sure it's quite right yet -- take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Street & Smith cancelled the magazine after sixteen issues; the October 15th issue was the final one— clunky, perhaps Street & Smith cancelled the magazine after the sixteen issue dated October 15th.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quinn had not yet invented de Grandin himself— not sure what the last word adds other than ambiguity
    Removed "himself" (I assume you meant just the last word?). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 3⁄4 in by 8 in — I realise that a US-specific article like this does not need to give international conversions, but if the size corresponds to a named paper size (eg foolscap, A5 and the like) that would help
    It's close to U.S. letter size, which is 8.5 by 11 inches, but I don't think I can use that unless it matches exactly. The source just gives the dimensions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have consistently abbreviated US states in your references. It would help non-Americans if they could be spelt out
    Done, though I'm not certain I've not been asked to do the reverse in some long-past review. Is there a MOS guideline on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting soon, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your replies and changes. I don't know about MOS, but it seems to me that full spellings just makes it easier. Even I struggle to remember some of the states, particularly those starting with "M" or "W", and I suspect someone who didn't speak English as a first language might have more difficulty, Anyway, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

[edit]
  • The images which are on commons should be in a category for The Thrill Book, and if there are more images they can be added to that category, with a commonscat link.
    I've added the category on commons, but I'm not sure what you mean by a commonscat link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there is a serious lack of online resources linked. There seem to be online indexes available for example. (if there is no suitable then no big deal for passing)
    There's an index here, but it's partial, and the ISFDB doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. (I have used ISFDB indexes under certain circumstances in the past, but since it's not a complete index I don't think it's a good idea here.) Are you aware of a better index online? The Bleiler index in the references is very complete but I don't think there's an online version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is public domain there should be online versions. There is https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CNJIEMj1ewcC but this is truncated. if there is none available then of course we cannot link it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the index I'm not aware of any online versions -- I'd be glad to link to any you know of. It may be that none have been created because the magazine is so rare. There have been two facsimile editions (mentioned in the article); they're only partly previewable on Google Books, presumably at the publisher's request, though they are public domain as you say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Ian Rose

[edit]

Mike, there seems to have been some commentary on sources but doesn't appear to me that anyone is actually signing off on a source review for formatting/reliability, so you might list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Unnecessary repetition of page range for the 1985 Ashley book, in the "References" list
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the References list, why are the publisher details for the Murray book shown in parentheses?
  • What does (14), shown after the Murray book details, refer to? This book is not listed by WorldCat, Amazon or ABE – is it a private publication?
    Re both the above: I used {{cite journal}}; it's a magazine, and this is the 14th issue. The ISBN is 978-1-884449-07-9; I would have thought it would have an ISSN being a magazine but I don't really know how that works. (It's perfect bound like a paperback, but the size of a magazine.) I don't think it's self-published but I don't know much about the publisher: both Black Dog Press and Tattered Pages Press are listed, and the latter at least is a specialist publisher of books about old magazines and so on, as far as I know. I think the line between self-publishing and professional publishing can get a bit blurred with the specialist presses; they are often started by enthusiasts, and publish only a handful of books before expiring in bankruptcy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources look good and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [42].[reply]

William of Wrotham

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an obscure English cleric and royal administrator, who was heavily involved in naval affairs in the reign of King John. Although he was called one of John's "evil counsellors" by Roger of Wendover, it doesn't really appear to have been the case. He never was criticized for extortion or anything, and appears to have been a good administrator and official. It's a short article, but he's actually more important than the length of the biography would imply - he had a hand in not only naval affairs, but tin mining also. Has had a copyedit from both Eric and John, and both a GA and A-class review, so it should be in decent shape with prose. I've plumbed every source possible, I believe, so he's comprehensive. Although I'm competing in the Wikicup, this is not an Wikicup eligible nomination - all the work was completed prior to this year. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • Is there some reason "c." (for "circa") is in italics? MOS:DATE doesn't require that, and I'm unfamiliar with that style. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I most often see it italicised in my sources, mainly. And it was pounded into my head in classes that it was. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's a fairly familiar style to me, too. I think the MOS to follow here is probably MOS:FOREIGN, since that's what Circa is: it notes that one should "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English". I don't really see people use "circa" in the 21st century with any of the frequency that they might use the words provided as examples of common loanwords, so I think we can probably call it "not current" and the italicising is fine. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Support.

  • I think we need a little more explanation of "evil advisers"; in the body you place this in the paragraph about the conflict with Innocent, but you don't actually associate it. Looking at Roger's text, I think you can at least include the "at this time" description, and you could also characterize them as giving the advice John wanted to hear, which was Roger's point.
  • A separate point: I've always heard this phrase as "evil counsellor"; which a quick Google search seems to confirm is the usual form. If you're going to put it in quotes, any reason not to use that form?
  • Two sentences quite near each other end with "... is unclear"; can one of them be rephrased?
  • "He was jointly placed in charge of the mints of London and Canterbury in 1205, along with Reginald de Cornhill, with whom he also shared the collection of the tax of a fifteenth on merchants, a post the two had held since 1202". I think this needs rephrasing: "a post" doesn't have a real referent -- it means the post of collector of the fifteenth tax, but there's no actual noun as the sentence stands. You could fix it with "... with whom he also shared the post of collector of the tax ...", but that's a bit clumsy.
  • "vacant ecclesiastical offices": I assume these were vacant as a result of John's dispute with Innocent? If so I think a few words of context would be good.
    • Not in these cases - they were just vacant for a short while before the king and/or cathedral chapters got around to appointing someone new. It was pretty normal for someone to be appointed to collect the revenues during these situations. None of William's appointments lasted that long, and all except Whitby occurred before the interdict. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Annals of Dunstable ascribe to John a desire to oppress the Cinque Ports": what does this mean? If the annals are unclear we can't be more specific, but overseeing naval preparations doesn't seem closely connected to any planned oppression of the towns.
    • It does not get clearer than that ... my source says "According to the Annals of Dunstablethe king 'took occasion to oppress the men of the Cinque Ports with great and heavy afflictions'." and Powell cites Norgate's bio of John. Because of how Golding phrases things, I've chosen to attribute it rather than state it as fact. Neither bio of John mentions any such reason or anything about exactions on the Cinque Ports. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In mid-1217, he rejoined the royalist cause": suggest mentioning that John was dead by this time, since many readers won't recall the date of John's death mentioned further up.
  • Maddicott refers to an article on Lydford Castle by A.D. Saunders in Medieval Archaeology, which mentions Wrotham a few times; it's available online, or I can send you a copy if you like. I haven't looked through it in detail to see if anything there is not included, so you may have already read and discarded this.

-- Sources are sound. I checked one for close paraphrasing (it was fine) but that probably doesn't count as a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love the article - I tried to access it and it failed for some reason. I'll get to the others in the next little while. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it - it's mostly information already in the article - the only bits that aren't are some really detailed descriptions of his actions with regards to the stannaries - I'm inclined to think we don't need the details of how William set up the payments of the miners and when the miners needed to pay what. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sent; let me know if you don't get it (I have two different emails for you and am not sure which is more current). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look fine to me. I've supported above; nice work, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A scholarly and highly readable article, as we have come to expect from this source. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. In passing, "ancestor" in the lead looks a trifle odd for something incorporeal, and I wonder if "forerunner" might read more naturally. Perhaps not, and that's my only suggestion; otherwise nothing but praise. Tim riley talk 17:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Changed "ancestor" to "forerunner" as you suggested - I think that's a better word choice, so thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles

[edit]
  • I commented on this first rate article at A class, and I have a few more minor points.
  • "From 1197 William was responsible for Geoffrey's lands at Lydford, Devon". "responsible for" is a bit vague. ODNB says "accounted for". Does this mean accounted to the King for the knight's fee due on the estate? If so, I think it would be better to says so.
  • ships dispatched to the coasts in 1204". "coasts" sounds a bit odd to me in this context. South coast or coastal ports?
    • They were guarding the coasts, not so much the ports (as they were also guarding against landings away from the ports ala the Conqueror). Warren just says "dispersed around the coasts in 1204." ... no further clarity on which coasts of England were meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's nit-picking, but coasts still sounds wrong to me. I think you can say "the south and west coasts", but they are part of the coast of England and if you are not specifying which area it should be "the English coast". How about "dispatched to guard the English coast"?
  • In the legacy section you say that Roger of Wendover's account is regarded by modern historians as unreliable, so citing his description of William as an "evil adviser" in the lead, without qualification, seems to me a bit misleading.
    • Now reads "Known to a contemporary chronicler as one of John's "evil advisers"..." It's not that Roger is unreliable on Wrotham being an advisor - it's that Roger's anecdotes and edifying stories are ... suspect. When he's not giving amusing and interesting tidbits (like Matthew Paris), he's reasonably reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reviews along the way! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. I made no edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I did stop by wearing my coord hat, with the intention of checking over before promotion, but decided I wanted to tweak the wording a bit. While I don't think that necessarily means I need to recuse, I think I can afford to given we again have three active coords at FAC...

  • Prose and readability fine by me now (pls let me know if you disagree with my copyediting).
  • Not an expert on the period, but content appears as comprehensive as can be expected.
  • I note that Nikki reviewed the image earlier.
  • Reviewed sources for formatting (Mike attested to reliability above) and no issues leapt out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I thought I supported this before, but perhaps that was at A-class review. Anyway, it's wonderful. Clear, concise, despite the incredible vagaries of medieval sources your historians had to use (I agree with Ian's comment above). In this lead bit the first contemporary reference to William is in 1197 , I'd change the is to appears....other than that I found nothing. auntieruth (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [43].[reply]

I Never Liked You

[edit]
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An awkwardness that would make the merely awkward feel awkward is at the heart of Chester Brown's third graphic novel. It is a significant early development in the history of the form, and in contrast with the dense formal boundary-pushing of Maus, High Society, or Poison River, I Never Liked You is so minimalist that those who didn't know better might think the cartooning that of an incompetent draughtsman.

This nominee died of neglect in its first FAC—hopefully it'll die a more valiant death this round. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is mostly there.

Support all of my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

[edit]

I hate the "died from neglect" result -- very frustrating. So here's some low hanging fruit on the sources to help you out before someone does a more detailed review:

  • Citation 34 includes Harvard ref for "Gravett & Thompson 2004". There doesn't seem to be any such source in the list, although there is a source from Gravett and a source from Thompson.
  • There are web sources for Paquin and for Williams, neither of whom appear to be cited inline or mentioned anywhere in the body. Are these superfluous?

More comments after I actually read it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

(Also here because the death from neglect, and new to the topic:) I like a lot!

  • Synopsis: I find a bit strange that the younger brother is given a name a while after "sons" were mentioned, - also that "excuse after excuse" doesn't belong to the mother's death mentioned just before.

Second round:

Lead

Synopsis

Style ...

That's it. Good read, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil

[edit]

I will be supporting this, thought it was ready at the first nom.

  • Originally serialized as Fuck in issues #26–30 of Brown's comic book Yummy Fur in 1991–93, it was published in book form by Drawn and Quarterly in 1994. a bit tortured.
  • The story deals with the teenage Brown's introversion and difficulty talking to others, especially members of the opposite sex—including his mother, to whom he is unable to express affection even as she lies in the hospital dealing with her schizophrenia. - "deals with" twice, plus long long sentence.

Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are properly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [44].[reply]

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

This article is interesting in part because it reveals the art historical process; the people who make the final attribution decide how many millions of pounds a painting is worth (that would be huge bunch, in this case). More importantly 15th century paintings of this quality are invaluable and moving windows into lives from the distant past; that reach back and introduce people from far away centuries. Hope ye enjoy reading the page as much as we did writing it.Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]
Thank you for the c/e. Fixed the 12.4 mesurment; combing through for US spelling. Ceoil (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aa77zz, thanks for noting (and for the copyedit!). I've been through top-to-bottom to weed out what I can but don't always recognise/recognize the discrepancies. Do you know whether St. should be with or without a full stop (it takes a full stop in AmEng). That's one inconsistency I've found. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No full stop/period for St in British English - and below: "gray" is less usual but ok. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay removed all except from Little Flowers of St. Francis which made it turn red. If it's a problem will fix that later. Thanks for explaining; I thought you'd mentioned this another time, as well. Victoria (tk) 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there are 6 uses of "color" (or derivatives) of which 2 are in quotes and should stay. There are 3 occasions where "colour" is used. In addition, if you want British spelling:
enameled -> enamelled
mollusk -> mollusc (may be optional)
fibers -> fibres
gray -> grey
The extract from the will is also quoted in Weale's Hubert and John Van Eyck, their life and work 1908 page 131 available here. He has "Sinte Franssen" with an extra "e" - I've no idea if this is correct. Aa77zz (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. I checked enamaled in the source (it's a quote) and I transcribed it correctly. I had noticed the difference between Weale and Dhanen's orthography and decided to use Dhanens' version. I've double checked just now and she does write Sint-Franssen, with a hyphen. We got grey and fibres and somehow with your help managed to sort out the color / colour issue. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
enameled -> enamelled is now gone from the text. The others fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria! Victoria (tk) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
  • Oh dear; the article has had over 100 edits since I last commented, so I can't follow the changes, but the lead has got worse. You need to begin with clear statements of where the paintings are, which is the bigger, etc. Then comparison and contrasts. Don't start by saying they are "nearly identical" when one is over twice as large as the other - my change here has been reverted. Losing all the refs from the lead is probably a mistake - things like "weak" just need a ref imo. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've both tweaked the lead. Victoria (tk) 01:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's moved on a good bit. I need to find the time for full comments. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you might be adding further comments any time soon, Johnbod? Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah! If I haven't by Monday, then probably not. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It now reads "evidenced by the water scenes in the Turin-Milan Hours[19]" Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rules were generally relaxed for lay members; the Confraternity of the Dry Tree lacked possessions but the chapel was lavishly decorated." What's the point here? It was a lay confraternity, a mixture of prayer group and dining club, like the modern Catenian Association or others; all or nearly all the members were lay, weren't they? The organization may have lacked major assets but the members certainly didn't. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing an approximate date of completionmost is usually one of the most important factor in attribution an old master painting.[1] Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are three possibilities; the panels are placed within van Eyck's lifetime and are originals; they were completed by workshop members, after his death, from a left-behind underdrawing; or they were created by a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of early Eyckian motifs." Don't know what the ref says, but various further options suggest themselves - in particular "the panels are placed within van Eyck's lifetime and were completed by workshop members" (ie not after). "left-behind" reads a bit informally; sounds like he forgot to pack it coming back from holiday. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased "left-behind". The refs got shoved around a bit there and at one point Harbison was used as a source, so hoping Ceoil (yes, pinging!) will take a look, because I don't have that source. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone with There are three possibilities; the panels are van Eyck originals; they were completed by workshop members after his death from one of his underdrawings; or they were created by a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of Eyckian motifs'. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opinion in the mid-20th century favoured a workshop member; Erwin Panofsky admitted "flagrant heresy" when he expressed doubt with the attribution to van Eyck.[38]" I think Curly has spotted the lack of clarity here. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checked? Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I trimmed it down a bit. I think he used the word heresy as he had established a number of attributions himself. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "....placed the two paintings in an unattributed category. She mentions Panofsky's dispute as by a follower of van Eyck, and she notes the similarity of the landscape boat scene to passages in works known to be from workshop members, in particular the motif in a depiction of Saint Anthony now in Copenhagen." needs decoding! Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Prado image needs more coverage. It has significant differences in the composition. "It seems to follow the Philadelphia panel as it was before the later additions were removed." - have we been told about these? Don't think so. I can help with basic catalogue details if needed. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I dont have much on the Prado version; weirdly I was thinking of this. Might need help here. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regiged so that provenance comes before description, which is now merged with iconography and condition. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the tardiness, merged now, good call. Ceoil (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time. I've done the ones I can that I have sources for. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod I've given some thought today today to the attribution section and wondering whether it should be rewritten chronologically by who said what when, because at the moment it's a little confused. But - the sources, too, are confusing. I'm surprised to see Borchert (in 2008) still saying it's a workshop member and that JvE worked on Turin-Milan Hours late in his career. Also, I thought about removing Dhanens completely but decided against. Basically I'm on the fence in terms of how to deal with this and would like to wait until Ceoil surfaces. If he doesn't, then I'll do what I can there, but it involves re-reading all the sources and will take some time. Sorry, this is hedging, but it's the best I can do. Also, haven't gotten to the Prado painting yet either. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've reorganized the "Attribution" section to discuss dating first (Phila & then Turin), and then goes on to discuss attribution. The problematic "there are three possibilities" section is now at the bottom and might still need some tweaking. As for the Prado, it confuses me to be honest, so not a lot I can do there. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done (by Victoria), except as noted. Really I'm pretty much ready to support, but a couple of points should be looked at by Ceoil. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my tardiness with this, and to Victoria for carrying so much heavy lifting. All adress now, apart from coverage of the Prado copy. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added on that - arguably a bit too much, as it is really just a later copy. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • Feel free to undo any of the copyedits I've made.
  • In the lead it would be best to clarify that "the wounds" means "stigmata"
Debatable; but there are probably inconsistent levels of citation. Either fewer or more are needed. Personally I'm happy either way. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had submitted to DYK (unsuccessfully) and remnant of that attempt. Now gone. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work in Philadelphia is generally attributed: this comes out of nowhere; wouldn't "the smaller panel" be better at this point?
  • A recently reconstructed: how recently?
  • "glass-containing bread": can any explanation be given for this?
  • In the "Adoration of the Mystic Lamb of God" panel of the Ghent Altarpiece : no date for this one?
    Mentioned as before 1432 now, I see. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The representation of Christ is of a seraphic vision: is there anything good to link to here?
  • from the rock face "intersecting the fossils to reveal cross sections of the shells in side profile".: quotes must be attributed and followed by a inline cite (even if the same cite follows later in the paragraph)
  • to which Anselme Adornes belonged: who?
  • In this depiction he sees "a man like a seraph having six wings, standing over him with hands outstretched and feet joined together, fixed to a cross. Two wings were raised above his head, two were spread out for flight, and two veiled the whole body": again, we need attribution. Is there some reason this needs to be quoted?
Many Wikipedians set the bar for what "needs to be quoted" too high, imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted it because I'm a pagan and don't always understand Christian symbols, because I like it, and because I was afraid of straying too far to the source. Can be completely rewritten if required. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to keep it. It's an important concept imo. Basically the entire point of the painting. How often does a six winged seraph christ appear in front of someone? Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

outdent: I've moved discussion to article talk so we can move on. Victoria (tk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • which was further expounded: what was further expounded?

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]

I'm copyediting while I review, of course treat those like any other edits. I will have to review this article in several sessions. I'm not at all familiar with this area, so please don't make changes merely to shut me up, I will accept a reasonable response too... On the other hand, that makes me stop as soon as I don't understand something from context, so I hope I can add some value.

  • Lead:
    • odd to explain that the third painting is in the Prado when the location of the first two has not been mentioned – dealing with this may make the latter "Philadelphia and Turin" comment moot. Perhaps extend the first sentence a bit? "... two nearly identical 1428–32 paintings, in Turin and Philadelphia."
      Did this. Ceoil (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really seeing the landscape as "expansive". There are rock outcrops quite close to left and right with a city in the background to centre. Do sources support this adjective?
      clarified. Ceoil (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description / Material:
    • Philadelphia and Turin are mentioned here without any previous mention of which painting is where. This comment is, I realise, a bit unfair because the details are in the captions for the two adjacent images, but I looked at the images and did not read the captions before reading the main article – I imagine many readers will do the same.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will I think be clearer if there are separate paragraphs for each painting and if the order follows the order of the images, thus move the last sentence to a new paragraph at the start of the section.
      Thinking about this. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Prefer not to split. It's written in a compare/contrast block pattern (instead of point-by-point). Block pattern can have both in the same para. Victoria (tk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, struck that part of the comment. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Re text order following the order of the images. The smaller (Philadelphia) version is generally considered the first and, for the most part, the text is Phila → Turin blockstyle compare/contrast. There are a few places where that needs to be fixed btw - but can't get to it at the moment. The problem is that formatting the smaller image above the larger in the lead might not work, imo. So it's a problem that needs some thinking about. It's a very good point though. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the careful response. That is a good reason for arranging and ordering the text as you have, and yes the presentation of the images will not work the other way round, so I agree with leaving this as it is at present. Striking this point. --Mirokado (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the parchment surrounding the image": it may be clearer to say, earlier in the sentence, "The small Philadelphia panel is painted with oil on vellum mounted on parchment" (or whatever is actually the case) since otherwise "the parchment" is a surprise to the reader.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Please check my subsequent edit, particularly the resulting placement of the ref callout after "vellum" in the middle of the sentence. --Mirokado (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine by me. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • second image caption: "Oil on vellum on panel" does not mention the parchment...
      Addressed Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UT

These are very astute and very welcome observations Mirokado. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References, citations
    • Worldcat lists the authors as "Rosa Giorgi; Stefano Zuffi" for Zuffi, Stefano. Saints in Art. Los Angeles: Getty Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89236-717-2 . They are not always correct, please can you check? --Mirokado (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I have a copy of the book, and see now that Zuffi is series editor, even though on the inleaf his name is most prominant, Giorgi mentioned only half ways down the page, not as author, but have confirmed otherwise. Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no citation for the "Borchert (1991), 86" short note: should that be Borchert (2008)? --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Got that. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of duplication of the Rishel (1997) citation. Can the chapter citations just say "In Rishel (1997)."? --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It's bulky and I'm not crazy about it but it's a compilation of essays, each written by a different scholar, each attributed in-text, so those authors need to be visible in the bibliography/sources. The FAC criteria for consistent bib formatting doesn't give much room for movement (i.e no opcits, no ibids, no entry that's formatted differently than the others). The only solution is to only mention Rishel as editor, ignore the authors' names, but I don't see that as viable. Welcome advice regarding this. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      This is basically my thinking too. Its not ideal, but preferable to merging wholesale. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I meant retaining the short notes as at present, with individual author citations for the chapters, but referring to the whole book for editor and publisher details, with "Rishel (1977)" exactly the format used elsewhere to refer to a full citation, thus:
  • ...
  • Butler, Marigene. "An Investigation of the Philadelphia 'Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata'". In Rishel (1997)
  • Borchert, Till-Holger. Van Eyck. London: Taschen, 2008. ISBN 3-8228-5687-8
  • ...
  • Giorgi, Rosa. Saints in Art. Los Angeles: Getty Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89236-717-2
  • Klein, Peter. "Dendrochronological Analyses of the Two Panels of 'Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata'". In Rishel (1997)
  • ...
  • Rishel, Joseph. Jan Van Eyck: Two Paintings of Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1997. ISBN 0-8763-3115-0
  • Smeyers, Maurits. "The Philadelphia-Turin Paintings and the Turin-Milan Hours". In Rishel (1997)
  • ...
    • It would be nice to do it that way and perhaps I'm taking the concept of consistency to an extreme (you clear!), but i.,e in Early Netherlandish Painting we wrote out the many chapters in Ainsworth in the sources, and it's that way in Hemingway pages, i.,e the essays from Wagner-Martin in Big Two-Hearted River. Shall we ping Nikkimaria for her opinion? She's the expert! Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I was thinking that it would be better to check this with "the powers that be". This review would not be the right place for an extended discussion, so having made the suggestion I will accept whatever you and the delegates decide. @Nikkimaria: please comment. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      If done consistently either option would be acceptable, provided the full details for Rischel were included somewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at both the Worldcat entry and the illustration of the book cover there, it looks as if the book title should be as above, colon after Eyck and without the colon in the middle of the actual painting title. --Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Title fixed. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Sorry, I need to ask again about the colon after Francis. It doesn't appear anywhere else in the titles of the paintings here or in the Worldcat listing for that book. The illustration of the cover shows a line break after Francis but that seems more like cover artistry, since the whole painting title without colon is italicised. The online search function strips the colon and doesn't display the match, so I could not check inside the book. A brief "it has a colon on the title page" or whatever would suffice if the colon is correct, but in that case the single quotes around the whole title (reflecting the italicisation on the cover) might not be. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a copy / paste error, missed earlier. Thanks for the catch. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Katherine Luber's contributions to the Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin were published in a volume which is available via the Internet Archive: Recognizing van Eyck. Can we add urls to the citations, for example by linking the chapter titles to the start of each chapter? --Mirokado (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've linked the "Forward" that I took from there, but until this went to FAC didn't know it was available at archives.org and worked from separate downloaded hardcopy files for the others. Will have to go through and check page numbers. If they all match, then we should probably sort out the Luber a, b, c. That will take a little time, and I'm not totally convinced it needs to be done. If Ceoil read it from there, then might be easier for him to do. Victoria (tk) 16:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well done for thinking about page numbers. They are out-by-two in the archive navigation, because the archive counts the front cover sheet as pages 1 and 2, and out-by-one with respect to the number in the url since that starts at 0! We should probably retain the printed page numbers in the references. It would be good if we can have the link to the archive somehow as well, though. --Mirokado (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution
    • they were created by a highly talented follower based on pastiches: is "pastiche" the correct word here? Looking at pastiche the phrase would seem to mean "they were created by a highly talented follower based on works themselves imitating the style or character of van Eyck". Can we clarify this somehow? If we do use "pastiche" we should wikilink it.
      Yes but I dont want to go down the road of "tropes" Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That article is quite interesting and strong. I like the differention between parody and tribute; I has hesidant for that reason. Linked and rephrased as from "a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of early Eyckian motifs". Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, that is clear now. --Mirokado (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • when he expressed doubt with the attribution of Jan: probably "attribution to ..." is better. Is the use of "Jan" here because Panofsky preferred another van Eyck (Hubert?) as the author? If so, it may be better to say who he meant explicitly.
    • For a period ...: "For some time ..."?
    • x-ray analysis ... design ... Infrared reflectography ... extensive underdrawing: is a distinction intended between "design" and "underdrawing"? If so, what? What is the difference between the two techniques mentioned in terms of what they reveal?
I would think they are the same thing, maybe Johnbod can shed light. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Johnbod might be able to shed light (no pun intended!); but, yes, the two techniques seem to be different. See Butler, page 30 (mentions X-radiograph) and page 40 (mentions reflectography). I remember reading about reflectography but need to search the sources to find the definition. It was interesting. Anyway, will come back to this. Victoria (tk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant between "design" and "underdrawing"....Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree those are much the same; the scientific techniques are different, revealing different things, but I'm a bit vague. Infrared reflectography shows carbon black, much used in undredrawing, while x-rays pick up metal, in particular, white lead in paint, silver or lead point in drawing. Think that's right. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding; on page 29, here Butler lists the investigative techniques and reads to me as though each one is different. Victoria (tk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the IR revealed further details of what the X-rays had first indicated, I think the second sentence can be clarified by adding "further": "Infrared reflectography further revealed the extensive underdrawing beneath the original paint;".
Yes, I've added this. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to explain what, and how, extra detail was revealed by the use of IR, if that can be done fairly concisely. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The operative word is concision. The sources will need a revisit and then a decision in regards to the best placement. The technical explanations are lengthy and in the end we decided to summarize, but there's plenty of room for expansion, especially giving the importance of the research project. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have made a small clarification in this edit. Victoria (tk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This panel seems to follow the Philadelphia version before the later additions were removed.: Which additions are being referred to here? There is the mention of "alterations to the composition after laying down the underdrawings and completing painting" a bit earlier in this section. The additions mentioned in the Condition section seem at least partly to have been much later.
      Description of what the later additions were got removed when I gutted the page yesterday. Turns out I have acute bronchitis, but should be better in a few days and would like to put back some of those deletions (that I wasn't feeling well is an understatement!). Also apologies to all for the meltdown. Victoria (tk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no hurry, I'll be watching this for any updates when you are ready. Happy New Year. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Section re removals during restoration restored. Probably needs some tweaking though. Victoria (tk) 01:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Found a file that hadn't made it in which explains removals better (with numbers). Now added. Victoria (tk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. The updates to the Condition section clarify the additions nicely. I now understand the sentence here, but perhaps we could clarify it, something like: "This panel seems to follow the Philadelphia version as it was before the later additions were removed." --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep, good catch. Fixed. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Condition
    • ... at an unknown point.: "... at some time."? (We know where it was scratched...)
  • 1998 exhibition
    • ... and a few manuscript leafs.: "leaves" unless manuscripts are a specialised exception
    • ... and a few manuscript leafs. Of those, only two are ...: perhaps better as one sentence: "... and a few manuscript leaves, of which only two are ..."
      Got these Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • since there were only five paintings and four are mentioned, can we mention the fifth too?
      Excellent catch (b/c the NYT is wrong!). Now fixed and expanded. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Hum. We now don't mention either of the Francis paintings in this section. What about the Philadelphia painting? How could that not have been part of the exhibition? Probably a little more detail needed here, particularly if the NYT article used as a reference is incorrect somehow. --Mirokado (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      NYT failed to mention the St Christophers. The Saint Francises got lost in my "fix" and now retrieved. Sorry about that! Victoria (tk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone through all the article content. There is clearly still quite a lot of copyediting happening, so I will read through the article again once it has settled down a bit. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of these, but unsure about Rishel. Thinking. Your right about there being a lot of copyediting; the feedback has been great. Maybe I'll ping you when ready for you to revisit? Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. --Mirokado (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably be online a bit less over the next few days, but I'll respond when I can. --Mirokado (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might not be around much myself until next week. I do want to take the opportunity to thank you for a most thorough, thoughtful, and pleasant review. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! --Mirokado (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read through the article again and have a few final comments:

  • Lead:
    • ... most scholars attributed it either to...: should "it" be "them" since the preceding text is talking about both paintings?
    • The Italian panel revealed underdrawings...: It is the investigation which revealed the underdrawings, not the panel itself. I suggest rephrasing, perhaps add "and on" so that the subject of "revealed" is "Technical analysis" as for "established": "...; and on the Italian panel revealed ..."
  • Figures:
    • The details of his head and face are minutely detailed.: repetition of "detail".
      Better, but features are the subject of two successive sentences. I also didn't quite like "given...gives" on repeated reading. Perhaps consider: "Francis has individualized features,[9] to the point that the attention to his face gives it the quality of a portrait such as van Eyck's c. 1431 Portrait of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati,[2] The head and face are minutely detailed."
    • Order founder: "Order's founder" would be better?
  • Iconography:
    • The theatrical pose, rays of light entering his body causing wounds on his side are eliminated, which are deemed "essential features of the iconography".:
      • I would mention three features of the Giotto and many other representations (I've had a look through Commons), see suggested change (you probably intended this and a couple of words have got lost somewhere)
      • rephrase, so that the subordinate clause "which are deemed..." comes closer to its referents
      • thus: The theatrical pose, rays of light entering his body causing wounds and the wound on his side, which are deemed "essential features of the iconography", are eliminated.
      • is "essential features of the iconography" a quote which needs to be attributed in the text?
        Much better than my suggestion, but we are still not mentioning the wound in the side. Is there a reason for not doing so?
    • ...his feet positioned near a small stream gushing from the rocks, which signify redemption or salvation. It is the stream which signifies redemption or salvation, so "signifies" would be correct and the sentence would be better rephrased: "...his feet positioned near a small stream, which signifies redemption or salvation, gushing from the rocks."
  • Attribution:
    • ..-but x-ray analysis discovered...: "revealed" would probably be better here.
    • "...kneeling figure of The Agony in the Garden leaf...": If we substitute a different title here, we see that a "the" is needed whose referent is "leaf": "...kneeling figure of Apricots leaf...". I suggest rephrasing to avoid the juxtaposition of "the The", perhaps – Borchert notes the similarity of Francis's pose to the kneeling figure of the "Turin-Milan Hours" leaf The Agony in the Garden, ...

It is a pleasure to support this article now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby sorry if this has been asked; why isn't this article at just Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata?—indopug (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad suggestion, if Ceoil agrees and doesn't mind another move. Victoria (tk) 01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, no! This is a very common subject for paintings, and a valid title (very possibly more valid than the one WP now uses) for Stigmata of St. Francis (Giotto), St. Francis in Ecstasy (Bellini, Frick), Saint Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy (Caravaggio), and potentially dozens of other very notable paintings. What we really need is a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as this is what the Louvre English website calls it, I've moved the Giotto to Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (Giotto), a much better title. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See a google image search for plenty more. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I did think of the Giotto and the other Italian version but … well, anyway at least Indopug got an answer! Victoria (tk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Support – This is a fine article, but the prose still needs a bit of tidying. First, are we in American English or British English? We have, for instance, "colour" but "traveled", and for possessives for names ending in "s" a mixture of US ess-apostrophe and English ess-apostrophe-ess. Consistency, please. Other small points on the prose:

  • "Most scholar's" – either there is a noun missing or you have a greengrocer's apostrophe here.
  • "unconcerned by the the apparition" – duplicate word
  • "throneroom ... city-scape" – the opposite of how I would hyphenate them (but what do I know?)
  • "kneeling figure of the The Agony" – more double articles

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and the article seems to me of the usual high quality of scholarship and enthusiasm from this source. I'm happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Turkey

[edit]
  • The article looks in fine shape. A few things:
  • northern art: should this be northern European art or somesuch?
  • that could only have come from van Eyck: I assume this is what scholars believe rather than an incontrovertible fact?
  • Today the consensus is that the panels were painted by the same hand.: if the consensus is that they could only be by van Eyck, then stating this here is redundant.
  • conversions to inches are given in the body, bu tnot in the lead. Any reason?
  • similar to those seen in contemporary illuminated manuscripts: what does "those" refer to?
  • and anti-naturalistic positioning: the "anti-" seems to me like it was a revolt against naturalism. Would "unnaturalistic" be inappropriate?
  • Till-Holger Borchert observes that Francis' feet are positioned slightly too high above the rest of his body, making them "so bizarrely placed as to look like a foreign body".: this appears in a separate paragraph from the one about His knees and feet seem disconnected. I'd rearrange so these things were together.
  • Question: when speaking aloud, do you say Francis' or Francis's ?
  • such as rays or beams of light: is there a differentce between a "ray" and a "beam" of light?
  • The representation of Christ is of a seraphic vision: I asked this above as well: is there anything good to link to here?
  • In the {{multiple image}} the aligment is set to "left/right/center".
  • significant dissenting voices in the recent past: how recent is "the recent past"?
  • Opinion in the mid-20th century favoured a workshop member; Erwin Panofsky admitted "flagrant heresy" when he expressed doubt with the attribution to Jan.: this is confused---why would it be heresy to doubt attribution to van Eyck at a time when opinion favoured a workshop member?
  • Examination of the sapwood: it might be a good idea to mention the sapwood when discussing the other materials
  • the placement of his feet and knees "made more rational": requires attribution
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Northern art is now clarified
  • "only have come from van Eyck" is a finding from technical analysis - the underdrawings are almost identical to other work known to be van Eyck's - clarified
  • Because there are two paintings, only the attributions for both rely on the technical analysis - the tree-ring analysis ties the Phila. painting (at least) to his workshop, the underdrawings tie the Turin painting to his work. - clarified
  • I added and then removed conversions from the lead because they look like this and on my screen a couple of line are filled with numbers. I think it's ok to have the converts in the body and the pic captions.
  • "similar too…" - good catch and thanks. A piece got lost, now found.
  • Yes, probably best to have the possessive s for Francis. Done now.
  • Beams are gone.
  • "rational" attributed.
  • multiple image fixed
  • Seraph linked; haven't a clue how to link "seraphic vision". Maybe Ceoil or Johnbod know.
Thanks for these - done a few. The others will take a bit more time. Thanks for the copyedits, btw! Victoria (tk) 01:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link seraphic vision so spefically; would be like trying to find an article for Holy Joe. Establishing that the archetype had three pairs of wings is enough, I think. Ceoil (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If "serephic vision" just means "seeing a seraph", then, yeah, linking to Seraph is sufficient. I had no idea what a seraph was, nor whether a "seraphic vision" had some sort of special meaning. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should you have had. It was unclear. But...it dont. Ceoil (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just toned it down a bit. Ceoil (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support very well done. I don't have many comments:

  • "This treatment of Francis" What treatment of Francis? The first time that incident had been painted in Northern Europe?
  • "A later, third version ..." this sentence seems a bit out of place and might do better concluding the second paragraph
  • "The fossils are either a type of mollusk similar to present-day bivalvia or brachiopods" This is a bit unclear. Is the choice mollusk or brachiopod, or is the mollusk a given and the choice between the two b's?
  • "Her team undertook a programme of restoration, investigating the provenance of the paintings and the relationship between them" This sentence gives me pause. The investigation is not an example of the restoration, so is this a list? It seems there's a missing or misplaced "and".
  • "Borchert notes the similarity of Francis's pose to the kneeling figure in the "Turin-Milan Hours" miniature of The Agony in the Garden, and concludes that both were completed after the master had died." Can a hint of the reasoning be included?
  • "it was known in Italy," the painting or Adornes's bringing it?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Wehwalt, for taking the time to read and for the support! I got all of these except the first two. I can't think of a word to replace "treatment" and honestly don't know enough about art to say if that's the right word to use or not (I think it might be). Re "later, third version" - it is at the end of the second para. Do you mean the first para? Victoria (tk) 01:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Anyone signed off on sources here (formatting and reliability)? If not, Ceoil/Victoria, pls post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were discussed up further. Pinging Nikkimaria, otherwise will post request this evening. Don't have time atm - lunch break is over! Tks. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things to add to the discussion above...

  • Sources list needs some alphabetization fixes. One in particular: you've got "von Baldass" alphabetized under B, but "van Asperen de Boer" under V - should be consistent
  • 8 November not 08 November - don't need the initial zero
  • A few minor inconsistencies in footnote formatting - FN7 should include year, 10 has an extra comma, 6 is missing a space, etc
  • Pages for FN 58?
  • No citations to Smeyers, van Asperen. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nikkimaria, for taking the time (and for the good eyes!). I think I've got them all.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [45].[reply]

James B. Weaver

[edit]
Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about James B. Weaver, a Civil War general and populist politician. From Republican to Greenback to Populist to Democrat, Weaver moved around the political parties of Gilded Age America, always in support of a fair shake for farmers and laborers. Or, that's how he'd tell it. Opponents might call him a chronic office-seeker and grabber of Indian lands. Either way, he's a figure I've found fascinating, and I hope you do, too.Coemgenus (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The caption on the home identifies it as being in Bloomfield, but the text in that section says Bloomington - can you verify?
  • File:JBWeaver_signature.jpg: signatures typically aren't copyrightable in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the Bloomington error—don't know how I missed that one! And I didn't know that about signatures. Changed the license tag to {{PD-signature|USA}}. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • I'm not a subject expert—I'm not even American. Feel free to disagree with any of my comments or to revert any of my copyedits.
  • WP:ALT text for images would be nice — Curly Turkey 03:22, January 7, 2015 — continues after insertion below
  • along the Chequest Creek: is it normal to call it the Chequest Creek?
  • Clara gave birth to the couple's second child and first son: no word on their first child? I'd've thought that'd be a momentous occasion
  • "prohibition" is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not
    • Fixed.
  • "As one author put it": who? This requires in-text attribution
  • "sell out the party at any time to the Democrats": requires attribution
    • I object to a couple of your edits along this line, though. Where there's a citation at the end of the sentence, I don't see the need to cite the same source again in mid-sentence just because there's a direct quotation there. Maybe there's a policy reason I don't know about, but if not, I'd like to undo that, if you don't mind.
      • Hmmm ... I've been told this is a requirement, but I can't find it in the MoS. Perhaps someone like SandyGeorgia could clarify? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trying to sort out who said what here, it appears that I'm being asked if direct quotes need to be cited where they occur, even if there is a citation provided later on ? WP:CITE says inline citation (and attribution) is required for quotations, and if you don't place the citation right after the quote, it a) could appear uncited, and b) it could get separated from its source if text is added or moved around. It is good practice to place the citation directly after the quote rather than later in the same paragraph (and I can't think of any reason not to). I haven't looked at the text in question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • receive more than 12% of the vote: where did he receive so much of the vote?
    • He got 11.7% in Texas. I added a note about it
  • Their candidate, John F. Lacey, was elected by 828 votes.: total, or more than the opponent?
    • I changed it to "an 828-vote majority".
  • threat to [[Jim Crow laws|the established order there]]: if "established order there" means "Jim Crow laws", I'd state so explicitly.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Curly's request above for in-text attribution ... WP:CITE says that's needed (at WP:INTEXT), and Chicago recommends that too, but AFAIK, generalized attribution is fine. One of the sentences in this article (after my tweak) is: "Pomeroy's faction, called the "Union Greenback Labor Party", was more radical and emphasized its independence, and suggested that Eastern Greenbackers were likely to "sell out the party at any time to the Democrats"." So, we can assume it was someone speaking on behalf of the party that made the "sell out" comment, and this is enough to avoid the ambiguity that usually results when you don't give the readers even a clue in the text who said what. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dank, those edits all look fine to me. Much appreciated. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did the good article review for this work, and found it to be well written, well researched, balanced, and interesting, and worthy of featured status.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Excellent work. A few quibbles:
  • I'm a bit concerned about the pipe of "anti-slavery" referring to the Republicans in 1856 to the abolitionism article. The Republicans were not abolitionists at that time. They opposed the spread of slavery.
  • Rephrased it.
  • Done.
  • "but Weaver moved on" informal?
  • Changed to "shrugged off the defeat". That still may be too informal, but I think it works.
  • "wanted to return the nation's currency to a gold standard as soon as possible" Well, if you want to be technical about it, the US had not yet been on the gold standard, at least formally. Until 1873, it was (at least technically) bimetallic. Perhaps rephrase around it?
  • True. I rephrased.
  • "Ezekiel S. Sampson, the incumbent Republican" must he be introduced at such length? As you've mentioned him, perhaps "Republican Congressman Sampson" would be sufficient, or possibly even "Sampson".
  • OK. I worried people may have forgotten him.
  • "Cutts died before taking office, and the Republicans offered to let Weaver run unopposed in the special election if he rejoined their party; he declined, and John C. Cook, a Democrat, won the seat." Would it have been unopposed or was Cook running anyway?
  • Neither Mitchell nor Haynes say so clearly, but it seems Cook was running regardless. The only question was whether the Republicans would field a candidate.
  • "an 828-vote majority" To avoid any ambiguity, perhaps change majority to margin
  • Done.
  • Why was Weaver claiming land? As I understand the Homestead Act, you had to improve it to get title to it, and I think live on it.
  • He didn't make a big announcement of it, but according to one biographer Weaver "had made it known to a few of his Oklahoma friends his intention to locate in Oklahoma and grow up with the territory." (Colbert 2008, p.191) There was also suspicion that he aimed at the eventual U.S. Senate seat there. I added a bit to suggest his motives.
  • "unlimited coinage of silver" Not linked on first use.
  • Fixed.
  • I note you make nouns that are groups of people (party, for example), plural. I understood this to be more a British practice.
  • I try to avoid it, but it does happen. Not proper American English, and I'm an American, so I should know better!
  • "As in 1880, the issue of race hurt the Populists " Well no, it hurt the Greenbacks in 1880. Perhaps make it in terms of Weaver.
  • Yes, done.
  • "President Cleveland convinced Congress to repeal the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which ensured the government would coin less silver" ambiguous whether the act or the repeal ensured this. I would say "purchase less silver for coining" to be accurate, the mints kept coining the accumulation from Bland-Allison and Sherman until 1904.
  • I missed that. Fixed.
  • "1894 saw pay cuts" I have an old fashioned prejudice against starting sentences with a numeral. "The year 1894"? Also, I'd move this sentence to start the next paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/February_2015&oldid=649286849"