Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2012[edit]

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 Ucucha 16:59, 30 January 2012 [1].

Super Meat Boy[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, take 3 for this troublesome indie video game. The last FAC died out due to a lack of comments, which wasn't helped by the fact that I was out of the country and it was the winter holidays. It's been two weeks, so lets give it another go! It was copyedited by the WP:GOCE before the first time, as well as beat on in the last two FACs; all of the refs are working and archived, and it has alt text and no redirects. It got source reviews the last two times, and a media review in the first FAC. I addressed everything that came up in the last FAC, so hopefully this will be the last respawn. --PresN 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (Not a wikicup nom, as most of the work was done last year)[reply]

  • Support I was busy and forgot to support. ♫GoP♫TCN 10:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, I got busy and didn't ask people to come back. Thanks for reviewing it last time! --PresN 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My only minor complaint is in the Reception section, websites is split into two as "web sites", despite the fact that in the article, it says that it is also spelled like that; I just rarely see it split into two words-SCB '92 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, and thank you. --PresN 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I think I remember seeing this at FAC before, but didn't bother commenting then. Anyway, it looks to be in good condition. Good job. Tezero (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from a Grammar Nazi. I only had to make one minor change to the article for grammar, and it wasn't really even grammar-related. Truly an excellent article! Interchangeable|talk to me 01:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing! I agree with your change, as well. --PresN 01:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Mark Arsten at 03:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC): Alright, the article looks pretty good to me. I'm not familiar with video game articles (and am a beginner at FAC) so I can't comment too much on some aspects of this. Here are some thoughts though:
  • Check the use of "Due to" vs "Because of"
  • Check for the use of the noun + -ing construction.
  • "They had four months' worth of work left to complete on the game, so, for the final two months, they worked daily, slept five hours a night, and frequently forgot to eat—a process that McMillen said he "would never voluntarily go through" again." What do you think about rephrasing this so it's a shorter sentence/has less punctuation?
  • "These warp zones feature bonus levels that have either the art style of older video games and a limit of three lives, or are patterned after another indie video game.[1] The player may control characters other than Meat Boy, many of whom first appeared in other independent video games." Maybe note examples of the other games here?
  • Is the Commander Video you mention in the article the same as Commander Video? Maybe link him if it is.
  • "They felt the replay feature transformed death in the game into a form of reward." I think you could probably cut out "in the game" here.
  • Thanks for the review! Addressed all of these concerns; I find the "noun+ing" constructions hard to spot, so thanks for the link to Tony's guide on them. No worries about not being familiar with video game articles; an FA is supposed to be accessible to all readers, not just video game article editors. --PresN 04:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished reading the article, other than some small word choice or punctuation issues I think the article is fine. The first paragraph of the Reception section didn't seem to flow that well for me, but I can't think of any good ways to fix it. Some real small comments:
  • "Official Xbox Magazine (UK)'s Mike Channel appreciated the variety found in each set of levels." Why do you note the location here?
  • OXM UK and US, while both called just "Official Xbox Magazine" and sharing an owning company, are entirely different magazines, with different reviewers. --PresN 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joe Leonard of 1UP.com noted that the game's humor and over-the-top gameplay help to calm frustrations regarding the difficulty. "Super Meat Boy's greatest strength has to be how it never takes itself too seriously—as maddening as some of the levels got, I could never stay angry at the game for too long," said Leonard." Maybe condense to one sentence with a colon?
  • "On January 11, 2011, Baranowsky and Team Meat released a special edition soundtrack on Bandcamp as both a downloadable and physical release." Could you rephrase to avoid "released... release"? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The PC version has a "Super Meat World" section, which allows users to play and rate additional levels that players have created with a level editor, released in May 2011." Maybe try to rephrase this to make it clearer what "released in May 2011" refers to? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All addressed; except for one comment above. --PresN 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, every issue that I could spot has been fixed, good job PresN! I am more than willing to Support on prose/presentation/MOS criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you didn't complain about it last time. Game Set Watch is owned/run by UBM TechWeb as a sister site to the RS Gamasutra. UBM also runs Game Developer magazine, the Game Developers Conference, and the Independent Games Festival. --PresN 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of editorial oversight or fact-checking policy do they have for this site? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, can't find one, though the author is the head editor of the site. Replaced with a PC Gamer article. --PresN 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. Both are non-free, but both are accompanied by detailed rationales and clearly meet the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I remember Meat Boy from when it was just a mediocre free-to-play flash game. Then again, I remember Kongregate from before it sold out and became a paid advertising platform for Scion. I guess that makes me, in terms of flash gamers, exceedingly old. Good article, short and easy read. Although I normally don't support FACs (I just don't feel qualified), I can't find anything wrong with this and I'd hate to see it die only from inattention twice in a row. (After all, there are so many other better ways for Meat Boy to die ). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review! And you're not that old, I remember finding the old Kongregate back in the day too. --PresN 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The WiiWare version was canceled as a result of the challenge of meeting the file size limitations imposed by Nintendo, primarily due to the expansion in the size of the game from the initial proposal." has too many nouns in it, and I'm not quite sure what it means. And why the "primarily"? Would something like "The WiiWare version was canceled because the game's file size was expanded beyond the limits imposed by Nintendo." work? Ucucha (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, if you want it to be easily readable instead of obtuse. Done. --PresN 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 20:56, 28 January 2012 [2].

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) and Tbhotch.™ 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel it is safe to bring it back to FAC after three peer reviews, three failed FACs, four copy-edits by four experienced copy-editors, and much work done by the two of us. We hope the fourth time will be the good one. We will be very happy to make the corrections needed. Your help and suggestions are everything we need and more, we've written all over the page (forms part of the song's lyrics). :D With the essential being said, "Help us put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC) and Tbhotch.™ 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Jivesh boodhun. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I didn't do a full spotcheck, but I noticed that "glorious and perfectly produced" is a verbatim quote from the source used. Please check this before spotchecks are done
  • Be consistent in whether retrieval dates are included in addition to archive dates or not
  • Don't italicize editions
  • Nikki was probably referring to FN 43.
  • Check for repeated wikilinks in footnotes
  • Not done. On a quick check ASCAP is wikilinked twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting on FNs 65 and 66 - why the difference?
    • I see none
  • Nikki, I sat down for 10 minutes but could not see the difference. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been fixed, but there's a similar problem with FNs 142 and 145 - check how publisher is treated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 85: is this the correct title?
    • British Phonographic Industry's one or which? If the answer is yes, "Certified Awards Search" appears as a title. Tbhotch.™ 05:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current FN 84 - you're absolutely sure that "Certifified Awards Search" is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Certifified --> Certified. That was a nice catch. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord. What happened to my eyes. :D Thanks WP. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pitchfork Media or Pitchfork Media Inc.? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pitchfork Media is the publication, Pitchfork Media Inc. is the publisher. Tbhotch.™ 05:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first alone will do as I am not using the Inc. ending. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My points have been satisfactorily addressed. Happy to give the thumb up. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "January 20, 2009 in" missing comma; please check for consistency with MoS throughout article. The same applies with "[town/city], [city/country]," construction.
  • "relationship between Knowles's character and Ealy's." --> "relationship between Knowles's and Ealy's characters."?
  • ""Halo" was taken from a different disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce to "Diva"" --> What does "taken from a different disc" mean? The word to prior to "Diva" need to be replaced with from.
  • Well, I thought I was clear enough that in the production information that I Am... Sasha Fierce is a double album. The word to was verified by three copy-editors. You can check the history. In fact, I should say that they changed the sentence to what it is now for better understanding. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any particular reason why the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Release" is not placed at the paragraph's end so it follows a chronological order?
  • I think the US information should be grouped together. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the decision was out of her hands as her album" --> "but it was not her decision as her album"
  • Forgive me but your wording is awkward. Read it aloud. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL
  • "Clarkson was furious and confronted" --> "A furious Clarkson confronted"
  • I was told to avoid this sentence structure. Again, rad it aloud. You will understand why. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Halo" debuted at number 93 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart issue dated February 7, 2009.[63] It peaked at number five on the chart issue dated May 23, 2009.[64]" Perhaps ""Halo" debuted at number 93 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart issue dated February 7, 2009,[63] before peaking at number five on May 23, 2009.[64]"
  • Can I know what is wrong with the original sentence. Frankly, I see nothing wrong it in. Your sentence however, give the impression that the events occurred in a short length of time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy?
  • Did you realize the sentence itself is not correct? issue dated May 23, 2009 =/= May 23, 2009. Billboard charts are 13 days in advance. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "female artist in the 2000s decade" Since MoS is against using 2000s', and because nobody uses decade after "XX00s", perhaps replace with "female artist during 2001–2010".
  • ""Halo" had sold 2,518,000 digital downloads copies"
  • Done. I cannot understand what difference your wording will bring but I have changed it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't sell downloads, you sell copies.
  • Hmm, okay if you see it that way. Anyway, I have changed it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have missed this aspect in Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and everybody seemed pretty happy but, are there any negative reviews at all? This article sounds very complimentary from top to bottom.
  • Unfortunately, no. It is not necessary for a song to have negative reviews. This is out of our hands. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over a period of six weeks up to April 4, it climbed to number four." Prior to those six weeks, did the single drop below number 98? Otherwise, we could just say ""Halo" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 98 on February 27, 2009,[80] before peaking at number four on April 4."
  • "two additional weeks in April 2009." Not sure when additional ever applies to chart positions; it's not like there's a threshold.
  • "At first she sang the ballad on stage, but later she descended to shake hands with everybody in the front rows." Perhaps "She initially sang the ballad on stage before descending to shake hands with everybody in the front rows"
  • The second paragraph of "Live performances" should be split because there are two distinct themes, Michael Jackon's death and the Haiti earthquake.
  • In both, she is paying tribute. There is no need to split it and I won't. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – At the nominator's request I ran an eye over the prose a little while ago. It seemed fine to me then and it still does. The subject of the article is not within my area of expertise, but I can say that I found the article clear, well proportioned and easy to read. Moreover, it looks to my layman's eye to be comprehensive and objective. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your nice comments. They made my day. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Declaration - I did some heavy copyediting on this article, so I am not quite a disinterested party. Nor am I knowledgeable about the subject, but it does seem a much-researched article with over 3,000 edits, and appears to cover every possible aspect of the song (and the prose is good). A labour of much love, indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this was not consciously but you just wrote what Beyonce said recently, "a labor of love", that's how she described her album. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article says that "Ray LaMontagne became one of the primary inspirations for 'Halo'." It might be true, but the only supporting source does not say so. Just Ray, or am I missing something? --Efe (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singer was the first inspiration. The idea was always, “Let’s write a song that embodies Ray LaMontagne.” Then, they focused on his song "Shelter". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate. How did the editors arrive at that assumption? --Efe (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? I am not able to really catch what you wrote. It is simple. The singer was the inspiration at the very beginning. Then, they suggested they create a song like "Shelter", a song of that singer himself. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I assume there's other inspiration aside from Ray: one of the primary inspirations. --Efe (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just responding to your comment. You are starting it again. --Efe (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how to rephrase this, but "dips in and out" seems informal. --Efe (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informal? How is it informal when you don't know an alternative for it? I just checked my dictionary, there is none. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just I have no idea how to rephrase doesn't make the term informal. Dip. That's too vague, or something that is being used elsewhere in the internet. --Efe (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to find an alternative but what if I don't get one? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go get you copy editors. And because I f***ing don't have an idea how to get that term right doesn't warrant your antagonizing reviewers here. Be good to them. --Efe (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you adopting this tone now? I just asked a question, why was what I should do if I don't get one? Should I remove the whole sentence? It is absolutely natural that I expect you to have the solution (correction to be made) to an issue you raise. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you wanted it. I started very plainly and matter-of-factly, and then your sort of insulting a reviewer's comment: How is it informal when you don't know an alternative for it? --Efe (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen Mark, just like you I am also not a native speaker of English. I use the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (seventh edition). It clearly states when something is informal... (informal). However, it does not do so here. Nevertheless, I will see what can be done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "changes back and forth between..." would work as an alternative? I agree that "dips in and out" isn't ideal. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to what the copy-editor suggested. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Glee caption needs editing for prose
  • File:Beyonce_-_Halo.png: Sony link is dead
  • File:Ryan_tedder_one_republic_austria_3.jpg: image description indicates that caption credit is requested, and first source link returns error. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused for the first part. Will it be okay if I remove the first source? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original image was OK; see this MCQ discussion, where the author states he is fine to have his works go without credit in captions in Wikipedia, but wishes direct attribution in external uses. —Andrewstalk 01:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I add it back? I would love to have that image rather than the current one. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I did some copyedit work before it reached FAC, and with the combined efforts of several before or during the FAC, it seems to have overcome a tendency towards overly stiff prose. It is also certainly comprehensive; I can't imagine there'd be any more to say about the song. I'm not a Beyonce fan (I'm not even certain I've heard her music) but this seems very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and references. I am really satisfied with how this article looks after some good c/e. I really can't find on what could I possibly oppose. Nice song, well-written, comprehensive = perfect formula for FA =)! Cheers. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 14:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support After raising a few small issues, which have all been fixed, I am glad to support the article for FA. It is comprehensive and in-depth and I really do have to agree that there is little or nothing more that could be added to the article. The prose is good and it does make good reading, indeed parts of this article have intrigued me enough to make me go on to read others about issues raised by it. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I have discussed my concerns outside the review, most were dealt with but one still remains. There is a possibility that SYN or OR have crept in, in interpretations of sources. I will include the previous conversation from the talk page:[reply]

(Composition and lyrical interpretation (section))

  • None of the four sources say a stomp-box was used in either the video or the recording. Two of them mention stomp: "soul claps and step stomps" (stamping with the foot on the ground) and "a stomp-clap beat" (alternating between claps and foot stomps)
  • When we edit music articles, we must read and interpret what was written in a review. Here stomp means stomp box, it is a percussive instrument which provides the beat. A stomp box provides sounds similar to foot steps. Again, I consulted experienced music editors before adding that into the article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not - we cannot interpret the quotes to derive what instruments were used, that would be WP:SYN or WP:OR. None of them say a stomp-box, they clearly say "stomp-clap" and "step stomps". You cannot interpret how the sound was made, only that two sources mention step-stomp and clap-stomp. I cannot stress how important that is. Here, nothing means stomp-box, they just mean that the sound is that of stomps. I was a sound engineer by trade, working in recording studios and live performances for 20 years and I would never try and identify what made what sounds. I have made recordings of percussion, organ, trombones, trumpet, sax and piano which were all played by a guitarist on a guitar synth - You would not be able to tell the difference to the real instruments, I know this because many people have commented on the cost of employing those musicians and how we managed to record it in such a small studio before being told the truth "it was one guy on a guitar". Chaosdruid (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: started reading, got to the second sentence:

    Included on the I Am... disc, it was intended to give a behind the scenes glimpse of Knowles, stripped of her make-up and celebrity trappings.

    Are we not missing some hyphens? — SandyGeorgia 01:03, January 18, 2012 — continues after insertion below
  • Hmm, not sure about this. Will it be good this way: Included on the I Am... disc, it was intended to give a behind-the-scenes glimpse of Knowles' life—stripped of her make-up and celebrity trappings. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then this:

    OneRepublic had to cancel their tour after Tedder had broken his Achilles tendon and underwent surgery.

  • I skipped down a few sections to this:

    Having spent 33 non-consecutive weeks on the chart, the song was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), denoting shipment of 15,000 copies.

    Subordinate clauses? Can this be more smoothly worded?
  • Done for this.

Denoting? I'd like to see another pass at the prose, please?

  • Sandy, please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an excuse but that how it is done. I mean it is a style that many music editors have been following for years. Denoting has indicating and representing as synonyms. A certification denotes/indicates/represents shipment of xxx copies. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a WP:MOSNUM check is needed, sample:

    "Halo" debuted at number 40 on the New Zealand Singles Chart on February 2, 2009,[71] and peaked at number two three weeks later.

    number 40, but number two ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used WP:NUMBERS where number smaller than 10 are written in words and those greater or equal to ten are written in numerical form. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jivesh, that also states "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." —Andrewstalk 05:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Andrew, we have the word number in front. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note for future reference, Jivesh-- you should not interrupt another editor's comments [3] or separate their comments from their sig-- I've added the {{interrupted}} template to reattach my comments to my sig. I'm glad those fixes are underway, but those were only samples, and I'm concerned that, since so many grammatical issues showed up on my first look (even in the lead), the prose needs another independent look, and the article needs a MOS review. When I started reading the lead, I found unaddressed copyedit issues, so I looked closer at a few other sections and found more-- this is an indication that another close look is needed before promotion. But you're getting close-- keep at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Sandy. And thanks for the last line, which is very encouraging. Do you think asking someone to run another look through the article will help? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always ask Malleus, on the chance that he's still interesting in contributing to Wikipedia :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see repetitive prose ... some version of "certified platinum by ... denoting shipment of ... " occurs at least four times in two short paragraphs-- varying the prose would be good :) Also, if a spotcheck of sources (accuracy in representation and close paraphrasing), has been done, I'm missing it-- please let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested a spotcheck at WT:FAC, but on the prose and MOSNUM issues, we're moving backwards a bit :) If I get a chance today, I'll clean up some of the MOSNUM errors and have a new look at the prose, but I hope a reviewer will get to it first. I'm a bit worried about getting the text stabilized, since the article has seen several copyedits, and then subsequently errors are introduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you wholeheartedly Sandy. I have already talked to Malleus. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have queried the WP:MOS talk page, since WP:MOSNUM has changed wrt charts-- I'm not sure yet how to fix this article, but there are MOSNUM issues everywhere. Quotations also need to be checked: I found several with issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. But don't you think the original style I used was correct? I mean I have always used it or should I say, that's what I have been taught to use. In other words, writing only numbers less then 10 in words. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jivesh, similar quantites should use the same format, ie chart positions should be either all figures or all words. It is OK to spell out numbers from one to one hundred. —Andrewstalk 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from involved editor - Hi. Me and Jivesh have been fixing the prose and many rough spots have been dealt with. Any MOS or grammatical issues found were fixed. Although I cannot guarantee the prose is perfect, we've done our best. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with a few comments. This fine article is the result of a healthy collaboration, which is true to the spirit of Wikipedia. I saw two possible problems. Here, "The song also consists symphonic crescendos and electronic accents" is there an "of" missing as in "consists of". And, would "arrangement" be better than "song"? Is [sic] required in this quote, "the music and the emotion in the story is told so much better" ("is" should be "are")? Graham Colm (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so happy. Having a support from you is very precious (and unexpected) to me. Really. Thank you wholeheartedly. I have fixed both issues. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support.
Meets all criteria as far as I can see. Orane (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Read through the article. Good job you guys. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 07:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 6 sources found no verifiability problems or clear copyvio. That being said, compare "she was unaware of any similarities between the two songs" and "she was unaware of any similarities between her song and Beyoncé's "Halo"", or "the similarities are most notable in the backing tracks, which in both cases feature a melancholy piano, loud drums, and handclaps" and "some striking similarities, most notably in the backing track, which features somber piano, crashing drums and hand-claps.", or "challenged people to listen to the two ballads and to form their own views" and "challenge people to listen and form their own opinions". These are examples of wordings that are quite close between the article and its sources, and should be avoided or put in direct quotes as appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tbhotch and I have put some of them into quotes while we made some modifications to the others. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 16:35, 25 January 2012 [4].

Martha Layne Collins[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination. The first nomination garnered only a source review; no supports or opposes. :( Permission to re-list early was given by Ucucha (talk · contribs).

The article covers the life of Kentucky's first (and to date, only) female governor. It passed a GA review on April 8, 2010, but has not undergone a peer review. Collins was the seventh female governor in U.S. history and the third who was not the wife or widow of a past governor. She got some consideration as the Democratic VP candidate from Walter Mondale before Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro. I'm hoping to get an FA pass in time for this article to be considered for TFA on International Women's Day (March 8), or at least sometime during Women's History Month in the U.S. (March). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; This is surely worth reading by the politics brigade, and I hope they will arrive soon. I have a few general points, mainly prose nitpicks, arising from the lead.

  • It should be explicitly stated in the first paragraph that she was a Democrat, also that Mondale–Ferraro was the Democratic presidential ticket in 1984. (You have to remember that, outside the US, few have heard of these people).
    • Point well taken. Done.
  • "She was Kentucky's first and only female governor to date." If she is the "only", it follows that she was the first female governor, so I'd amend this to: "To date, she is Kentucky's only female governor".
    • Indeed. Done.
  • "At the time of her election, she was the seventh woman to serve as governor of any state, and the third who was not the wife or widow of a past governor." Not really headline paragraph material. I would incorporate this, and its citation, into the article.
    • I kinda thought it was significant, but I've replaced it with the fact of her being the highest-ranking female Democrat by virtue of her election.
  • In the UK, "schoolteacher" is considered one word. Maybe AmEng is different?
    • I think so. I always thought it was two words.
  • If becoming the state party's secretary and clerk to the appeals court both happened in 1975 I suggest you rejig the sentence: "In 1975 she was chosen secretary of the state Democratic Party, and was elected clerk of the Kentucky Court of Appeals".
    • Done.
  • "Her major accomplishment as governor was..." I am slightly troubled by the POV aspect of this phrasing. Possible neutral rephrase: "She successfully used economic incentives..." etc
    • I guess it could be seen as POV, although I doubt anybody would really debate it. The plant is still having a major economic impact on the state to this day. Changed.
  • I gather that she was constitutionally prevented from seeking reelection. This should be noted in the lead, rather than just "After her term as governor..." which gives no indication of why she left office.
    • Yep. I miss this nearly every time in governor articles. Done.

I haven't read much beyond the lead, but I question the value of the "Ancestors" table. Since none of these forebears was in any way notable, this is really just a list of 30 unknown names. It's not worth keeping. Otherwise the article looks pretty good, and it would make a good TFA for 8 March. I will see if I can drum up some interest among the recluctant political classes; there are a few about. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ancestors section has come up in other governor FACs. It is a project that Spacini (talk · contribs) has been working on for the Kentucky Historical Society. While I don't know how much use it is to the average reader, I don't see much harm in it either, since it's collapsed by default. Such sections are common in the articles of monarchs and some other leaders, from what I gather. Plus, some people who are really interested in genealogy could be persuaded to edit the article if they determine they are or might be related to the subject. That's how I ended up taking Archibald Dixon to GA status, although I never did determine that I was related to him.
Appreciate you recruiting some other reviewers. Waiting a month just to get an article failed because nobody bothered to read it is frustrating. I posted a notice at the Women's History WikiProject, but so far, no help. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Wehwalt to take a look and he says he will when he can, "perhaps Monday". Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. He's a good reviewer. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: The sources all look reliable. I have not spotchecked. Is there a reason why Ref 50 should not be combined with Ref. 48, since they both seem to refer to the same newspaper article? In any event, Ref 50 is not standard for the format you are using. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed reference formatting between the article's GA review and its FAC nomination. Just failed to get that one changed over. Fixed now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support: I have re-read the article, made a few late copyedits and looked at the points raised in Wehwalt's long review. I think the article is close now. However, I still have problems with the "Later life" section. First, this title is normally used when the subject is dead; as this is a BLP I feel a more general title should be used, such as "After office".
  • More seriously, I think this section needs a proper lead-in before the clumsy "term limited" link. You don't say when she left office, which is necessary information. I recommend something like this: "Collins' term as governor expired on (date). Limited to one term by the Kentucky Constitution, Collins accepted a position from..." etc.
  • Another problem for me is the statement that "the first president of the small, Catholic college who was not a Dominican nun." Was even a Catholic?
    • If she was the first non-Dominican nun, doesn't it follow that she was the first non-Catholic? In the Early life section, I mentioned that Collins was a Baptist. Not sure what else needs to be said here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not been mentioned, so what is the story behind this singularly unusual appointment?
    • The article says she was sought out because she would raise the college's profile. Basically, they thought hiring a former governor would really "put them on the map". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming nothing untoward arises from any further review, I shall be ready to support when my outstanding concerns are addressed. NB I would take note of what Sandy says about tidying up the page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, again, Brian. I assume Sandy is saying I should sign my response to each concern. I thought that would clutter the page, but I've done it here, just in case. Hope you don't mind that I bulleted your concerns to make them easier to respond to individually. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
    • Done.
  • Any possibility of a better-quality photo for the lead? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish, but given that she's still alive (precluding a fair use picture), this is probably the best we can do short of someone tracking her down in Georgetown. Unfortunately, that's about three hours from me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt: OK, here goes.

Lede
  • "From 1983 to 1987, she was the 56th Governor of Kentucky, having served the previous four years as the 48th Lieutenant Governor. " The first half of this should be in the first sentence; it is undoubtedly Collins' claim to fame, such as it is. The second half can stand on its own perhaps preceded with a "Before becoming governor" ...
Done.
  • "To date" I would delete this; I see no loss in doing so. It would still say the same thing.
Done.
  • I would split the second paragraph at the election for lt governor. It seems a natural break and the paragraph is too long.
Agree that the paragraph is too long, but some reviewers seem to get fussy when there are more than three paragraphs in the lede. Done anyway, per your suggestion.
  • "of her term." Consider "of their joint term"
Wouldn't technically be accurate. Believe it or not, the governor and lieutenant governor of Kentucky weren't actually elected as a ticket until the passage of a constitutional amendment in 1992.
They served identical terms in time though. Can you come up with an alternative?
What about just truncating it after "500 days"?
  • The description of her time as governor seems rather overdetailed. For example, the sentence about how the court challenge to a program was overruled by the Ky Sup Ct seems unnecessary
I've trimmed it a bit, but the court challenge to the incentives package was a big deal. If the court had struck them down, the state would have lost untold millions, because Toyota would have located the plant elsewhere.
Then say that.
Done.
  • " public criticism of the package was blunted as Toyota continued to invest heavily in Kentucky" I would make this its own sentence, but it is a little bit unclear unless you say what the criticism was.
True, it probably doesn't belong in the lede.
  • "Constitutionally prohibited from seeking re-election," This presumes she would have, and also he words "constitutionally prohibited" sound a little harsh. Can not this phrase be avoided by an earlier reference that Kentucky does not allow a governor to be re-elected?
It is always difficult to work this in, because that term limit was eased in 1992. I've re-worded to something that is hopefully less harsh.
  • "for future political endeavors." Perhaps "for a return to political life"?
Suits me.
Early life
  • "matriculated to" enrolled in. Definitely.
Man, no love for "matriculated". OK, you win. :)
  • "female" you use this term repeatedly. I would replace with "woman" or the very close equivalent (girl is OK if under 18 at the time) . If you feel there is some place where it absolutely must go, discuss.
Wasn't sure what is most politically-correct these days. Is it OK to use a noun as an adjective, as in "woman governor"? Also, if "girl" is only for those under 18, do we call Lindenwood an "all-girls college", an "all-woman college", or something else? It could have both girls (under 18) and women (over 18).
Woman is always the safest term. I would call it an all-woman college or similar. You don't want side issues.
Done.
  • I would mention what city the University of Kentucky is in.
Done.
  • In the next sentence, please specify in some way that her activities at the University of Kentucky are meant. The insertion of the word "there" in an appropriate place would do it.
Wasn't sure if "while there" sounded awkward or not. Done.
  • It may not be clear to the reader the University of Kentucky and Georgetown College are close together or far apart.
I've added the approximate distance per Google Maps.
  • I'm not clear why "Louisville" is not linked.
Just an oversight. Fixed.
  • " Jaycees and Jayceettes and the Young Democratic Couples Club.[4] Through the latter organization," This is a very odd sequence. Your use of the term latter with respect to the club, and the single link, suggests that the Jaycees and Jayceettes are one organization. I was going to call that to your attention. Then I saw in the next section, you refer to the Jayceetes alone, which leads me to believe they are two organizations. Please clear this up.
Not entirely sure myself. It was through the Young Democratic Couples that they worked on Ward's campaign. It seems, from what I can tell, that the Jaycees and Jayceettes are part of the same organization, but the Jaycees is the branch for men and the Jayceettes is the branch for women. Not sure how best to address that.
would simply avoid the term "latter" and settle for "club", which uniquely identifies it and doesn't raise side issues.
OK. Done.
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to give this some attention, Wehwalt. I know you've been otherwise occupied of late. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's a distraction :) --Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming:

  • Early political career
  • " he named her Democratic National Committeewoman from Kentucky." I would be surprised if the appointment process was this simple, but perhaps it is The governor picks? At the least explain why the co-chair for Ford's campaign for one of Kentucky's congressional districts was the obvious candidate for committeewoman. Something as simple as saying Ford (who is a cipher to us) was impressed by Collins, or similar.
The source does make it sound as simple as "the governor picks", and Kentucky governors do enjoy very broad appointment powers under the state constitution, although I doubt party leadership is covered by that document. I've added a quote from the state Democratic chairman at the time that speaks to Collins' effectiveness as district co-chair, but I haven't found anything that directly speaks to Ford's reasoning for naming her committeewoman.
  • "and as a delegate to the 1972 Democratic National Convention." Surely this was by virtue of her office? And was she pledged to a candidate?
Probably, although I can't directly confirm that. And none of the sources mention who she might have been pledged to.
  • "renamed the Court of Appeals to the Kentucky Supreme Court;" I am gathering that the amendment did more than rename the court, it expanded its jurisdiction. Suggest a rephrase.
How about "reconstituted" instead of renamed? Seems like I ran across that somewhere, but I can't find it now.
  • "by a vote of 543,176 to 316,798" Delete "a vote of". Really, percentages work best for this sort of thing, but your call. Can anything be said about her campaign?
Deleted "by a vote of". I hesitate to use percentages because I'm not sure if there was a minor-party or third-party candidate in the race, and the details about the actual race are few. This goes back before the Newsbank articles for the Lexington Herald-Leader start, which makes it difficult. I can say that, in Kentucky, especially at that time, the custom was, unless there is a major problem for the Democratic candidate, he or she won almost by default. Contemporary sources don't mention the campaign as far as I can tell, so any issues raised don't seem to have had a lasting impact.
  • " in the absence of" I think "in place of" might be good. Can Brown's party be mentioned?
Done and done.
  • "all 120 counties in Kentucky." "all of Kentucky's 120 counties". "Claimed" is a word generally not favored as it implies considerable doubt. Consider a substitute.
See how it reads now.
  • " She drew praise from members of both parties, who declared that she presided impartially and with respect for parliamentary procedure." Perhaps "Members of both major parties praised Collins for her impartiality and knowledge of parliamentary procedure in presiding over the Senate". If the source will justify "knowledge", although it's effectively the same thing here as apparently she displayed her knowledge.
Done.
Sure. I don't actually know what "multi-county banking" means; I used that because it is what the source says.
That's what it means.
  • Senate should be capitalized at all times. It is a specific body.
Wasn't sure what the rule was on that. Done.

Resuming:

1983 gubernatorial election: I would avoid unnecessarily beginning with a number, consider "Election of 1983" I think the reader will know what is meant.
Changed to "Gubernatorial election of 1983".
  • "As she neared the expiration of her term as lieutenant governor, Collins announced her candidacy in the 1983 gubernatorial race" a bit clunky. Perhaps "Nearing the end of her term as lieutenant governor, on (I would put in a date if you can), Collins announced her intent to run for governor in 1983."
I've taken the rephrase, but don't have a date, unfortunately. Newsbank picks up in 1983.
  • " Democratic party" capitalize
Done.
  • " late in the race," "shortly before the primary election". Is there a reason why you avoid the word "primary" in this paragraph? Odd.
Changed. Any aversion to using "primary" was not intentional.
  • "saying". Say is a word you avoid as informal sounding. Perhaps "alleging"? And for "governorship", I would say "governor's office". Adding "ship" to an office like that is a declining practice.
How about "charging"? I wasn't aware that "governorship" was no longer en vogue; I use it often in these Kentucky governor articles.
It is less common than it was. Certainly less common than in the early 20th century "Secretaryship of State".
  • " a common practice that Brown shunned" suggest "then a common practice, though one that Brown shunned"
I have re-phrased. Brown was really a maverick for shunning this practice. It really defined the early part of his term.
  • "Sloane asked for a recanvass of the ballots" perhaps "Sloane asked for a recount". I think it understood what a recount counts. Also, omit "to Collins" as redundant.
Deleted "to Collins". I am hesitant to change "recanvass", as the newspaper articles from that time use it exclusively instead of "recount". I wonder if there is some subtle difference between the two.
Best to let it go then.
  • "Jim Bunning". I would add "and former baseball player" to his resume.
If we're going to do that, might as well mention that he's a Hall of Famer. Done.
  • " the only two women in the U.S. Senate were Republicans, and Collins was the only woman governor." You should probably have an "at that time" somewhere in there, but my greater concern is that in this and the next paragraph you are jumping back and forth to events that happened after her inauguration. I suggest you reorder to assure a smoother flow. I would suggest that you reserve the talk of Collins' high rank among elected women, and her political prospects, until you have her safely inaugurated. In fact, the controversy about her husband might be a good way of starting the next section. So start the "Governor" section with the controversies, then the existing first paragraph, and then somewhere later on, the rank and prospects.
What about moving a slightly-reworded paragraph about her rank among woman Democrats just before the paragraph discussing her activities at the 1984 DNC? I know this gets things out of order again by putting the controversy with her husband and the entire 1984 legislative session prior to her appearance on GMA, but it does provide a nice segue into her being chosen as convention chair and possible VP candidate.
That's fine.
Done. Might want to re-read this section to make sure I didn't mess anything up. I gave the discussion of her VP consideration its own subheading, which I thought it needed to begin with, but it was too short until I brought in the paragraph from earlier in the article.
Since you seem to be quick about responses, I'll keep feeding you sections as I complete them. Interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you are enjoying it. Hope to address these pretty quickly, but I just got over a three-day bout with a stomach virus, and now I think my wife has it. Go ahead and do the section-by-section reviews if you want; I'll get to them ASAP. Thanks again. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the viruses, hope you are feeling better
Governor
  • From the prior section. You say she was the only woman to be elected Kentucky governor. I suggest nailing it down and saying she is the only woman to have served in that capacity.
Added to the previous section, pending the paragraph move mentioned earlier.
  • Was she inaugurated on a certain date? Did she say anything notable then?
As best I can tell, the date was December 13, 1983. It's constitutionally-mandated for the fifth Tuesday after the election, so we can probably double-check that. Sadly, the article I found went into intricate detail about her dress, but never even mentioned an inaugural speech!
  • " extending the sales tax to cover services such as auto repair and dry cleaning, and increasing the corporate licensing tax from 70 cents per $1,000 of a company's combined stock value and long-term debt to $1.75 per $1,000" Suggest shortening to eliminate the specific details.
Is it sufficient to say "extending the sales tax to cover services such as auto repair and dry cleaning, and increasing the corporate licensing tax" then?
  • "flat five percent income tax" personal or corporate?
Personal. Specified.
  • It strikes me that the blow-by-blow details of a proposal which was not enacted are probably too much.
Could be. I was trying to show how hard she tried to get the proposal through, but it may be too much. I'm still learning to write an article from a series of newspaper articles; I prefer to write from summaries written after the fact.
  • "lower grades" Unless you intended a pun or ambiguity here, suggest eliminating and just describe the kids as "elementary school children" or similar.
No pun intended. Changed.
  • "Among the other accomplishments of the 1984 legislative session " Were these Collins' accomplishments, or the legislature's? Suggest a brief insertion of Collins' name be tossed in appropriately.
The legislature's. Just wanted to show what else they spent their time doing.
  • "chairperson" suggest "chair" or recast and say "to preside over". Also Rosalind Wiener Wyman's article says she was chair. Can you clear up? And also say who appointed her. The DNC? Mondale?
Done. Also, the Wyman article is in error; according to the four mentions I found of her in Newsbank, she chaired the convention committee, not the convention. Basically, she organized the logistics of the convention, as best I can tell.
  • the tokenism discussion is confusing. Whether or not putting Ferraro on the ticket was tokenism, how does interviewing other Democratic possibilities that are women and minorities make it less so?
I'm not actually sure, either. The exact quote from the source is "At least two prospects interviewed by Mondale - Philadelphia's Mayor Goode and Kentucky Gov. Martha Layne Collins - never received serious consideration. They were on the list primarily for cosmetic purposes, to fill out Mondale's dance card so that he would not be accused of tokenism in looking at the other women and blacks - Ferraro , Feinstein and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley." It does not elaborate.
That makes sense. He was obviously looking at high-ranking women and blacks.
  • " She replaced Ray Nystrand, whose leave of absence from his previous position at the University of Louisville School of Education had expired." Suggest omitting entirely. Without knowing anything about Nystrand, this really doesn't tell the reader anything.
Done.
  • "every Kentucky county" I don't think you need "Kentucky" here, but if you are minded to retain it, suggest "every county in the state" as better. The reader will get it.
Done.
  • "reform" This is a loaded word because of its strong positive connotations, use as little as possible as POV. In this passage, you use it four times in three sentences! "Proposals" is the obvious alternative.
Done.
  • "Also included on the special session agenda were the issues of raising revenue for the state's road fund, approving the construction of a new medium-security prison, and increasing money for child protective services." I would omit as too much detail, similarly the enactment of two of the programs. I would keep the Assembly's refusal to raise taxes, though, adding on perhaps "to pay for other spending"
Done.
  • "Legislators approved a constitutional amendment" somewhere in this passage, I'd toss in the word "referendum"
Done.
  • "state superintendent" I would make it clear that you are talking about education, given that you just talked about "vocational education" and it may be confusing to the reader what he superintends.
Done.
  • "Between 1985 and 1990, enrollment in Kentucky's colleges and universities climbed 30 percent" Ah, several problems here. First, why? Second, this is the first hint you've given that Collins' education proposals had any impact on anything but primary education.
It might be best to omit this. I ran across this fact and was thinking it spoke to the effectiveness of her proposals, but in hindsight, you are right; her proposals primarily focused on primary education, and even if there were some higher education components (and I vaguely remember that there were), they cannot be directly connected to this fact. Deleted.
  • Why would the opposition of the candidate to succeed Collins impact an ongoing proposal? Possibly it could be enacted before Collins left office? I would also describe Wallace as the Democratic candidate to succeed Collins, btw.
Kentucky's legislative sessions, at that time, were biennial, so there was no session in 1987. It was probably proposed in late 1987 in preparation for the 1988 session. Wilkinson, however, would have been governor by that time.
  • "to discuss opening" This begs for a follow up on how successful she was regarding China. That would be less urgent if you use the word "encourage" instead.
Changed to "encourage". The point was to mention that Collins was the first Kentucky governor to visit China.
  • "incentive[s]" Please find synonyms, you use this word jarringly often.
Done.
  • "1600-acre plot" Use the convert template, please, and I would set it to hectares, otherwise it will give you square kilometres. And that's too large for a plot, suggest "tract".
Done, but check it. I don't use that template often.
  • Didn't other states also want it? Mentioning that sets up a sense of urgency about the matter. And can't we have an image of the factory? Either here or in the legacy section. With the exception of portrait shots, this article is remarkably poor on images. Surely cameras work in Kentucky? When you come right down to it, this was probably what Collins was best known to, other than second prize in the Mondale beauty pageant.
Added a list of other reported finalists. WRT the picture, I unfortunately live about 3 hours away, so I can't readily take one. I asked for one on the talk page for WikiProject Kentucky, but I haven't gotten any response yet.
  • Was passage through the legislature controversial? Did Collins have to push for it? See my previous comment about Collins being best known for this.
I didn't find any indication that it was particularly controversial in the legislature, although it did have its detractors in the public, as detailed.
  • " the cost overruns associated with preparing the site for construction" And the other cost overruns? There's a disconnect here.
Yeah, I think the state was left holding the bag on those, but the report didn't say.
  • " state's friendly suit." I suggest "the test case", and perhaps add something about how the joinder converted the test case into something less friendly. "Friendly suit" is not a common term, and I speak as a lawyer who has written on politics. Last time I saw it was in something around 1900.
Wow, I'll defer to your expertise then. I think that was the term used in the source.
  • "Criticism of the incentives was blunted when Toyota set up several assembly plants across the state; near the end of Collins' term, the state Commerce Cabinet reported that 25 automotive-related manufacturing plants had been constructed in 17 Kentucky counties since the Toyota announcement" OK, but all this construction must have been going on while the case was moving forward. And again, is it really necessary to say "Kentucky counties"? Just use "state" somewhere in there and there will be no risk of ambiguity.
Not sure what fix you are looking for in terms of chronology. Basically, the public criticism died down as the related plants opened, but the lawsuits continued. Obviously, those folks continued to oppose it even after the unfavorable court ruling, but they were in the vast minority.
  • "Other matters of Collins' term" This title is awkward.
Do you have another suggestion?
Not really.
  • Given that the first paragraph deals with automotive matters, can it be moved into the previous subsection? It seems similar in theme with the Commerce Council announcement. Again, "claimed" carries with it disbelief, which I assume you do not mean.
Even though it doesn't deal directly with Toyota, I guess it could.
  • "economic development plan, which included both national and international components." I imagine this means that Collins tried to attract both US and foreign firms to Kentucky; if so, say so.
Done.
  • "Collins called a second special session " Omit "second", as the first one was not related to this, you'd possibly confuse the issue. I'd toss in a "of the legislature" while you are about it.
Done.
"Special Fund". The lower case words convince me you haven't given the formal title of the fund, and if you intend to refer to it as a "Special Fund", with caps, I would first give the formal title.
I couldn't find a formal title; "Special Fund" sounded weird to me, especially in caps, but I'm pretty sure that's how the sources do it.
  • "Greg Stumbo". If there is a close relationship to Grady, I would mention it.
I found a mention of them being cousins, but I'm not sure how close.
Let it go, then.
  • "had threatened to sue Collins if her call did not provide the ability to amend any plan that was submitted to address the deficit" The reader may find this passage somewhat confusing. Is it really relevant, though? Consider omitting.
I thought the threat of a lawsuit made it somewhat relevant, and Stumbo went on to be Attorney General, where he basically ruined the career of Governor Ernie Fletcher, so there was that link to someone notable. However, reading this again, the average reader needs to understand, as I do, that the governor sets the agenda for a special session and nothing else can be considered except what is on that agenda. Collins could have said that only O'Daniel's plan could be considered, which is the condition under which Stumbo would have sued. Ultimately, if all that has to be explained, you're probably right; it isn't worth it. Deleted.
  • O'Daniel's party may be of relevance.
Done.
  • Plans don't do anything, legislation does. "called for" is a useful phrase :)
Rephrased to avoid both. I'm not much of a fan of "called for" either.
  • The opposition of the coal county legislators may be clearer if you mention that benefits were not increased. (that is, if they were not).
Was it not clear from the first sentence that the Special Fund was already operating at a deficit? Since the point of the session was to address the deficit, I thought it went without saying that benefits wouldn't increase because that would increase the deficit.
Not that obvious. And politicians have been known to increase deficits.
OK, tried to make it more explicit.
  • "Collins served as chair of the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway Authority" You should probably throw a "As governor" in at the start. Does Kentucky's governor often serve as chair? If it is ex officio, I would say so.
Actually, I have no idea what this authority is, what the chair does, how she got the job, or anything about it. The last paragraph was basically a place where I threw in various honors that seemed notable, but for which I could provide no context.
Later life
  • "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" Not worth this many words. If you are going to mention where he was going at all, just say "Virginia Tech". It has become well-known, in recent years.
Wasn't sure it was acceptable to use this designation, especially with an international audience that might not be familiar with the short name. Done.
  • "academe". "academia".
Done.
  • "She was the first president of the small, Catholic college who was not a Dominican nun" Easily combinable with preceding sentence.
Done.
  • "In 1993, Collins' husband, Bill," This whole paragraph is a bit problematical as you never actually state what he was charged with or convicted of, other than the allusion to "conspiracy" (to commit ... ). And was exGov. Collins called by the prosecution or the defense?
I was afraid of going too far off-topic here, since the article is not about Dr. Collins. Basically, as I understand it, Dr. Collins started some kind of investment firm, and some investors claimed they felt pressured to invest because they also owned companies that were bidding for state contracts and they felt like their bids would not be competitive unless they invested. Do you think that level of detail is necessary here? Considering that the background takes us back into years already covered by the article (even the investigation preceding the charges lasted several months), how should it be handled chronologically? BTW, I don't know who called Ms. Collins to the stand.
I'll defer to your judgement. Generally, these are to call things to your attention. If you have a valid reason, I defer to the person who knows far more about the subject than I do.
  • "Dr. Collins exploited a perception that he could influence the awarding of state contracts " I would imagine that we are talking about influencing his wife? You should say.
Done.
  • " the minimum penalty for his offense under federal sentencing guidelines." I would say "at the low end of the range prescribed by the federal sentencing guidelines" and pipe to United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
If the source explicitly says it was the minimum, why should we avoid saying that?
I'm saying the same thing, but using the appropriate legal terminology.
OK, if that's more correct legally speaking.
  • It would probably be worth mentioning when he was released for prison and if he re-united with his wife. I see no mention of divorce in the infobox.
No, they're still together. I found and added his release date. It looks like he got out early, but the article provides no explanation why. Does this raise unnecessary questions?
He would probably have had to serve 85 percent of his sentence. It's fine.
  • "promoting and protecting the rights of Japanese nationals in Kentucky," That makes it sound like she did actual consular work, with I doubt. I would say "promoting Japanese interests in Kentucky".
I kinda wondered about that too, but the article did say that was part of the gig. I've adopted your wording for the first item in the series, but I left the other two in place, given her history of working with the Japanese.
  • "CEO" I'm willing to say that "CEO" has entered the language, but I watch a lot of Squawk Box. I would at least pipe it to the appropriate article.
I'll spell it out and pipe it. That was probably too colloquial.
  • " for several companies, including Eastman Kodak." Ah, "of several corporations". And given Kodak's present difficulties, is this really the example you want to give?
Changed to "corporations". And although many sources say she was on the boards for several corporations, they don't typically list many of them. Kodak was easily the most visible. Also, I confirmed that this was case relatively recently. No longer serving on a corporation's board of directors doesn't usually make headlines, so I don't want to say she is on someone's board if she no longer is.
  • Agree, junk the ancestry section. Her ancestry plays no role in this article, and she's not royalty.
Because this isn't my addition, and because I know Spacini (talk · contribs) worked very hard on this for many Kentucky governors, I'm really reluctant to do that without his consent. Would you please address him about it? I don't find it all that intrusive or problematic myself. It's more useful than the links to Find-A-Grave or The Political Graveyard that usually litter political articles, at least.
General comments
  • While a "legacy" section for a living person is problematical, perhaps some words can be said about her impact on Kentucky. I assume the car plants are still open? I'd also like to see if you can add a few quotes from the lady herself. There's much talk about what Collins did, but I'd like to have a better sense of her as a person.
Yes, the plant is still open. I think the LHL recently ran some articles about the 25th anniversary of the Toyota agreement or something. There might be something in there. I didn't run across any really notable quotes. What did you have in mind?
Just a couple of paragraphs on the impact she had on Kentucky. I think it's expected.
I'll see if any of those recent articles from the Herald-Leader turns up anything notable.
I'll look in, in a day or three and see how you are getting on and do a re-read. Very absorbing, but I'd like to see how the prose looks. Ping me if needed before then, or if I forget.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses and requests for clarification given above. Time for the Cats to play now, though. More later. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More responses left at halftime. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finished leaving responses. Some need more input from you to be closed. I seem to be safely over the stomach virus now, so hopefully, I can wrap this up sooner rather than later. Thanks for a very thorough review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few comments, when you have done with this, I'll take another look through.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for another read-through, unless my LHL search turns up anything. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do so today. You might want to move my earlier comments to this FAC's talk page to avoid putting off reviewers with a wall of text. It's allowed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I have not checked sources or images.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it has been three weeks, this FAC looks more like a peer review than a FAC page, but because the nomination was closed last time with little review, I am willing to let this one run just a bit longer-- but we need to see some action here, or this is heading for closure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Sandy, especially in the light of conversations elsewhere, but I'd be pleased if you'd treat this nom a bit leniently. It got little attention on its first FAC, and waited five days this time before it got noticed. I have been digging up reviewers to take a look; Ealdgyth says she'll will try in the next 24 hours or so, and I'm on the trail of another. I'm going to read it again myself tonight with a view to a declaration. I really don't think it's far off from being promotable.Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lenient for that very reason (as I try to be in all similar cases). On another note, almost nothing is signed above, so although I'll probably no longer be a delegate when this nom closes, I feel sorry for the delegate who has to read through this page and try to figure out who is saying what. Sign your entries please !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few niggles:

  • Lead:
    • "...leaving Collins as acting governor for more than 500 days of her term." would mean more if we knew how many days total her term was... if it was 2500 days ... well, that's not a lot. Absolute numbers don't help establish context here.
  • Early life:
    • "When Martha was in the sixth grade, ..." need to link for the sixth grade - non US people aren't going to grasp that reference.
  • Gubernatorial:
    • Was Bunning in the Hall of Fame when he ran? If not - it's "future-hall-of-fame" also - need to note that it's baseball - not everyone is going to realize that.
      • Oh, good point. Looks like he wasn't elected until 1996. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, read well and seems complete and covers all the bases. I did a light copyedit while I read. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It looks to be in fine shape. I fixed some small things. --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review? If not, please ping WT:FAC. ACDixon, have you previously had a spotcheck of sources for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources? Is so, pls indicate; if not, please ping WT:FAC for a source check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below. --Laser brain (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Everything looks fine. --Laser brain (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check - admittedly I have no access to the bulk of the sources used in the article. However, I checked refs 39 and 49, which are freely available. I found the article text to be sufficiently paraphrased, and the sources provided to support the article text in both cases. --Laser brain (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't believe MOS allows collapsed text (Ancestors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 15:52, 24 January 2012 [5].

Ray Farquharson[edit]

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Farquharson was a doctor, medical researcher, university professor, and Wing Commander in the RCAF. He was a Member of the Order of the British Empire and was inaugrated into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame. This article recently passed MilHist's A-class review, and was reviewed off-wiki by a nursing prof and a research librarian (although both are non-Wikipedians). Despite its relative shortness, it incorporates pretty much every reliable source I could locate on the topic, including both journal/database search results and archival newspapers (copies available on request). I welcome any and all comments. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media review - Images are fine. I personally would move the middle (headshot) image to the main infobox and move the image of him during WWI down to the "Career" section (keeping in left aligned). I think it'd look better that way, but it's your choice, since the current layout is functional. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing, Sven. I originally had the headshot image in the lead, but moved it down when an infobox was requested at A-class review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Wow, article reads like a charm. 1a/b/c/d/e (✔), 2a/b/c (✔), 3 (✔), and 4 (✔). I'm being picky here, but why isn't the photo of the building align to the left, since the building is facing right? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sp33dyphil! I've adjusted the placement of the image based on your suggestion. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Reviewed and supported at MilHist ACR, when I copyedited prose and spotchecked some online sources, as well as checking images, structure, detail and referencing. As there have been a few changes since that review I've gone though this again from top to bottom and made a couple of minor copyedits -- still looks good, and worth the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on footnotes

  • It would help the reader if you included links to articles in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. A subscription is not required. The articles are available on the CMAJ website and from Pubmed Central. For example FN 52 is available from CMAJ and PubMed Central. One possibility is to add pmc=1229725 to the template.
  • FN 52 is in issue 8 and not issue 9.
  • Perhaps include the author for FN 50: Steven Wharry.
  • FN 44: Royal Society of Medicine News – this appears to be the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine – issue 7 or 8 (unfortunately not available online)
  • FN 27 and 41 cite Modern Medicine which I assume is the same as Modern Medicine of Canada that ceased publication in 1991. It was published in Toronto. As the journal is not easy to find I suggest adding "of Canada". Is the journal sufficiently notable for a redlink in the article?
    • That's a different publication. Modern Medicine was published in the US, and AFAICT is still being published, though my local library doesn't subscribe to it. As to notability, my guess would be yes, but I haven't researched the publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best, Henry (2003) – Perhaps include middle initials: Henry B.M. Best

Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Except for Modern Medicine, these have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The catalog of the National Library of Medicine lists a number of journals that include "Modern Medicine" in their titles – but none appears to be indexed by Medline. I still favour the defunct Canadian journal. Aa77zz (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the journal is not indexed by the Thomson Reuters ISI Journal Citation Reports database. See here. Aa77zz (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported this article's A class nomination, and also think that the FA criteria are met. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link Claude, Ontario in the lead? – it is linked to Caledon in the Early life section. Claude is small and not well known – perhaps In Early life could perhaps explain that Claude is a small rural community 30 mi northwest of Toronto see: Claude on Google maps
  • "received his early education at Durham" where Durham is currently linked to the city in England. I suspect this should be linked to Durham, Ontario. In UK English I would write "in Durham" rather than "at Durham".
  • "Robert, was the managing editor for The Globe and Mail": perhaps "became the managing editor..." (unless Robert was already managing editor when Ray was born)
  • "under Dr. Duncan Graham." omit the "Dr."
  • "Farquharson then received research fellowships at Massachusetts General Hospital" perhaps recast as "Farquharson was awarded a series of research fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital"
  • "He published papers discussing the excretion..." – I don't like the word 'discussion' here – perhaps recast as "He published the results of his studies on the excretion..." - or simply "He published papers on the excretion ..."
  • FN 9 – Obituary - a subscription to the BMJ is required to access the 1965 article. The link from the title usually indicated free access. In this case it would be better to unlink the title and include doi=10.1136/bmj.1.5450.1616 The issue apparently forms part of volume "1".
  • The link need not indicate free access; I've added a subscription-needed tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1931 he married Christina Jane Fraser, with whom he had two daughters: Helen, who became a hematologist, and Catherine Jane." is not supported by FN 9 which has only "He is survived by his wife and two daughters". I suggest deleting this citation – there are 3 others.
  • FN 13. Although a pdf of the obituary is available from PubMed Central the reference should be to the journal in which the article appeared: Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 1966; 77: l–li.
  • "Farquharson discovered what is now known as the "Farquharson Phenomenon"". Now known? Pubmed and google searches suggests that the term isn't used in the current literature - perhaps recast to "Farquharson discovered what became known as ..." Aa77zz (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow – I'm impressed with your rapid response. (Perhaps you should look at the FAC John Tyler). Here are few more comments:

  • FNs 7, 9, 11, 22, 30, 40, 44, 47, 50, 52 are citations to journal articles in pdf format and do not really require retrieval dates which serve no purpose - but do no harm.
  • FN 12 – This is a poor source - the CD could become difficult to obtain and the information difficult to verify. Is it really required? Do your other sources contain similar information? The only occasion when FN 12 is the only citation is for the year (1951) when Farquharson became a member of the NRC.
  • "Farquharson concluded that existing government support for research in Canada failed to specifically address medical research as an independent discipline and was financially insufficient.[4][12]". You might consider replacing FN 12 here with this reference: "Report on the meeting of the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges: The Medical Research Council of Canada". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 83 (25): 1331–1334. December 1960. PMC 1939026. This gives some of the background behind the formation of the MRC.
  • It might be useful to the readers if when discussing his collaboration with Squires you include a citation to the relevant publication: Johnson, Macallister W (November 1951). "The effect of prolonged administration of thyroid". Annals Internal Medicine. 35 (9): 1008–1022. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (abstract available online but subscription needed for full text version)

That is all for now. Aa77zz (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, mostly done. The CD is a very useful source, containing interviews from people who knew Farquharson (including his daughter and some research collaborators). Part of it is available on Youtube here; do you think it would be worth adding that as a convenience link? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add a link to the YouTube video in an "External links" section (even though the web page in FN5 -Canadian Medical Hall of Fame- contains such a link) Aa77zz (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. Aa77zz (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Fixed one little MoS issue I found, but the rest of the article looks sharp. All the FA criteria are easily met. Well done. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I'm finding some issues with the citations-- see my sample edits[6]-- if you need help learning how to poke around in PubMed, pls ping me. Can the lead be expanded? I think some of the PMIDs aren't turning up because the titles are wrong. Also, did you see PMID 20328253 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I had seen that article, but it's basically a placeholder pointing to one of the articles I do cite - that issue was published shortly after Farquharson's death, so the full obituary did not appear until a later issue, and incorporated all of the info in that article. I've fleshed out the lead a bit and added a couple more ID numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 15:46, 24 January 2012 [7].

Hector Waller[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, surprisingly, not an RAAF flyboy. Fact is, I’ve long observed that while Australian military pilots are, if I say so myself, well served in terms of quality WP bios, as are Australian soldiers thanks to Hawkeye and also Bryce Abraham, the same can’t be said for Royal Australian Navy personnel. So putting my time where my mouth is, this is one of the RAN’s legendary commanders of World War II, who earned the admiration of Admiral Cunningham during the Mediterranean campaign and who, had he not been lost with his cruiser HMAS Perth in the Pacific during the Battle of Sunda Strait, might well have become Australia's pre-eminent naval officer of the post-war period. The submarine HMAS Waller was named in his honour. This article passed its MilHist A-Class Review today, and GA last month. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of Janggeom, who improved it from a stub to something pretty close to B-Class before I took it on. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Andrew William "Nicky" Barr
  • I meant to ask around while that was at FAC but forgot about it. I think the issue that people raise is that it's better to say explicitly what the extra name is (a name used since childhood, a name they got in the service or later, whatever.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you and I resolved this at the discussion linked above, i.e. that Hec is a common shortened form of Hector, he seemed to be known as that pretty well from childhood, and the way I present it in the first sentence is as it appears in his Australian Dictionary of Biography entry; this style has passed muster at numerous other military bios I've taken to FAC over the years where the subject was also known by a common short form of their given name. Barr is a different situation, because clearly "Nicky" wasn't derived from his given names; rather it was invented when he acquired a reputation as a maverick at flying school, and was tagged "Nicky" for "Old Nick" (i.e. the Devil) -- so I mentioned/cited that at the appropriate point in the Barr article narrative. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If selected for the VC, Waller would become one of the first Australian sailors so honoured—to date, no RAN member has been awarded the decoration.": Are you saying that at least one Australian sailor who served in the RN or some other navy has been selected for the VC, but none so far from the RAN? I'm not sure if readers are going to pick up on that.
    • I'm not entirely happy with the sentence and would be happy to rejig it. First off, "Australian sailor" and "RAN member" are synonymous in my statement -- there's no (deliberate) suggestion that an Aussie serving in the Royal Navy has ever received the VC. Secondly, I'd love to say Waller would be "the first" RAN member to get the VC, but as other RAN members are also being considered, he may only be "one of the first", or "among the first". Suggestions welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, now I get it. Maybe say something like, as of 2011, no RAN members have received the VC? - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Dank. One thing, I'm not sure about the comma after the life dates -- was that to parallel the comma someone had placed before "DSO"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks much ... just looked through a bunch of FA bios, and it appears no one puts a comma there. I've self-reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a brief comment: I've always felt that a comma should go there (it would serve the same purpose as a closing parenthesis in that context), but a MoS example (Stephen Hawking) omits the comma. Janggeom (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Spotchecks carried out on online sources - no problems identified
  • What makes http://home.vicnet.net.au/~bfamhist/features/hmlwaller.htm a high-quality reliable source?
    • Not much I'm afraid. The sentence was there when I began expanding this article and I was in two minds about the source myself but considered it non-controversial so left it in. Although there's most definitely a Waller St in Benalla, no other source I can see directly links him to it, nor do the other assertions re. the cenotaph and the college have other sources I can see. So I'm quite prepared to remove the sentence and the ref if you think it's an issue -- there's plenty on his memorials in that section that is cited reliably. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, no issues arising from sources which, subject to the one mentioned above, look reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time, Brian -- the fracas at WT:FAC hasn't diverted everyone from the fact that there are still reviews to be done... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sentence in question is critical to the article, and I recommend removing it to setttle the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of the images have publisher marks - any chance we can get rid of those?
    • There's always a chance...! I do tend to remove watermarks when I upload images; if the images are already there, pragmatism sometimes gets the better of me. I'll see how I go...
  • Do we know when his children were born?
    • We know one from an RS because he joined the Navy; the other I only know from a self-published tribute to their father, so can't really use it. I felt better to mention neither birthdate than just one.
  • "duty that included" -> "a duty that included"?
    • Sounds fair.
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
    • Heh, I think Janggeom just expanded a few of those captions, which were only phrases before, so I guess this is fair enough too now... ;-)
  • Be consistent in whether Bar is capitalized or not
    • Sure.
  • Were there any consequences of his contravention of orders at Java Sea?
    • It'd be interesting to speculate whether the Dutch commander would've tried to take action had Waller lived more than a day or so after that incident but my sources didn't seem to suggest that.
  • He engaged the Japanese at 11:00 pm in what time zone? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, good point, will check. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, none of the sources explicitly refers to the timezone but as they all agree on the times I think we can safely assume it's local. Actioned other points per my earlier responses. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Couldn't find anything to complain about when I read the list. Good work here. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: the dates in the lead grabbed my attention right away (died at 42, but had a 30-year career and served in both World Wars, how did he do that?), so I was put off that the lead didn't tell me how he died young! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, doesn't it? I thought it said all that in the first para... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • His death is a bit opaque to us non-military folk ... "shortly before his final action in Sunda Strait. He received a third mention in despatches posthumously," ... so we sorta know he died in the Sunda Strait, but it would be nice to know more in the lead ... also to know how he managed 30 years (by joining up at 13) ... the lead left me wondering what the heck ? How did he do all that ... a dozen more words would have made me less ... suspicious :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So "went down with his ship against heavy odds during the Battle of Sunda Strait in early 1942" in the first para isn't clear enough about his fate? Of course I could change it to "was killed in action when his ship was sunk by Japanese forces during the Battle of Sunda Strait in early 1942" but "went down with his ship" is pretty common phraseology -- unless you think it's cliched, which is another matter. As to his age at signing up to explain the long career, I didn't think it was necessary in the first para as it's right there in the first sentence of the second. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, ha, I see now why I missed it ... sorry! I was looking for that info in the final para ... an artefact of me getting balled up trying to figure out how he did all that in 30 years, and forgetting what I'd read in the first para. Still missing an image review-- you folks at MilHist could significantly speed up your FAC turnaround time if you'd train someone over there to do image reviews and to spotcheck sources for close paraphrasing (hint :). Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that's what they keep me around for ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of course, why do you think we practically drafted you for MilHist Coordinator, Nikki?! Seriously, Sandy, many of our reviewers at MilHist check images and an increasing number, like myself, are spotchecking available sources for copyvio and close paraphrasing, at least for articles nominated by less experienced or less 'known' editors. Are you saying that links/diffs of such reviews at ACR (or at least those by editors the FAC delegates deem reliable or 'expert', however that's determined) could be included with FAC noms to speed things up? Feel free to take this up at my talk page or at the MilHist Coord's page, since it goes beyond this nom and shouldn't get forgotten when this closes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks, Nikki (Nikkimaria should not be doing all of the work at FAC, FAR, MilHist, DYK and everywhere else!) When/if we ever get around to actually discussing needed improvements at FAC, one of those needs to be: please link to any previous clearance of sources, images, spotcheck, whatever so that delegates can review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine per pre-1955 Australia rule, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:52, 24 January 2012 [8].

Charles Villiers Stanford[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford was a major figure in British and indeed international music in the late 19th century, but was overshadowed in the 20th by Elgar and the best of Stanford's own pupils such as Vaughan Williams and Holst. As a teacher his influence was immense; if there was a more important teacher in British musical history I can't think who he or she was. Stanford was a cantankerous cuss, but an interesting one, and I hope I've done him justice, after an exceedingly thorough peer review. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - The description above neatly captures the contradictions of the man and the musician: not the easiest of subjects. I think the article Tim has prepared steers its way through the shoals most adeptly. As usual from this source, the quality of the information provided is high, the presentation is carefully balanced, and the style and editing are exemplary. I feel the article as a whole would happily grace another famous encyclopaedia, whose name I shall not mention. MistyMorn (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for that encouraging contribution. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Congratulations on a thorough and readable article. Unfortunately its been a while since I looked at the FA criteria, so this is very much an off the cuff remark: after the richness of the Life section the sub-sections of the Works sections appear relatively thin. I appreciate useful sources may be at a premium. Might anything be done? (I feel like such a miserable little so-and-so for even saying this...) almost-instinct 19:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, a very fair comment. I wondered as I wrote whether the Works section was substantial enough. My thinking was that as little of Stanford's work is familiar it would be unhelpful to write too much detail about it; I sought to give a general overview. But there is plenty of critical material I can draw on if the consensus is that I should expand the Works section. Thank you for this thoughtful comment. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second that. He was good at concertos, and though his reputation may generally rest on Anglican church music, his orchestral music seems to me often to be remarkably good, belying his notoriety as a crotchety old boor. Just my superfluous POV, MistyMorn (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very impressive, good background. Minor remarks, written as I notice (and some may be caused by my limited English): A link to today's city of Leipzig doesn't help much to understand where he studied. I recommend to link to University of Music and Theatre Leipzig, the appropriate history section there.

Done. I can't think why I didn't do so before. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Berlin.

Less clear cut, I think. Stanford studied there, but not as a student of any academy. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When he was ten" is fine with me, but I have been corrected to "age ten".

Gerda, "age ten" is American English. We don't say that here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was "corrected" by Americans then, thanks for teaching me these little differences, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On his return to Dublin, his godmother having left Ireland, he took lessons from Henrietta Flynn", I don't know where to put the godmother info.

This is what is technically known as an "absolute" construction, a device inherited from Latin: "X having done this, Y did that". I find it useful for cutting out extra verbiage in appropriate circumstances. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"During second spell in London" is a phrase I don't know.

I think it is idiomatic in this context. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Career" is repeated in two sentences in a row.

I hadn't spotted that. But I can't think how to reword it to avoid the repetition. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"vocal music, both ecclesiastical and secular", for Bach I would simply say "sacred and secular".

Much better! Done, thank you. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"orchestral works (a rondo for cello and orchestra and a concert overture)", suggested "orchestral works such as a concert overture and a Rondo for cello and orchestra".

Point taken, but this came up at PR and this is the best I can come up with to avoid repetitive words. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"classical or the modernist camps", perhaps use quotation marks for the two "parties".

Hmm. I'll ponder, but am not persuaded at first glance. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"St Nicholas's church", don't ask me, I know it as Nikolaikirche, the "s's" is not even in the article's name.

I'm happy to call it the Nikolaikirche, and have so redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the same line, I try to avoid Brahms's and Strauss's, saying "by Brahms" ...

An English drafting style, which I will defend stoutly! Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the Bach Choir", if the article is part of the name, I would capitalize it.

I dither over this. Happy to go with the consensus. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: learned a lot! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Gerda. These are very useful points, and as you can see I have acted on most of them, noting above those few points on which I disagree. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I know him for "Beati" (quorum via integra est), and wonder if that piece might be mentioned as an example for his remembered church music, with some words on how he achieved to set bliss and blessedness to music with such simple means as having all voices sing in the middle of the piece "beati" softly on a major chord and then repeat it even softer on the same chord in minor. There must be reliable sources. A friend died this morning, but I had thought of it before I knew that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll investigate further, but probably not until the FAC is concluded. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, from my point of view, thanks for acting on the comments above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gerda. The article is decidedly better for your suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 17: which Stanford?
  • FN 13: missing closing quotation mark
  • FN 15, 37, 112: spacing
  • Be consistent in whether the comma is included in the linked title or not (ex FN 52 vs 53)
  • FN 59: punctuation (compare 60)
  • Be consistent in how seasons are punctuated (compare FNs 67 and 78)
  • FN 107: missing opening quotation mark
  • Check alphabetization of sources list
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books or not
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I'm grateful for your unblinking editorial eye. I'll follow these points up without delay and report back over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. I am, not for the first time, staggered by the pinpoint accuracy of your proof-reading skill. I have, I think, attended to all the points above with the exception of the last, where I can detect no sins of omission or commission in what I have written. Enlightenment humbly sought. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to sometimes be using "(ed.)" and sometimes simply "ed." - is that a function of the templates? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. Well it seems to be, as you say, a function of the templates. The unbracketed eds are from the template that applies to chapters within a book; the bracketed ones are for the editors of someone else's work. Phew! Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Tim: it's of your usual high quality. By today's standards, the man was a fusty old fart, occupying a key position during a very unfortunate period in English musical history. Just in terms of teaching and theory, the Germans and Americans – particularly the Jewish experts among them, I note – showed how wanting the English tradition was (although it got a lot better after Stanford's death). However, Michael Tippett, a great among 20th-century composers, is on record in a Mischa Scorer BBC documentary called A Time to Dance (1991, I see) as saying that one of Stanford's publications on music theory was a turning point in his musical self-education. I had a copy of this doco on VCR tape, but it perished many years ago. I wonder whether you know how it can be acquired. Melvyn Bragg was the interviewer and narrator. I looked up the BBC's archives/records a couple of years ago and it was most unpromising. Tony (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check with my (few and tenuous) contacts and report back on the BBC point. Meanwhile, thank you very much for your kind remarks about the article. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I raised a number of issues at peer review; these were all addressed. No doubt other tweaks around the edges could be applied, but the article is nevertheless of first-class quality and thoroughly deserving of promotion. Tim is one of the few editors currently writing quality composer biographies, though he does tend to specialise in English old farts. I expect he'll do Parry next (and make a superb job of it). Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! Passing through in haste and will address the various points made by earlier contributors tomorrow. I will merely note that Stanford was not an English old fart but an Irish one. Yes, Parry is on my to-do list. And RVW. And Holst. Moreover, Ssilvers and I have Sullivan on the tapis for submission sine die. Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Page numbers added. The Holst image is, according to the National Portrait Gallery site, by Herbert Lambert (died in 1936), so 70 years is correct. (Link to NPG page: [9]). I don't know how to reflect the Commons tag for Coleridge-Taylor in en:WP, but I have an alternative image of Coleridge-Taylor from a UK publication pre-1923 if needed. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think just changing the licensing info for File:CT-Holst-RVW-Ireland.jpg (replacing the life+100 with the life+70 tag) would be sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria; now done. Tim riley (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support generally due to my peer review of same.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who deniges of it? I am vastly obliged for your help at PR, and for your support here. Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:52, 24 January 2012 [10].


The Monster (novella)[edit]

Nominator(s): María (yllosubmarine) 15:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster is a 1898 novella by Stephen Crane. Although it hasn't received nearly as much critical attention as The Red Badge of Courage or "The Open Boat" (both FAs), it's still a damn fine story by one of America's greatest authors. It's a tale of small-town small-mindedness and monstrous deformity, pathos and intolerance. Perhaps most notably, the story has had a resurgence in African American lit, in part due to the theory that Crane based the story on a brutal lynching that occurred in New York in 1892, which one of his brothers witnessed. The article was promoted to GA in December, during which it received a review from Truthkeeper. It was then Peer Reviewed with an in depth review by Yomangani. I now think it's ready for its star. Thanks! María (yllosubmarine) 15:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources but no spotchecks
  • The edition I used (available at Google Books) was published in 1899, so there's no ISBN. María (yllosubmarine) 02:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I didn't check the convenience link. My bad. Auree ★ 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for consistency in the last, first format for authors ("Wertheim, Stanley and Paul Sorrentino").
  • Names are consistent per MLA ("first-author surname, firstname and second-author firstname surname"). Granted, I use a sort of mix between MLA and Chicago -- mainly so the publication year is more prominently placed -- but the names at least are per MLA. :) María (yllosubmarine) 02:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; guess it's up to personal choice, then :) Auree ★ 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment on brilliance. What else is there to say? This is a professionally written and engaging entry on an interesting novella, just about ready for its shining star :P It was a pleasure reading and reviewing it, María. Auree ★ 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, this seems to be a promising candidate. Prose looks good; I'll be adding comments below later as I read through.
  • Be consistent in whether the article implements the serial comma or not.
  • Fixed, I think. I decided not to use the serial comma, so if you see any lurking about, feel free to remove. :) María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "becomes horribly disfigured after he saves his employer's son from a fire" – Change "his employer's son" to "Trescott's son"?
  • How do you feel about mentioning that Whilomville appears in multiple of Crane's stories in the second paragraph? This: "The Monster differs from the other Whilomville stories" seems to assume we already know it does.
  • Good suggestion, since this is mentioned later in the article; added this to the previous paragraph: "The fictional town of Whilomville, which is used in fourteen other Crane stories, was based on Port Jervis, New York, where Crane lived with his family for a few years during his youth."
  • "recuperating for a week" seems a bit odd to me. Not sure how to fix it, though, as saying "after a week" or "a week later" would be repetitive.
  • Concerning "William Howe Crane", is the similar surname a coincidence, or were they family? Oops, I misread that part.
  • Replace "refuse-collector" by the more common term, waste collector?
  • "whose face was destroyed by cancer" – Is "destroyed" the best choice of words here?
  • I got tired of writing "disfigured", heh. Changed to "damaged" for now -- better? María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern critics have connected the novella's themes of racial division to a violent historic episode in Port Jervis' history." – Tighten by removing "historic"?
  • Should "The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky" be in italics or not?
  • Aha, good eye. "Bride" is a short story, so it's in quotes, unlike The Monster, which is a novella. Several sources put the latter in quotes as you would a short story, but "Bride" is correct. María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It remained unpublished for nearly a year." – Ambiguous "It"; does it refer to McClure's or "The Bridge Comes to Yellow Sky"?
  • "Plot" section is excellent.
  • "Edwin H. Cady believed The Monster is the best indication of the writer Crane may have become had he lived" – Maybe "had he lived longer"?
  • "suffer metaphorical loss of face in their having been cast out by society." – Is there any way to tighten "in their having been"?
  • I'm too wordy for my own good. Simplified to: "suffer metaphorical loss of face when they are cast out by society". María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mark them as monstrous as the man they shun for his deformity; as" – Nit-picky, but a bit of repetition; can the final "as" be avoided?
  • Hmm, I'm going to have to think about this one. I keep staring at it and nothing is coming to me. María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As William M. Morgan wrote, although the white characters are largely depicted as cold and humorless, whereas the black characters are seen to be warm and amusing, the town's racial hierarchy is omnipresent." – Could this be reworded so it flows a bit better? Auree ★ 03:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to: "As William M. Morgan wrote, while the white characters are largely depicted as cold and humorless, and the black characters as warm and amusing, the town's racial hierarchy is omnipresent." María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall very little to nitpick about so far. Ready to support after these are addressed and I look it through once again, provided no glaring issues pop up later on. I've made some light edits to style and prose, please check them here and here. Auree ★ 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your review and helpful suggestions! María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great now, thanks! Switching to support. Auree ★ 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and support. :) María (yllosubmarine) 13:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one thing I overlooked: "Despite being branded a "monster" by the town's residents, Trescott vows to shelter and care for Henry, resulting in his family's exclusion from the community" implies that Trescott was branded a monster, not Henry. Sorry for noticing so late! Auree ★ 02:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, that's a great catch! Changed to: "When Henry is branded a "monster" by the town's residents, Trescott vows to shelter and care for him, resulting in his family's exclusion from the community." Thanks again. :) María (yllosubmarine) 13:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose is excellent, and I could find only a few nitpicks. However, after looking through sources at Jstor, I'm not sure the article meets the comprehensive or well-researched criteria. Could you look at the list of missing sources below and justify why they were not used? (I can send the PDF of any of these articles if you don't have jstor access) Sasata (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the additions, and think this engaging article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest linking novella in the lead
  • I was under the impression that "African American" needed a hyphen when it was used as an adjective ("An African-American coachman")
  • link Harper (publisher)
  • "which added a further four stories," is "additional" a more appropriate word here than "further"
  • "Crane began writing The Monster in June 1897 while living in Oxted, England" according to Nagel (1999) (JSTOR 27746775, he wrote it in Ireland
  • Nagel is half correct, as the article states: Crane began writing the novella in England, and finished it while on vacation in Ireland. María (yllosubmarine) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • possible links: morality, irony, compassion, tolerance, ethical dilemma, race, trope, stereotype, race relations
  • Linked several, but I think compassion, tolerance, stereotype and race relations are all rather common terms. María (yllosubmarine) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • supererogative? I admit I don't know what this fancy word means ... but it's in a quote, so maybe there's not much to do expect hope the average reader knows :)
  • The Frankenstein caption should have a period.
  • "more important... it is" MoS says that ellipses should be spaced on both sides
  • location should consistently given states or not (e.g. Westport, CT vs. Urbana)
  • several of the sources are available on JSTOR, how about including jstor links?
  • Hm, I'm not a big fan of including links to JSTOR, since not everyone has access. Is this required now? María (yllosubmarine) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, just a convenience for some users; plus, it gives a useful first-page preview. Sasata (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, especially re: the preview. I've added JSTOR links where relevant. Thanks! María (yllosubmarine) 03:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several sources that have not been used (found these using search terms "Crane" & "The Monster"). In addition to the ones listed below, which discuss the novella prominently, there are several other articles that discuss Crane's work more generally with passing references to the story; I haven't listed these.
Replies to Sasata about JSTOR

Thanks for the great suggestions, Sasata! As you've already noted, I've already used some sources that are available via JSTOR; I also have access to other online research databases such as MLA and Muse. I believe the article is comprehensive in that it "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", as well as well-researched because it provides "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" -- I don't take these FA requirements to mean that every available source needs to be used, especially if it happens to repeat what is already in the article.

I've come across most of the ones you've listed, but I may have chose to not use them for a variety of reasons. One source in particular duplicates information already noted in the article, or simply expands upon what is already noted (JSTOR 3831133: "Stephen Crane's Elephant Man"). Several are too general, or may not mention The Monster beyond general terms (or even at all?) (JSTOR 2921575: "Stephen Crane at Asbury Park" and JSTOR 27533327: "Stephen Crane: An Estimate"). Nagel and Gullason are relatively good sources, and I know I've used his work in other Crane articles. I can definitely work them in, if you think it pertinent, as well as several others that are new to me (Punday and Evans). I'll comment here once I've done some more research, hopefully later today. María (yllosubmarine) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Literary criticism is not my thing, so in trying to assess 1b+c, all I can do is a lit search and ask why those sources weren't used. I'll leave all decisions up to you as to whether they're worthy of inclusion or not. Sasata (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made some additions per your suggested sources. Nothing too major, but some nice supplements; I've been meaning to add the link to Ibsen's play for a while, so Nagel's article was a nice reminder. A note on the narrator is also great, and an overall summation of Crane's "race problem" from Clemen helps a great deal. Thanks! Let me know what you think. :) María (yllosubmarine) 03:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The additions look great, thanks. I'm adding my support. Sasata (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and support! María (yllosubmarine) 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very nicely done and meets all the FA criteria. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
  • Link coachman? Not a common profession / job anymore
  • Could the year they left Port Jervis / relocated be added here? After he and his mother relocated to Asbury Park, New Jersey [in YEAR], Crane frequently visited the city until 1896, often staying with his older brother and Port Jervis resident William Howe Crane.[5] or could it be recast as something like Although Crane and his mother relocated to Asbury Park, New Jersey in YEAR, until 1896 he frequently [visited and] stayed with William Howe Crane, his older brother and a Port Jervis resident.[5] (not sure if the "visited and" part is needed)
  • Great suggestion, thanks; changed per your wording and added the year (1880). María (yllosubmarine) 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for an interesting read, image review follows Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review The article's images are all free. The lead photo is of a book which is out of copyright becasue of its age. The other two images are PD because of age. I note that an image of Crane himself could perhaps be added to the Themes section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with only two tiny nitpicks. I did the GA review and thought it was well-done and it's improved quite a bit since then:

  • MOS:NUM > be sure numbers above 11 are written out, or check to be certain that's still policy. I've seen a few instances of "fourteen"
  • Doh, numbers always trip me up. I think I've fixed these now... María (yllosubmarine) 15:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two successive sentence begin with "Although Crane ...." in the "Background and writing" section, second para.

It's a nice read - well done! Truthkeeper (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) María (yllosubmarine) 15:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:52, 24 January 2012 [11].

W. E. B. Du Bois[edit]

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my pleasure to introduce W. E. B. Du Bois, a man who – despite of enormous obstacles – never gave up. Prior to submitting this nomination: (1) I read the FA criteria, (2) I read Tony1's prose suggestions; (3) the article went through the GA process; (4) the article went through a peer review; and (5) I monitored the discussions on the FAC page (and contributed to several) to observe issues which typically lead to failure. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Noleander (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been watching this article since the GA review. This article covers an important topic in Sociology; current changes have brought the article to FA status. My only reservation would be on the use of endashes, but the MOS seems to allow endashes with spaces to be substituted for emdashes. Meclee (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the MOS equally endorses ndashes (with spaces) or mdashes (without spaces). I just tossed a coin and went with the ndashes, but I have no strong preference. --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I've just started reading and will add as I go along. Please feel free to ping me on my page with questions, or if I'm interrupted and don't get back here. In general I think this is very strong piece and nicely written. A few tiny nitpicks as I'm going along:

  • ''The Souls of Black Folk - "a moving and inspiring" collection of essays - according to whom? Probably better to attribute to a scholarly source.
Done. I've removed the adjectives "moving and inspiring". Those words are a bit too subjective to be in the encyclopedia's voice. The import of the book is adequately described in the following sentences. I'm sure I could find a dozen notable reviewers that use similar terms (and attribute it to those reviewers), but that sort of subjective analysis is best left to the article dedicated to The Souls of Black Folk. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Combatting racisim" section seems to me a little choppy, but I'd like to revisit it again. Also should be "combating" with a single "t" for American English
Done (spelling fix is done; waiting for more feedback on choppy-ness). --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

  • I have poor eyesight and can't tell whether the dashes are emdashes or endashes. Per WP:DASH emdashes are unspaced, endashes spaced. I fixed one but then realized I may have made a mistake.
The intention is to use ndashes with spaces. I'll double check to make sure the MOS is followed. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endashes have spaces; emdashes don't. They looked like emdashes to me, but as I said it's sometimes hard for me to tell the difference. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What happened was: I wrote the entire article with ndashes & spaces; and then just last week a well-meaning editor converted the spaces before the ndashes to non-breaking spaces (which is an okay thing to do); but at the same time they converted the ndashes to mdashes, which was a mistake. I didn't notice the mdashes until you (just now) pointed them out. Anyway, it is back to ndashes with spaces (I kept the preceding nbsp). --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be certain regarding quotations, are you adhering to logical punctuation? I.e., placing punctuation inside the quotations marks unless the punctuation is part of the quotation.
Yes, the article follows that convention. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colons: be consistent about using capitalizations or not after a colon. Personally I dislike the bracketed first letter in a quote after a colon, so if this is made consistent throughout as capitalized, then it would solve that problem.
Thanks for catching that ... I'll fix it. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As you recommended, I went with uppercase after the colons ... that had the bonus of eliminating the "[b]rackets" at the start of quotes. --Noleander (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check MOS:NUM for rendering of numbers
Could you be more specific, please? I spell out numbers when they are twelve or smaller; and use digits for 13 or larger. For decades I avoid apostrophes, as in 1890s. There must be some rule I am overlooking? --Noleander (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just caught me - I saw twenty (I think) written out. I'll have a look to see where it is. In the "Racial violence" section, "twenty" is written out. In the "After the war" section, sixty is written out. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There were two additional instances that needed to be fixed (apparently my subconscious uses the rule that multiples of ten are also written out :-) --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Travelled > traveled per American English
Done. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

  • Seems from a quick glance to be an over-reliance on only a few biographies. I'm curious whether the books in the "Further reading" were consulted.
I primarily relied on three sources: Lewis, Horne, and Young. The Lewis biography is - far and away - the most authoritative source for Du Bois. It is a huge book, and it won two Pulitzer prizes. It was revised and updated in 2009, and no other source come close to it in detail, accuracy, or balance. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another significant fact is that the sources tend to agree on almost everything about Du Bois. The reason is, I believe, because Du Bois's life and opinions are heavily documented by Du Bois (especially his three autobiographies) and by contemporary sources. So there is very little room for interpretation. There are three issues on which the sources did differ, namely (1) whether or not he engaged in affairs (one biographer says yes, another says no); (2) whether or not he was spiritual (most agree he was not, yet one pointedly remarks on the spirituality which infused Du Bois's writings); and (3) whether he genuinely believed in communist/socialist ideals, or just employed them as a means to an end (to end racism). I'll double check the the article and make sure that both opinions are represented for those three issues. --Noleander (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, biographical sources often are repetitive or even deriviative, but if points of difference exist, they should get a mention. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (1) the two viewpoints on extramarital affairs are covered in the Personal Life section; (2) I beefed up the Religion section to include mention of Blum's thesis that Du Bois employed religion in his writings, leading many of his contemporaries to view Du Bois as a prophet; and (3) I added a more explicit statement of his late-life embrace of communism (in the Communism section) ... so that section (plus the prior Socialism and Cold War sections) now cover all viewpoints. --Noleander (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why are some books formatted in the "footnotes" section and others in the "References"? For consistency should probably all be moved to references.
The article follows the convention where details about important reference books are listed once in the Reference section, and cited using the WP:CITESHORT approach; but minor books that are cited only once are not listed in the References section. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: here is an example Featured Article from last week's main page that uses a similar convention: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. --Noleander (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More coming ... I'm thinking about this and will re-read again tomorrow Truthkeeper (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments. I'm busy in real life, but I should be able to address the punctuation/capitalization issues within a day or so (I believe the article already conforms to the WP MOS) but I'll double check. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no rush. I'd like to read through a few more times and make more substantive comments anyway. I think the issue with the sourcing is that, although a biography might be superlative, often other biographies might give a different perspective thereby making a page as comprehensive as possible from all points-of-view. That's why I asked and why I need to re-read. I don't know much about him, but it's a good read. I see a few areas that are slightly choppy that I'm thinking about, but am certainly leaning support at this point if I'm certain it fulfills criteria 1 (b.). Truthkeeper (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical details - a few questions about biographical details that I'm not quite clear about

  • His father left when he was two - what happened then? How did his mother support him?
Done. She became quite ill, but they were supported by her large family in the town. I'll update it to give that detail. --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I added: "William's mother worked to support her family (receiving some assistance from her brother and neighbors), until she experienced a stroke in the early 1880s and died in 1885". Let me know if that can be improved. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unclear about the Fisk/Harvard section - he went to Fisk for three years, received a degree (BA?) and then to Harvard for yet another undergrad degree in two years?
Done. Yes, he got a BA in 3 years (he was an outstanding student) then got a 2nd BA at Harvard (Harvard did not accept most course credit from Fisk). I'll add that detail. --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1896 - did he only spend a single summer in Philadelphia and then return to Ohio?
Done. He spent an entire year in Phila; then took a job at Atlanta Univ in 1897 (next section). I'll clarify the wording there. --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1897, when he accepted a position at Atlanta University, did he stay at the position and live in Atlanta until he left for Africa?
Done (already in text: no edit made). He moved to New York in 1910. That is described in the section "The Crisis" where it says: "NAACP leaders offered Du Bois the position of Director of Publicity and Research. He accepted the job in the summer of 1910, and moved to New York after resigning from Atlanta University." --Noleander (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions a second wife, but the information about his first wife is at the bottom of the page in the "Personal life" section. Because this is a biography, although it does in many ways emphasize his philosophies, have you considered integrating the biographical detail, rather than putting it in a separate section. As a reader, I find myself curious about the man, when he met his first wife, what happened to their marriage, but am not finding that information as I go along. Might need a bit of re-org.
Good point. I'll insert mention of the marriage event at the correct chronological point in the article. He did not get along well with his first wife, and she played virtually no role in his career/writings/activism, and they often lived apart. I was not comfortable mentioning those details, since they didn't seem very encyclopedic. Do you think it would be appropriate to include it? --Noleander (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add the biographical information. I caught it in the first read, wondered about the first wife when the second was mentioned, and then it niggled at me later, so I think it's appropriate. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll get to that later this evening. --Noleander (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've added the marriage event into the appropriate chronological section. I included a footnote there mentioning that "she did not play a significant role in his career". Let me know if you think more detail should about (or about the fact that they were often estranged) in the body of the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to do this so piecemeal - one more set of comments coming. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I really appreciate your feedback ... the comments are great. --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose & content

  • "Historian and author" > "In the 1900s decade" is awkward but can't think of how to rephrase. At the turn of the century? In the first decade of the 20th century? Not sure.
Done. Reworded to "In the first decade of the new century, Du Bois emerged as a spokesperson for his race, ...". --Noleander (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Combating racism" > it's a bit choppy. I'm not entirely clear how the bit about Birth of Nation ties in with Wilson & government jobs. This can probably be taken care of with reorganizing sentences for flow, or adding transitions or something.
Done. Here is a link to the section. --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World War I" > fourth para is also choppy. As above, I'm not following how his belief that the war would lead to world-wide liberation ties in with the NAACP investigations, and then the para mentions that he repudiates his stance to become an officer - needs tweaking for flow.
Done. Here is a link to the section. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war" > in the first para the last sentence has two instances of "bigotry"
Done. Change is here. --Noleander (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Socialism" > some choppiness here too. First para is fine, but lacking transition/explanation for the logical flow from being abroad & communism to endorsing Jimmy Walker. To be honest, I think all this section needs are transitions to aid the reader.
Done. Here is a link to the section. --Noleander (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked too closely at sources, and I've also only briefly glanced at the images, but I think it would be a good idea to ask someone like JMilburn or Ruhrfisch give image review. I'll check in again at some point during the weekend. I'll need one more read through but expect to support when these issues are resolved. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start working on those tasks above. I asked Ruhrfisch to look at the images. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've addressed by concerns. Nice job here. Good luck! Truthkeeper (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really appreciate the time you spent improving the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: it's standard to spot-check for copy-vio, etc. Have you had that done on a previous FAC? If not, I'll see what I can do here, although most of the sources are off-line. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what the process is to ensure that all the checks (sources/images/copyVio/spelling/etc) happen in an FAC nomination. I've done the checks for this article myself, of course, but obviously it would be best if a reviewer double checked. If any of those checks were overlooked, the Delegate would notice before closing the FAC, and would ask someone to do it. I know there is an offline tool to check for CopyVios, but I think it requires a fee to participate in the service ... not sure about that though. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It'll need a quick spot-check. I usually don't use a tool - will try to get to it later this evening. Otherwise tomorrow. But there's not a huge rush. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to delegates: I've spot-checked the available on-line sources and everything checks out fine. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, aside from the points raised by TK above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 8: why the doubled date? Also applies to FN 175, 176, etc
Done. #8, #175, #176. --Noleander (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether "university" is abbreviated or not
Done. Four instances of Univ. -> University. --Noleander (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
Done. FN #187. --Noleander (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 261: volume, issue, page(s)?
Done. --Noleander (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent format for online sources - for example, compare FNs 267 and 268
Done. --Noleander (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 271: don't need location, do need page numbers
Done. --Noleander (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnson also has the doubled date
Done. --Noleander (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Zuckerman
Done (moved to Further Reading). --Noleander (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books.
Done (removed all publ locations) --Noleander (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the feedback. Your observational skills are incredible. --Noleander (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • As requested, I am reviewing the images. The first eight images in the article (including his signature in the infobox) are all free.
  • I would like to see a source for File:Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg - is it from a book or a website or what? I do not doubt that it is a free (and disturbing) image, but would like more source information if possible.
Done. Added details (the photo was by photographer Fred Gildersleeve) to the WikiCommons page for the photo. --Noleander (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next two images are free, but I do not see why the third, File:Darkwater.jpg is not also free. It is a book published in 1920, so the copyright has expired, and it is a two dimensional photo of a free work, so the photo of the book should also be free.
See comment immediately below (picture was removed). --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is File:Darkwater.jpg is a free image - it does not need to be removed (published before 1922) and does not need a Fair Use rationale as the copyright expired. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how File:BlackReconstruction.JPG meets WP:NFCC - how does seeing a fair use picture of the cover of a book still under copyright increase the reader's understanding of Du Bois?
I removed three of the four book covers from the article, since they may not comply with WP:NFCC. I left the fourth cover: The Souls of Black Folk because the article has an entire section on the book, so it probably meets WP:NFCC requirements. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for File:DuskOfDawn.jpg - please note that these are OK as fair use in the articles on the books themselves.
See comment immediately above. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I used that wording. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stamp image is not free - US stamps have been copyrighted since 1978 (see here). As a non-free image, it needs a fair use rationale and to be hosted on the English Wikipedia (not Commons).
Done. Thanks for the info on stamp copyrights. I copied the pic from Commons to WP and added a fair use rationale. --Noleander (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to give the metric equivalent per the MOS He was relatively short – 5' 5½" – and always maintained a well-groomed mustache and goatee
Done. --Noleander (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps, thanks for everyone's work on the important article - it reads well, though I have not had time to read it carefully enough to review the prose. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All image issues are resolved, though I would be glad to see the Darkwater cover image added back in. All images in the article are either free or have a valid fair use justification. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see. I've restored the Darkwater cover image. Thanks for taking the time! --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done then - I updated the Darkwater image file to PD-US just now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrestlinglover's review
Early life
  • "Du Bois's maternal great-grandfather was Tom Burghardt" - I say add his first name here, as I honestly was confused at first by this. I assumed his father's side was being talked about, as Du Bois's to me referred to Alfred as he was just mentioned. For the sake of clarification. Also, to my knowledge names ending in "s" only need the apostrophe added to show possession. This goes for the other issues I see alike in the article.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. First name added. All sources spell the possessive as "Du Bois's", so the article follows that convention. --Noleander (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a slave (born in West Africa around 1730), owned by Dutch-American Conraed Burghardt." - I for one don't see the point in the comma. It seems to stop the sentence when it's better unimpeded.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Noleander (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tom briefly served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, which probably earned him his freedom." - This sounds so mediocre. Plus even with the ref it comes off as OR or POV. Mainly due to the inclusion of "probably". I got no suggestion on how to solve this but if I do I will mention it. I figure a rewrite would be best here.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That is a tough one. The sources are not sure on the matter: they are certain that he served in the military; and they speculate that he probably earned his freedom that way, but they are not sure. I reworded to "..., which may have been the reason he was freed from slavery." --Noleander (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on February 5, 1867, in Housatonic, Massachusetts." - Don't see point of the comma.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Comma removed. --Noleander (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "treated William well, and he experienced little discrimination" to "treated William well, experiencing little discrimination." - Flows a bit better imo, the "and" really killed the sentence to me.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That proposed phrasing implies that the community experienced little discrimination. I'll see if I can come up with a better phrasing. --Noleander (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure on that. "Great Barrington's primarily European American community treated William well, and he experienced little discrimination." shows the subject is William (oddly, that is my name as well, got to love irony). The community is a backdrop. It switched to "Great Barrington's primarily European American community treated William well, experiencing little discrimination." continues to have William as the subject discussed.--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed it as suggested. --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
University education
  • "he attended Harvard College (which did recognize his Fisk course credits)" - Question: What exactly is the relevance of whether they recognized them or not? As I do not see anything connected to this statement anywhere around, where this would be needed. I'd figure remove as the point is he went from Fisk to Harvard.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that: the parenthetical comment was missing a "not". It explains the fact that it took Du Bois 3 years at harvard to get a 2nd BA, when he already had one BA from Fisk. --Noleander (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He paid his way through three years at Harvard college with money from summer jobs, an inheritance, scholarships, and loans from friends; eventually earning a second bachelor's degree, cum laude, in history." - A semi-colon separates two complete sentences that are one thought. The second is not a complete sentence. This would be a simple fix as to include the word "he", or to just split and make it two sentences on their own. I'd support the later as it would probably add more to the article, with the second being expanded just a bit more.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Split into 2 sentences; 2nd is: " In 1890, Harvard awarded Du Bois his second bachelor's degree, ...". --Noleander (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wilberforce and University of Pennsylvania
  • "the prestigious Tuskegee Institute; he chose a teaching job at Wilberforce University in Ohio." - Good two complete sentences, however, the second sounds monotoned imo. I'd change to "he agreed to a teaching job at Wilberforce University in Ohio." Helps the flow a bit imo.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Wilberforce, Du Bois met Alexander Crummell, and was deeply influenced by his thesis that ideas and morals are necessary tools to effect social change." - The "and" kills the flow to me. Off the top of my head I can only come up with "At Wilberforce, Du Bois met Alexander Crummell, who wrote a thesis regarding ideas and morals as necessary tools to effect social change which deeply influenced Du Bois." It's rough, hopefully you can work with it.--WillC 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done: re-worded to: "At Wilberforce, Du Bois was strongly influenced by Alexander Crummell, who believed that ideas and morals are necessary tools to effect social change" --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Atlanta University
  • Fine, very well done.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Booker T. Washington and the Atlanta Compromise
  • "representatives of the class of learned blacks that Du Bois would later call the "talented tenth"." - Learned? I figure a better word could be used here. Kinda funny considering the subject matter, but learned sounds like a Southern hillbilly statement. I should know, I'm from the backwoods of Kentucky haha.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed "learned" -> "educated". --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Du Bois was inspired to greater activism by the lynching of Sam Hose which occurred near Atlanta in 1899." - Take it or leave it, just my idea but when I read this sentence it feels like it ends a stop. I say turn it into "Du Bois was inspired to greater activism by the lynching of Sam Hose, which occurred near Atlanta in 1899." I just feel when reading it, that it comes off as "Du Bois was inspired to greater activism by the lynching of Sam Hose...which occurred near Atlanta in 1899."--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niagara Movement
  • Fine, didn't find anything.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Souls of Black Folk
  • Good section--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Racial violence
  • "Two calamities in the autumn of 1906 stunned African Americans, and helped Du Bois's struggle for civil rights to prevail over Booker T. Washington's accommodationism." - The use of "stunned" here sounds POV. Doesn't sound netural. Its adding an emotion that comes from a writer's prespective in my view. I'd argue the same with calamities, but its used as a means of bettering the prose to FA standards I believe. I'd say removed the stunned African Americans part as well as the comma.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've replaced "stunned" -> "shocked". The word needs to convey that the community was outraged to a degree that caused them to shift allegiance from Washington to Du Bois. Let me know if you can think of a better phrasing. --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will do, just want to make sure there isn't OR, POV, etc in the article.--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't give a date for the soldiers being discharged.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The date is in the preceding sentence: "Two calamities in the autumn of 1906 ..". Let me know if you think it should be repeated. --Noleander (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there in lies the issue. The one before does, however, the one after mentions September 1906. A more detailed point of 1906 would be good. If the discharges were not all at once then a simple addition of "discharged throughout that year(or)1906" would be good. If it was all at once, adding the month would be helpful to keep consistent.--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These two calamities were earth-shaking events for the African-American community, and marked the downfall of Washington's Atlanta Compromise and the ascendancy of Du Bois's vision of equal rights." - Its covered by a ref, however, the second part I can believe in good faith, but the first I'm not so sure about.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed "earth shaking" -> "watershed"; based on the source: "For African-Americans, Brownsville as the nadir. From pulpits across the land, imprecations were hurled at the president and at [Washington]... Summer and Fall of 1906 were to be a watershed for African-Americans ... bringing almost unrelieved turmoil. ..."
No idea what watershed is but its good enough for me.--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Academic work
  • "but he continued to publish columns regularly in the The Horizon magazine." - "but" to "however"--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Noleander (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ground-breaking 1935 book Black Reconstruction" - I don't doubt it probably was, however, the ref is to a book I can't see, so was it really ground-breaking or is that just to talk it up.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the work is generally considered by scholars to be "landmark" or "ground-breaking" (their words); and is noted for its creativity and its use of statistics and economics. --Noleander (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alrght, I'll take it at your word.--WillC 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NAACP era
  • Good, interesting. Now I know how the NAACP came to be, got to learn something.--WillC 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Crisis
Historian and author
Combating racism
  • "The private sector was not the only source of racism – under President Wilson, the plight of African Americans in government jobs suffered: Many federal agencies adopted white-only employment practices; the Army excluded blacks from officer ranks; and the immigration service prohibited the immigration of persons of African ancestry." to "The private sector was not the only source of racism, under President Wilson the plight of African Americans in government jobs suffered. Many federal agencies adopted white-only employment practices, the Army excluded blacks from officer ranks, and the immigration service prohibited the immigration of persons of African ancestry."--WillC 09:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
World War I
After the war
Pan-Africanism and Marcus Garvey
  • "Du Bois wrote a series of articles in The Crisis throughout 1922, attacking Garvey's movement;[145] and in 1924, Du Bois called Garvey the "most dangerous enemy of the Negro race in America and the world."" to "Du Bois wrote a series of articles in The Crisis between 1922 and 1924, attacking Garvey's movement, calling him the "most dangerous enemy of the Negro race in America and the world."--WillC 09:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harlem Renaissance
Socialism
Return to Atlanta
  • Name of the African American who ran for president as part of the Socialist party would be nice. All I can find is William Foster who is white from the looks of it.--WillC 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The source says that an African American was "on the ticket" for the Communist party in 1932; but the source does not provide a name, nor an office (I presume it was vice president). The article restates the source. I just did some more research, and it is James W. Ford, for VP. I've added that fact into the footnote following the "first African American on the ticket" sentence. Let me know if you think it should be in the article body. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Black Reconstruction in America
  • What is the AHA?--WillC 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The AHA is the American Historical Association. The acronym AHA is used three times in article, and it is defined (as " American Historical Association") on the first usage. The final usage of AHA was a bit far from the first, so I changed that 3rd usage to spell it out. --Noleander (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trip around the world
  • "treatment of the Jews" - Wouldn't it be better to say Jewish people? Its sounds a bit more formal and educational than just saying "Jews".--WillC 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
World War II
  • "The title refers Du Bois's hope that African Americans were passing out of the darkness of racism into an era of greater equality." to "The title refers to Du Bois's hope that African Americans were passing out of the darkness of racism into an era of greater equality"--WillC 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for catching that. --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
United Nations
Cold War
Peace activism
  • Support - I read over this at Peer Review and looked again. It looks good from prose grounds - it is an engaging piece. I don't know enough about the subject to be fully confident of comprehensiveness, but seems pretty thorough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I believe the article covers all the important aspects of Du Bois's life - but there are a couple of hundred books written about Du Bois, so of course many details and interpretations are necessarily omitted (the article is already at 9,000 words). For example, there are at least two books devoted to the topic of Du Bois & religion, and yet that topic only gets about 100 words in the article. But I think the article presents a good, encyclopedic overview, and any more detail is best handled with sub-articles. --Noleander (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - rather than clutter the page with my niggles, I just copyedited as I read. Excellent article! Note I'm not a fan of the "cite every sentence" school, but it's a valid choice so I won't oppose on that basis. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appraisal, and thanks for taking the time to do some copyediting. --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • I left an inline about a possible page range error.
  • In "Honors", some of the bullet points are full sentences, others are not, but they all end in punctuation-- can they not consistently be full sentences?

That's it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented both of the above suggestions. Thanks for keeping me honest with the bullet points: I just ran out of steam. --Noleander (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:52, 24 January 2012 [12].

HMS Temeraire (1798)[edit]

Nominator(s): Benea (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because having worked this article up through the GA and A class review stages, I feel this article now meets the necessary criteria. She was one of the most famous ships of the Royal Navy during the age of sail, a fame that endured through the legacy of Turner's painting, making her second only to HMS Victory in the history of the Nelsonic Navy. Benea (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check title on Winfield - citations and reference entry don't match
    • Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether you include both author in shortened citations to two-author works
    • Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether date ranges are included in shortened citation titles, where applicable
    • Fixed the one example (Gardiner) I could see.
  • Compare capitalization between citations and reference entries, ex Warwick
    • Fixed
  • Fn 83: italicization
    • Italicized
  • Hodder & Stoughton or Hodder and Stoughton?
    • Hodder & Stoughton used throughout.
  • Where is Newton Abbot? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newton Abbot is in Devon. What would you like to see changed? Benea (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually this means that the location in the references could be linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is an excellent, thorough article on a very interesting subject. The prose looks good in general and there were very few issues with jargon. As a non-expert, this seems very comprehensive. It is quite long, so I have a list of fairly minor questions and comments. I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Sarastro. Benea, I'll work on these tomorrow unless you tell me otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Is there a reason for the single quotation marks for Fighting Temeraire?
  • "Her duties were tedious and seldom relieved by any action with the French fleet." I doubt that the ship could find it tedious; maybe clarify this to "tedious for the crew…"
  • Link mutiny?
  • "so committing an act of mutiny. The mutiny eventually failed and a number of the mutineers were tried and executed": Slightly inelegant here with close repetition of mutiny and the similar mutineers. Maybe "…to obey orders. This act of mutiny failed and a number of those responsible were tried and executed".
  • "She was asked specifically to join Horatio Nelson's blockade": Again, in danger of personification of the ship.
  • "Temeraire returned to public renown in Britain": Not quite sure about this phrasing; public acclaim may be better, or "won/achieved public renown after the battle"
  • "Further service saw her move to Sheerness": Not convinced about this use of "saw", but I appreciate the need to avoid repeating sentence structures. I can't think of anything better at the moment, and it's not a huge issue.
  • "The painting was greeted with critical acclaim, which has endured": Again not sure about the phrasing. Maybe "… with critical acclaim. The painting continues to be held in high regard and was voted Britain's favourite painting in 2005".
Construction and commissioning
  • "Temeraire was laid down at Chatham in July 1793": Jargon? What does "laid down" mean for the benefit of the non-specialist.
  • "The initial stages of her construction were overseen by Master Shipwright Thomas Pollard, though he was succeeded by Edward Sison on 25 June 1795, and Sison oversaw her completion.": Maybe cut this back to "…Thomas Pollard and completed by his successor Edward Sison".
  • "Her final costs came to £73,241, and included £59,428 spent on the hull, masts and yards, and a further £13,813 on rigging and stores.": I know this can be a controversial subject, but some modern equivalents would be useful here. However, I know some people hate doing that so feel free to ignore this one.
    • Done. I believe it's a little too old for a meaningful inflated figure. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. For anyone who's interested, there are a couple of links to extensive discussions at User:Dank/Copy3#inflation. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the Channel Fleet
  • As very much a non-specialist with a vague interest in the historical period, I got a little confused here knowing how the command structure worked; we are told about Rear-Admirals and Admirals, captains and commanders. If the Temeraire was the flagship, how did this affect its operation? And who was in command of it, the admiral or the rear-admiral. I think this could all be made slightly clearer.
    • The Captain was in command of the ship; an Admiral (or any other flag officer) was in command of the fleet or squadron, but he (and his staff officers) would be based and quartered (accommodated) upon a ship fitted out as a flagship, from which they would diurect the actions of the entire fleet or squadron. But this article is not the place for an explanation of the rank structure of the Royal Navy. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than link Amiens to the place, would it be better linked to the Treaty?
    • Not done. Benea? - Dank (push to talk)
      • I'm not sure here on either point. Reading the sentence 'and negotiations for peace were underway at Amiens', I would expect the link here to be to the location. The actual reference to the treaty that was finally negotiated comes several sections later, after the mutiny. So I suppose you could have a piped link over 'negotiations for peace' as a nod to the treaty that would eventually be signed, but it would perhaps be a little misleading to link Amiens there in this context. Benea (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Return to service
  • "was thwarted in his attempt to unite with the French forces at Brest": Not sure about the use of unite here. Perhaps "join" or "combine" would be better.
Temeraire at Trafalgar
  • The start of the second paragraph perhaps uses "fleet" too much.
The Fighting Temeraire
  • Why does this require a new section? It would work perfectly well with the last section.
  • "to prevent colliding with": "to prevent a collision with" may be more elegant but has been used shortly after. But as it stands it seems a bit of an ugly phrase.
  • "Harvey brought Temeraire around, appearing suddenly out of the smoke of the battle and slipping across Redoutable's stern, discharged a double-shotted broadside into her": The verbs seem a little confused here and should agree. Also, what is "double-shotted"? It should be explained if it is significant.
Temeraire and Fougueux
  • "On learning that nearly all of the officers were dead or wounded": On learning does not seem quite right.
  • "Eight feet of her starboard hull had been stove in": Nor does this.
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I don't think "bashed" is an improvement and have modified this to "was staved in". You may prefer "stove" but I think "staved" sounds more elegant here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The storm
  • "Temeraire rode out the storm following the battle, sometimes being taken in tow by less damaged ships, sometimes riding at anchor.": It is not quite clear here whether the ship was fit to move on its own or was it too damaged to sail by itself?
    • "All her sails and yards had been destroyed" does it for me. - Dank (push to talk)
General
  • Several examples of "with noun verbing" e.g. "with the flames spreading"
    • Fixed these myself; I don't think there are any more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big issue, but some of the sections could possibly be combined and I'm not a huge fan of having Temeraire in so many titles, but I would not insist on either of these points
    • I've removed Temeraire from 3 headings and left it in 2; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: 52 out of 83 references are to Willis. This is probably inevitable so I personally have no problem with it as this will undoubtedly be the best reference. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done. Benea? - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Willis is the only book length biography of Temeraire that exists, so inevitably the article relies fairly heavily on that. There are good Temeraire specific sections in Winfield and Goodwin, which are used as well, otherwise Temeraire only appears in passing in the more general naval histories of the period, which have been brought in to develop the picture and provide further support and occasionally some detail for the article. I've looked at the structure and headings, I wouldn't strongly oppose any changes, but nor do I think they are especially necessary, if it is not a deal breaker. Benea (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have one or two minor reservations about prose, as there may be a little redundancy in places, but not enough to prevent a support. It may be worth going through and checking if it could be tightened further and I may pick at it a bit myself in the next day or two. Otherwise, the remaining issues are not "deal-breakers". Perhaps make the command structure of the fleet (my point about admirals and rear-admirals above) clearer but maybe I'm being a little dense. My support is not affected by any of these points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Eyles was superseded during this period by Temeraire's former commander, Captain Puget, who resumed command on 14 October 1799, ": Does this mean "Eyles was replaced on 14 October 1799 by Temeraire's former commander, Captain Puget,"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I see you're using "superseded" in the same sense in the next paragraph. Cambridge Dictionaries defines it as: "to replace something, especially something older or more old-fashioned". I'll check Garner's when I get home to make sure, but "supersede" would not be my preferred word choice here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "superceded" is the term which the Navy used at the time. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garner's suggests but doesn't say that my sense is right.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked over them in detail (apologies for the absence, holidays and all that) but I am sure they are of your usual high standard. I had looked over Sarastro1's comments previously, and found them generally perfectly reasonable. Thanks for getting to them sooner than I would have! Superseded could be replaced with 'replaced' I suppose, but that is also not an ideal term, given the nature of changing commissions ('replaced' implies to me at least an element of dissatisfaction with the previous commander that meant he was replaced with a better one) and superseded is the term often used in the histories like Goodwin. But I've no strong objection to it being substituted. Benea (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Turner,_J._M._W._-_The_Fighting_Téméraire_tugged_to_her_last_Berth_to_be_broken.jpg is tagged as lacking source info, and the description page appears to have been vandalized. Also, does this image need to be used twice?
  • File:Battle_of_Trafalgar,_Plate_1.jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page and source info added. There are very few historic contemporary images of Temeraire available, and Turner's painting is not only the most famous, it is also one of the very few that takes as this ship specifically as its subject. She appears in passing in some of the Trafalgar paintings, but the clearest PD image of Temeraire is in Turner's painting. It would be great to have one of Geoff Hunt's paintings (all under copyright) or Cooke's painting of her as a guardship (I've hunted high and low, and I simply cannot find an accessible version) for the infobox. This makes Turner's the best we have to illustrate the subject in the infobox, and as the immediately identifiable image, is correctly placed prominently at the top of the article. The connection of Temeraire to the painting is an extremely important one, and it makes obvious sense to display the image a second time when discussing the painting in detail towards the end of the article. Benea (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the only editor (that I know of) currently active editing articles on Turner. I saw this discussion by chance and thought I should mention that I have big reservations about the current Turner image used in the article. (There is a higher resolution scan of "the Fighting Temeraire" available on the national gallery website - though it has no better colours than the current image so I have not uploaded it.) Neither the image currently in the article or the image on the national gallery site are very accurate reproductions of the actual picture imho. I would be concerned that if this article is promoted to FA with the current images it would give an (unintentionally) misleading impression of the Turner painting. Ajbp (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the image on the national gallery's own website is an inaccurate reproduction of the picture it has in its own collections? Given the recent litigation over the use of images from the National Gallery's website on Wikipedia, I really wouldn't recommend touching it anyway. But can you be more specific, what makes it an inaccurate reproduction? Finally, this is not a FA review for the picture itself, I'm not sure how far these comments have weight for the FA-review process. Benea (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to legal threats I think you are mistaking the national gallery for the National Portrait Gallery - they are actually different institutions and as far as I know we have never had problems with the national gallery. I am not necessarily objecting to this article becoming featured. It is just that the colour accuracy of the turner image currently in the article is not great and that for accuracies sake I wonder if we can do better. The image currently used in the article is far too yellow. The image from the national gallery website has a strange dull caste to it, but I think it could probably be brightened a little bit to improve it and then used as a decent effort at providing an accurate reproduction. - it is on my list of things to get round to at some point - but if you would like me to I can try and upload a brightened copy of that scan which you might prefer to use instead? Ajbp (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps moving out of the scope of this review. If a better image of the Turner painting can be found and uploaded, then all well and good. As it is, we are using a representative and free use image, the best we have available at the moment. You might wish to talk to some of the image experts on commons and on WP:MILHIST. I'm not entirely sure what level of tweaking of the colours of historic images and paintings by wikipedia users is considered permissible, there may be OR issues or similar to consider. Benea (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree that it would be better to get someone who is more experienced in this area to consider the issue. I'll upload the NG scan as an alternate image and get the image desk magicians to see how they can improve it without affecting the integrity of the image.Ajbp (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems a bit awkward: With no immediate service available with the drawdown of the navy in the peace, Temeraire was laid up in the Hamoaze for the next eighteen months. Perhaps something along the lines of: "Because of the drawdown in the size of the active navy as a result of the peace..."
  • What are "chains" and quarter galleries? Link to rudder or rudderhead, hulk, victualling-depot, ebb of the tide, and cat-head.
  • Were the tugs steam-powered?. Interesting to know if Turner's depiction is correct or if he heightened the contrast and poignancy by using a steam-powered sidewheele tug in the painting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the links, and reworded. The tugs were steam powered, so Turner required no extra poignancy there. Incidentally my reference work notes that the tug type only became possible with the application of steam power, so I suppose all tug boats must be, and have been, mechanically propelled in some form. 'Thames Steam Towing Company' did it for me, but I've altered it to 'steam tugs' in the article as well. Benea (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • AFAIK - I don't think there is any evidence that suggests turner actually saw the scene as depicted. (one biography describes the painting as "a fiction - a superimposition of many ideas and emotion") - but equally no evidence that a steam tug would not have been used. Ajbp (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have this article's sources been spotchecked? Ucucha (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were no spotchecks at the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good with the changes, switching from Comments from Ealdgyth. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: "The first incident of note came when a group of sailors, hearing rumours they were to be sent.." I'm assuming that these were sailors on the Temeraire?
    • Changed to 'several of her crew'. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was converted to a prison ship, spending until 1819 moored in the River Tamar in this role." Awkward - needs rewording.
    • I went with: "She was converted to a prison ship and moored in the River Tamar until 1819." - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction: "...was a 98-gun second-rate ship of the line of the..." in the lead but "...had been the 74-gun third rate HMS Temeraire, a former..." - so are we hyphenating the rate or not?
  • "This Temeraire retained her French name after her capture, and served during the Seven Years' War, before being sold out of the service in 1784.[3] Puget was only in command until 26 July 1799..." the jump here between the two sentence's subjects is jarring - can we move the information about the first Temeraire to a footnote or something?
  • Okay, what the heck does Temeraire MEAN in French?
    • Bold, if I'm not mistaken.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tricky, there is no direct translation. "Temeraire means nothing in English; an indistinct mix of rash and recklessness, it carries none of the undertones of foolhardiness that those words imply in English." Willis, p. 55. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rear-Admiral"? I don't think I've ever seen this hyphenated...
    • I've seen it, but in BritEng articles, we're usually hyphenating Vice-Admiral but not Rear Admiral. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...until his replacement, Captain Thomas Eyles, arrived to assume command..." surely this is "resume command"?
  • Mutiny: "...court-martialled in two batches aboard HMS Gladiator, anchored in Portsmouth, the first held on 6 January 1802, the second on 14 January." I think "...court-martialled in two batches aboard HMS Gladiator, anchored in Portsmouth, the first court held on 6 January 1802 and the second on 14 January." would flow a bit better.
    • Does this work? "On the ship's arrival, the 14 imprisoned ringleaders were swiftly court-martialled in Portsmouth aboard HMS Gladiator, some on 6 January 1802 and the rest on 14 January." - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Med service: "...now under the command of Sir Charles Hamilton." We give the naval rank of all the other captains... what was Hamilton's?
  • Retirement: "...under the title 'Guardship of the Ordinary and Captain-Superintendent's ship of the Fleet Reserve in the Medway'." Shouldn't these be double quotation marks?
  • Sale: "...transporting the ship 55 miles from Sheerness..." shouldn't there be a km conversion here?
    • It may be inaccurate to do so, depending on whether the distance was measured in nautical or statute miles. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art: "...been known to her crew as the 'saucy' Temeraire." double quotes again here, I believe.
Looks good, just these niggles above. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh, sorry I missed so much on this one, spot on. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Benea, have you had a spotcheck for accuracy in representation of sources and close paraphrasing on a previous FAC? If so, pls link-- if not, still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing mentioned on the most recent FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive2. Benea (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... perhaps you could encourage a MilHist person to dig in and get that part done :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a note at WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS. Benea (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I pinged Rif Winfield, since he surely has the sources :) [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect that he would at least be able to confirm his own book :) Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. As regards my own cited book, I should point out that the reference quotes the publisher and (wrong) date of the 2nd edition (Seaforth Publishing, 2008 not 2007) but then confusingly gives the ISBN number of the 1st edition (Chatham Publishing. 2005). The correct ISBN for the 2nd edition is ISBN 978-1-84415-717-4. The other cited titles all seem correct and relevent, although I haven't checked their ISBNs. I have inserted a couple of remarks re the article elsewhere in this conversation. Incidentally, re SandyGeorgia's remark below, I should add that simply because a book has not been cited within a particular article is no reason for excluding it from a Reference List, if it contains relevent background material which would help a reader to learn more about issues and events described by that article. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adkins, Roy (2005). Trafalgar: The Biography of a Battle. London: Abacus. ISBN 0-349-11632-6.
but although it is listed in the References section, it is not used to cite anything (??)-- should probably be removed from Reference list, but I'm wondering why it's not used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's cite 74? Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, sorry, I was searching for the term "Biography", and missed it. I have access to the US edition, which is published under the name of "Nelson's Trafalgar: The Battle That Changed the World". It's paginated the same as the UK version, and p. 147 verifies "fighting" vs. "saucy" text, with no close paraphrasing. "Most famous" isn't cited there, not a quibble, and the rest of that text is apparent from the painting. That's all I can do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check[14] and [15]. Are better links possible on each? All I get is the main page of the museum, the same for both. Also, on the Harvey image, can you do better on the image page in terms of the author? "Brown" is what is listed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NMM has very recently overhauled its website. I've updated the links. Benea (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the more technical aspects:

  • Infobox image caption, that Turner painting was "executed" in 1839, not 1838 according our own article.
    • Willis explicitly states 'In 1838 he finished his canvas, which he carefully entitled...' The confusion in The Fighting Temeraire article may stem from the fact that it was first presented at the Royal Academy Exhibition in early 1839. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you confirm the "x" in the infobox for, say, "28 x 32-pounder" is a times sign and not just an x?
  • Is it Treaty or Peace of Amiens? Could confuse a non-expert that you've used both terms but linked to the same article each time.
    • One reference is correctly to the Treaty, the other to the Peace. Peace of Amiens redirects to the Treaty. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "member of parliament" is, according to our article with ref to the UK, a Member of Parliament.
  • Check image captions, per MOS:CAPTION, punctation is in need of attention.
    • Can you be more specific? I'm not seeing anything that is not in keeping with the MOS. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "An 1848 plan of the fleet positions at the Battle of Trafalgar. Temeraire forms part of the weather column, and is depicted abreast of the Victory, racing her for the Franco-Spanish line" because you already have a period here, the second sentence should have a period too. Infobox caption isn't actually a real sentence either, just a title of a painting, so would imagine it shouldn't have a period. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another caption note : "..(right foreground) and the Temeraire (left, seen bow on)..." our MOS suggests we avoid "left"s and "right"s.
    • Removed lefts and rights. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Port Admiral really just Port admiral?
  • " sailed to Sheerness Dockyard" a bit misleading, there's no article on the dockyard, so perhaps "to the dockyard at Sheerness".
    • This makes the meaning less precise, and fails to distinguish the Royal Dockyard at Sheerness with the civilian docks and shipbuilding concerns there. There should certainly be an article on the dockyard itself, as one of the principle navy bases for several centuries (as with Woolwich, Deptford, Chatham, etc). I may get around to writing one if I have time. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but would prefer it to be a redlink than to just link to Sheerness as that makes the meaning less precise. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't really see how that is. The link is to Sheerness Dockyard, which would be the correct title for the article to be written under in due course. At the moment that link is a redirect to Sheerness, which does contain some information on the history and working of the Royal Dockyard there. Any redlink would not only be the wrong link for the article, it would also be suboptimal for the reader looking for information. Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marine Society" looks like it should be "The Marine Society".
    • Sources use 'the Marine Society' consistently in reference to this period, and in the sources used here (Willis, Winfield, College, Goodwin, etc). 'The Marine Society' appears to be a modern construction, which the society is rather anachronistically backdating.
  • "1838-9" (image caption) should use an en-dash, and probably also be 1838–39.
  • Is using the same image twice conventional in an featured article?
    • I've explained my reasoning above. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, your reasoning is noted but I've never seen the same image used twice in an article, seems incongruous to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be away from tomorrow for some time (likely over a week). I may be able to check in from time to time, but my access might be intermittent, and I will have reduced access to sources. Nevertheless I will do what I can if new issues arise, but it may take a little time. Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 17:29, 20 January 2012 [16].

Adiantum viridimontanum[edit]

Nominator(s): Choess (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it completely and accurately discusses this rare fern. I am confident that I have addressed all relevant literature. The article was recently passed as a good article by Ucucha, who opined that it might well go forward to FAC. Most sources are peer-reviewed botanical literature, as well as an information sheet published by a reputable botanical organization. The photograph of A. viridimontanum was taken by me at one of the sites described by Zika & Dann (1985), so I'm fairly confident it has the correct species. My principal concern is in the morphological prose: some of the details needed to distinguish this from other species are fairly technical, and I'm concerned about making it accessible for the lay reader. Choess (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments forgot about this one - looking the better for some independent eyes now. reading through now - will jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all three, the blade is cut into finger-like segments, themselves once-divided, borne on the outer side of a curved, dark, glossy stalk (rachis). I think "blade" --> "leaf blade" might be more helpful to the reader as I am not sure that "blade" is immediately recognisable as a botanical term to lay readers.
Until 1991, A. viridimontanum was grouped with the western maidenhair fern, which grows as a disjunct on serpentine outcrops in eastern North America and was itself classified as a variety of A. pedatum - I'd align so you use all common names or all scientific names in the one sentence.
Green Mountain maidenhair is a medium-sized, deciduous fern. - to me looks odd without a "The" at the beginning of the sentence.
The sori are borne on the abaxial surface - not a good idea to link abaxial to a huge page where the word is lost, maybe link to wiktionary definition instead. In fact why not just say undersurface?
Green Mountain maidenhair largely reproduces by branching rather than sexually through spores. - I'd think it'd be prudent to add the adverb "asexually" here.
I'd mention what sori are.
I think synapomorphy might benefit from a brief explanation too

In summary, looking good overall. Many fern articles will struggle to be more detailed than this due to lack of ecological information. It is worth being looked at by both plant people and lay people to further assess teh balance of technical and accessible words. I look forward to supporting real soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The language is incredibly unfriendly. In the first line, we have ultramafic and allotetraploid with no gloss, have to click through a redirect to find out what they mean (and I have a science degree), and diploid with no link or gloss. Next para — pteridologist unlinked and unexplained, not in my vocabulary and I'm not going to look it up. I'd like to review this in more detail, and I understand you will have to use technical language in places, but give us a bit of encouragement to get through the lead. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    OK, I've started tweaking the lead. I've dropped some of the technical details that aren't really necessary and are addressed in the article. Would you like me to mention that (most) ferns reproduce by sporulation in the lead? Also, I can add a sentence or two on allotetraploidy and why that's a common mechanism of speciation in ferns in the Taxonomy section if you like (or as a footnote). Choess (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underlinking. The following are terms that I think need a link or gloss, but don't have one at the first occurence, if at all: spore, pinnate, taxon, pinnae, node, chromosome number, triploid, morphological, medial, genome, tetraploid
  • Overlinking. Items should be linked at most once in the lead, and once where the next occur. For obvious items like Vermont, just once will do. Please check, I noticed New England and Quebec, but there may be others
  • chestnut brown (castaneous) to dark purple (atropurpureous) — what's the point of the parenthetical bits? If they are just obscure synonyms, leave them out.
  • leafy (herbaceous) to papery (chartaceous) — likewise
  • Ref 3 seems to have a location but no publisher
  • Ref 9 — expanding NJ would help non-US readers
I think these issues are straightened out now.
  • All the terms mentioned as underlinked are linked, glossed, or both. I've also expanded a bit on the implications of pseudopedate structure (end of 1st paragraph under description). This is a bit of a nightmare to explain: in essence, the casual description of the maidenhair leaf (large, deeply divided compound leaf->cut into fingerlike pinnae or leaflets->again cut into pinnulets), which is itself a bit tricky to explain to a non-specialist isn't *quite* botanically accurate, and it's difficult to get across the fine point without the non-specialist's head exploding.
  • I've swept for overlinks. A few of the terms are linked both in lead and 1st occurrence in body.
  • I have removed some of the superfluous technical terms, but not all, for fear of losing technical meaning. (For instance, the term "chartaceous" is often rendered as "papery", but so is "papyraceous," and they're used in botany in a way that implies two different shades of meaning. I've glossed it in a little more detail as "parchment-like," which I think accurately differentiates it from "papyraceous," but I'd rather include the technical term as a back-up.) I've also unified on a format of technical term first, followed by a parenthetical gloss, which corresponds to other botanical/mycological FAs I've examined for guidance on style.
  • Ref 3 is correctly cited according to its own style guide.
  • NJ expanded to New Jersey.
I welcome any continued thoughts on particular points in need of further glossing and clarification. Choess (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and two more comments I'm happy with most of the changes, but the point of my ref 3 comment is that referencing style should be consistent within the article. You should give locations for all or none, conforming to the the original citation style of your source leads to inconsistency. You could check with Nikkimaria if you don't agree. On the image issue raised by 99of9, fair use is a non-starter since it's obviously possible to (eventually) get a free image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I wasn't clear. It's not that I'm following FNA's suggestions for referencing style, it's that according to their own page, there is no publisher to be cited. Given that this is referenced from the online version, I can't invent a publisher for consistency with other references in the article. Choess (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - FN 4 needs page numbers, spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers added. Choess (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know it's probably not in the guidelines, but as a reader, for an article like this I'd like to see a high-quality close-up photo in the description section. --99of9 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. Unfortunately, those aren't widely available. As a stopgap, I've added an external link to the type specimen for the species (from the Harvard Herbarium), which has a large, high-quality image online. Unfortunately, the terms of use don't look amenable to adding that to Commons. I was rather pressed for time when I took the photo currently included in the taxobox, but I hope to be in the area again to photograph it next summer, and I will certainly try to add more of my own images to illustrate these points. I try not to deal with the morass of NFCC justification, but if anyone more knowledgeable than I sees a way forward to using the herbarium image in the article, drop me a line. Choess (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a comment - there is a notable amount of information in brackets, including an entire sentence in the lede. Unless there is no other way for something to be added, integrate all such clarifications into the prose. Aside from that, it is a bit difficult to read, but I'm having problems with all articles on this subject so it simply might be my own subjective experience. Short, but very good and encyclopaedic article. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Consider my suggestions below struck-through; I think the article meets FAC criteria now. Sasata (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, in my experience, if the article title is under the scientific name, this name is given first in the lead, followed by the common name
    Done.
  • suggested lead links: hybrid, variety, threatened
    Done.
  • "at the edge of the ultimate blade segments" I suspect that many who read this might not realize "ultimate" here means "terminal" or "end", could one of those words be substituted?
    Er. I'm not sure I'd quite say "terminal" here in place of "ultimate", as that carries for me additional connotations of "apical" (but perhaps I'm wrong). "Ultimate segment" is also the term that was used by Paris (1991). The essential problem is that what many manuals call "pinnules" aren't really pinnules due to some odd leaf architecture, and I wanted an accurate term to describe them as a group. I've overhauled the first part of the description again to try to describe it in conventional terms (pedately divided into pinnae and those pinnately divided into pinnules) and, after that's been established, explain the proper technicalities; does that help gloss "ultimate segment"?
  • How about reorganizing the lead paragraph slightly: the second sentence (describing the close resemblance to the parent species) could be moved down the paragraph and merged with the sentence "A. viridimontanum is difficult to distinguish from its parent species in the field." which would place these similar thoughts together and trim some minor repetition that currently exists.
  • are we sure that the "western" and "northern" maidenhair ferns are not capitalized? I'm not sure what the capitalization conventions are for WP:Plants, and our articles on these species are inconsistent
    There's a WP:LAME battle between the MOS obsessives and the birders right now on the subject, but the overall trend seems to be towards non-capitalization.
  • why does the article switch between Latin and common names throughout? This should be consistent. I think the scientific should be preferred (it's the article title, and is shorter)
    Cleared out. I used "western maidenhair" once in the taxonomy section because I didn't want to refer to it by a term that would have been anachronistic at the time of the events described.
  • "the botanist Cathy Paris"
    Done.
  • "the western maidenhair constituted a separate species" -> "was a distinct species"
    Done.
  • "Individual plants seem long-lived, and new individuals only infrequently reach maturity." I don't quite get this …the plants live a long time, but usually plants don't live very long?
  • link frond, chestnut (color)
    Done.
  • "Its fronds range from 30 to 75 cm (12 to 30 in) in size." what aspect of size? Length?
    From base of step to tip of leaf. Done.
  • other than "medium-sized" there's no indication of the overall size of the plant. Does the source indicate what range it considers medium-sized?
  • "The rachis appears to fork into two outward- and backward-curving branches" Why "appears to", rather than just "forks"?
    Eliminated in rewrite of description section.
  • make sure all short form binomials have a non-breaking space to avoid unsightly line breaks
    Done.
  • any meaning lost by replacing the jargon word globose with spherical?
    Looking at descriptions of spores in general (fern, fungal and otherwise), there does seem to be some technical distinction between the two terms, although I'm not sure I could tell you exactly what it is. (I suspect globose implies a slightly greater irregularity than spherical does.) As it's linked, I'd prefer to leave it.
  • ""Successful identification of individual specimens, therefore, must depend upon simultaneous consideration of a number of qualitative and quantitative characters." Shouldn't normally give a quote without clearly attributing it in the text, but I don't think anything would be lost by rephrasing this particular quote in your own words.
    I've dropped the quote. The original intent was just to underscore how (even in the opinion of the experts on the species), field identification was quite hard.
  • "Another distinguishing character is …" A distinguishing character has not yet been mentioned in the prior paragraph, so "Another" doesn't work here
    Done.
  • link morphologically
    Done.
  • is it possible to include a citation to the Fernald's paper that reports the discovery of the fern's disjunct distribution?
    Done by Casliber.
  • link for "biosystematic analysis"?; sensu lato; Anthropogenic; asexual reproduction; bedrock; conservation
    Done (sensu lato now has an earlier occurrence in the article and is linked there)
  • image captions should not have a fullstop if not a complete sentence (see range map)
    Done.
  • NatureServe citation should include when the website was last updated
  • author format not consistent: compare "Cobb, Boughton; Farnsworth, Elizabeth; Lowe, Cheryl" and "Zika, Peter F.; Kevin T. Dann"
  • book title of Dann 1985 is not given in title case (unlike Cobb et al., 2004)
  • are none of the listed external links worthy of being cited in the article?
  • have you tried contacting [http://www.uvm.edu/~plan
I've added a date for NatureServe. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like the references are all consistent now. Ucucha (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did the GA review for this article and did some further copy-editing during this FAC. I think it now meets the criteria, and almost all of the other reviewers' comments have been resolved. Ucucha (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • What does the "1993+" in reference 4 mean?
    See FNA's How to Cite page. I think they mean that FNA as a whole is published from 1993 forward. Since the citation to v. 2, I've changed it to 1993.
  • Spotcheck:
    • Cathy (1993) is used to cite a sentence about the position of the sori being a synapomorphy for Adiantum, but does not use the word "synapomorphy" and calls the things sporangia, not sori. I don't think we should be using precisely defined terms like "synapomorphy" when the sources don't do it.
      I think the latter point is a distinction without a difference, e.g., I have another paper from Lu et al. on phylogeny of Chinese Adiantum that states "the genus is defined by...the 'false indusium' with sori borne along the apical part of veins on the underside of the sharply reflexed leaf margin." I've changed it to match Paris, however.
    • I corrected something cited to the wrong page, and several other problems with this source.
    • Most other sources seem good; the nominator might want to go through the sources once again to check that everything is correctly cited, but I don't think there are major problems.

When these and Sasata's comments are resolved, I'll be happy to support. Ucucha (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My replies have been interspersed. Working on the remaining comments. Choess (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Just a couple of comments; I have no botanical background, so this is from the perspective of a general reader. Overall I think the text is quite dense with technical terms but not unreasonably so given the subject matter, with one exception noted below. I will be glad to support on prose once the second and third points below are addressed.

  • You link to pinnae, but that's a dab, and the relevant subsequent link is frond, which is already linked. I'd either link straight to frond or unlink.
  • The discussion of the pseudopedate nature of the fern is enormously confusing for a layman such as myself. I looked around for a diagram and found File:Adiantum pedatum pseudopedate.png, but it's not that easy to follow either. I almost think you should drop the term "pseudopedate"; it seems to be defined by reference to these ferns, so it doesn't actually explain anything to introduce it early in that paragraph. It could be given at the end of the paragraph. I understood the whole paragraph after reading it two or three times, but if there were a diagram that clarified the points that would be very helpful -- in particular the point about the reason to say "ultimate segments" suddenly became clear once I got the point, and a diagram might have gotten me there more quickly. I will support without the diagram but I think somehow this paragraph needs to be a little clearer, even if it's just moving "pseudopedate" to the end.
  • "Green Mountain maidenhair is one of only five taxa (four species and a variety) recognized as strictly endemic to serpentine when they occur in eastern North America": I couldn't quite follow this; I think the "when" is what's confusing me. Can you clarify? What's the antecedent for "they"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unlinked "pinna", as there seems to be no article about this meaning of the word, and the dab page doesn't add to this article. I think Choess revised the article's text to address your other two comments. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • Redirect review needed-- for example, Green Mountain maidenhair fern is a red link. The article switches early to referring to the plant as "A. viridimontanum"-- I'm unsure if A. viridimontanum should be un-redlinked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've redirected the former as well as a couple of variants. Referring to an organism by an abbreviated name is common, but it always done only after the full name has been mentioned (with a few exceptions, such as E. coli), so I don't think a redirect is necessary. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments technical issues only.

  • Dab link - pinna.
  • Instead of just linking ulltramafic, link all of ultramafic rock.
  • You convert " 30 to 75 cm (12 to 30 in)" but then stop doing such conversions to Imperial units, why?
  • For a non-expert, or someone unfamiliar with a map of New England and Quebec, the map is sorely lacking in worldwide context. Perhaps the caption could be improved to help here.
  • You have CPC and USDA in the external links, what do they mean?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dab link is gone, CPC and USDA are unabbreviated, and ultramafic rock is fully linked. The measurements are all very small, so that imperial measurements aren't that useful (perhaps with the exception of the 9.5–22.5 mm for the pinnules). I don't tend to convert such small measurements either. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've added context to the map caption. Ucucha (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:09, 18 January 2012 [17].

Psilocybin[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound associated with "magic mushrooms", was introduced to popular Western culture after the work of characters like Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann, and counterculture icon Timothy Leary. The drug has an interesting history, but is still relatively poorly characterized owing to decades-long legal restrictions placed on its usage. I've been working on this article off and on for almost 4 years; in that time several other editors have helped the improvement process by offering reviews, critical commentary, and image-improving skills. Consequently, I think the article is now ready to be reviewed by the larger community, and I look forward to the further article improvements the FAC process will bring. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments by Jim You've put in a great deal of work into this interesting article, just a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've delinked two countries that had been missed
  • "altered" twice in para 1 lead
  • OCD link seems odd, excluding "disorder" from the link and then getting to it via a redirect.
  • I think it would be clearer to divide "History" more precisely as "To 1800" and "Modern". Seems odd there is nothing from 1800 to 1957
  • There is additional history that could be mentioned, but the real history of psilocybin (as a drug, rather than as a mystical component in the mushroom) begins in the 1950s after it was first isolated, identified, & synthesized. I'd like to avoid adding too much length to this section, as the amount of literature available on the subjects probably warrants an eventual daughter article History of psychedelic mushrooms. Personally, I like the fuzzy timeline demarcated by the subheaders "Early" and "Modern", but let's see if other reviewers have thoughts about how this section is structured. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mycoflora" and "mycelial" should be linked at first occurrence
  • The Marsh Chapel image and the tentative link to psychedelia via the alleged mandala seem inappropriate to me
  • Hmm ... maybe. I'd like to hear what other reviewers say before I remove the image though. I don't see it as too out of place in a section about "Mystical experiences" that discusses the Marsh Chapel Experiment—the same Mandala was observed by the participants in this study. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also a bit unsure about it - WP:IUP#Content says that images should "be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter" and "In general ... depict the concepts described in the text of the article." Although it is a pretty picture, I don't think it improves the readers' understanding and neither is it described in the article. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next image (John Hopkins) breaks a heading, can it be moved?
  • The legal aspects section is all about the US with only token mention of the legislation elsewhere. It doesn't appear to reflect the main article it is linked to
  • For the time being, I've changed the {{main}} template to a {{details}} to address your second concern. Need a bit of time to think about the first concern: most of the early legal history regarding psilocybin mushrooms and later purified psilocybin was US-based, so some emphasis is justified. I'll see if I can tweak the presentation for better balance. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mandala issue isn't a big deal, and I'm happy to let others decide one way or the other. Other issues resolved, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support Jim. Unless someones expresses a desire for the Mandala image to remain, I'll remove it by the end of the FAC. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manadala image has been removed. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by J Milburn

I've been looking forward to seeing this here.

  • The opening sentence isn't quite right; I think there will be a simpler way to say what you're trying to
  • "thousands of years in prehistorical murals and rock paintings" Rephrase?
  • "used by man in religious" I hate to say it, but that's probably not PC
  • It's a term used in the sources, but could you clarify the un-PC aspect of this—I really don't get it. I could change to "spiritual" (another term used in the sources), is that word PC? Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "man"- perhaps we should aim for gender-neutral language? J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed this one to "humans", but will leave the next one for now (per the sources; will not revert if someone is offended and changes to more PC term). Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Indians of Mesoamerica" Again (sorry)
  • It's from the source (published in 2010) ... is it really not PC if I use the term "Indian" to refer to a historical group of people that lived from 50–500 years ago (a name by which they are commonly referred to in the literature)? Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've personally got no objection to either of these things I've pointed out, I just know people get very uptight about using the exact "right" term. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Seeking the Magic Mushroom)" An article title would be in speech marks?
  • I wonder about the fact that the legality in the US is discussed in the history section, but then, further down, you talk about EU countries tightening regulations. Perhaps (if the US was the first) you should add something about how other nations followed suit, perhaps with a few specific examples?
  • Will get back to you about this (See answer to Jim above). Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a problem with this method is that psilocybin dephosphorylates to psilocin prior to analysis," it does what?
  • "Various chromatographic methods have been developed to detect psilocin in body fluids: the rapid emergency drug identification system (REMEDi HS), a drug screening method based on HPLC;[74] HPLC with electrochemical detection;[72][75] GC–MS;[74][76] and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry.[77]" This line is pretty devoid of links, meaning that someone who doesn't know the subject is going to struggle.
  • I added several links to this section and simplified some prose. All of the chem words in this sentence are either linked here or in the previous paragraph. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within 0.5 min of analysis." 30 seconds?
  • Changed to "within about half a minute of analysis time." Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the caption, is there not a better way to do "Source:[88] via[89]"? Could it not be condensed to one footnote, and placed at the end of the caption as usual?
  • I removed one, it was redundant. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come another time. This really is an impressive article. J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, continuing where I left off, and I promise no mention of political correctness.

  • "Based on studies using animals," It seems odd to have just "animals" wikilinked- how about linking "studies using animals"?
  • "Open-eye visual hallucinations are more common" Than what? Than closed-eye? That seems counter-intuitive
  • "A 2005 magazine survey of club goers in the UK found that nausea or vomiting was experienced by over a quarter of those who had used hallucinogenic mushrooms in the last year, although this effect is caused by the mushroom rather than psilocybin itself." Tense switch.
  • There is a tense switch, but I think it's ok here—the first clause reports on results of the past, the second states that these results can be attributed to something that is ever-present. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with other drugs or with alcohol" Alcohol is another drug
  • The "mystical experience" section is entirely based on these experiments; while they most certainly have a place in it, I'd want to see some discussion about its actual use in religious/spiritual endeavour- I assume there are examples of this in the modern age? This strikes me as something of an omission. (Further down, you mention "In modern Mexico, traditional ceremonial use survives among several indigenous groups, including the Nahuatls, the Matlazinca, the Totonacs, the Mazatecs, Mixes, Zapotecs, and the Chatino." I'd love to see more of this type of information included. I'm imagining the most enlightening materials will come from anthropologists of religion- I know a tutor in my department is actually published in this area, though I don't think the hallucinogens he's written on are psilocybin based.)
  • I could add a paragraph at the beginning of the section summarizing current "spiritual" or "divinatory" uses by indigenous cultures. Again, there's more that could be said about this, but I have to resist the urge to add too much extra material that would be better placed in the Psilocybin mushroom article. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a great addition. I appreciate the distinction you're making between the two articles, but it seems very odd to discuss mystical experience, and then only talk about some experiments conducted in some US universities. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, a "see also" type link at the top of the section would work. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a short introductory paragraph to mention ancient and current indigenous usage with psilocybin mushrooms, which I think serves well as a segue into the more detailed exposition of "experimentally derived" mystical experiences with purified psilocybin. Let me know if you think it needs more (keeping in mind that I promise to cover this topic more fully in other articles). Sasata (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another area that the article doesn't seem to cover- what precisely is the role of the chemical in the mushrooms? Why do they have it?
  • Nobody really knows for sure. I've seen a few "fringe" theories (e.g., psilocybin is a visionary drug put in the mushrooms by aliens who wanted us to be able to communicate with the spirit world-paraphrasing from Terrence McKenna) but Smartse's source below was the best WP:RS I've seen that offered a reasonable scientific explanation for its existence. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a look for this info recently (see the first point here) and subsequently this was added. I've had another search again and can't find anything further. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a brilliant article- very impressive. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from J Milburn, providing the source checks etc. are all good. I've had some more thoughts on the religious usage issue; I would have advocated a far longer discussion of it, but I've realised that your way is more suitable. Equally, discussions about smoking culture probably wouldn't belong in an article on nicotine, and the discussions on the links between cannabis and Rastafarianism wouldn't belong in an article cannabinoids. This article is very well written and researched, answers all the key questions on the topic (bearing in mind that there are obviously a lot of related articles, and that the topic is specifically the chemical) and seems comprehensive. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks kindly, glad you like the article! Sasata (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Looie496 I did the GA review for this article a month or two ago, and tried to do a thorough job of checking that it was comprehensive, clearly written, and verifiable using the cited sources. My main concerns remaining after the review were a few passages with imperfect neutrality, and some usage of non-MEDRS sources in the medical section. Both of those concerns have been resolved by changes that have taken place since the review, and I am happy to support the article for FA in its current state. Looie496 (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Looie, your GA review helped push it in the right direction. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Smartse I did a review between GA and here and after that and the above, there is nothing that can be improved upon further. SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support and again for the thorough pre-FAC review. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone reviewed the images yet? Ucucha (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Everything other than File:Psilocybe.mexicana.jpg is completely fine from a copyright perspective, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks JM, I've swapped the P. mexicana pic for one with clear licensing, and added a reference to the biosynthesis pic. Sasata (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A web-based questionnaire "study"? Is the use of sourcing here compliant with WP:MEDRS? Web-based questionnaires are pretty much ... good for nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, I included this source because it is covered in the van Amsterdam et al. (2011) review (one of the major sources for this article). Plus, I think the usage complies with MEDRS guidelines: I'm clearly stating what kind of study it is (so the reader can make an informed choice about study validity), and giving the n, so reader knows how large the study was. I could remove that particular citation and cite it instead to the review, but it seems to me that the reader would benefit more by being able to click the pmid/doi link and see the primary source themselves ... I will remove though if it is absolutely untolerable to have this study listed in the refs :) Sasata (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, if it's covered by a review, that's good-- I'm going in for a closer look now :) It should be cited to the review, though (you could cite both). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I doubled up the citation for that one. Sasata (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had a new look, and I'm sorry to be a bug, but MEDRS is my backyard :) I see some things that may need clarification-- they could be similar to the above, where they are actually covered by reviews but you cited the primary source instead-- we need the reviews. Here's an example, cited to laypress:
  • In 2011, Griffiths and colleagues published the results of further studies designed to learn more about the optimum psilocybin doses needed for positive life-changing experiences, while minimizing the chance of negative reactions. In a 14 month followup, the researchers found that 94% of the volunteers rated their experiences with the drug as one of the top 5 most spiritually significant of their lives (44% said it was the single most significant). None of the 90 sessions that took place throughout the study were rated as decreasing well-being or life satisfaction. Moreover, 89% reported positive changes in their behaviors as a result of the experiences.[14]
Is that a primary study? Is it covered by a review? We don't cite to laypress on medical statements. I'm seeing glowing appraisals of the psychedlic that are based on unscientific or unreviewed primary studies, when there are 72 reviews for psilocybin listed at PubMed-- I'm glad you're heavily citing a 2011 review (Amsterdam, et al), but concerned that there are other uses of primary and lay sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy don't apologize, I expected nothing less! I've spent quite some time deliberating of the use of these sources (see the GA review and the talk page). Of the 72 Pubmed reviews, most either cover the drug peripherally, or are somewhat dated and don't cover recent developments (remember that research with psilocybin has only really picked up in the past 5–10 years or so). The 2011 study is quite recent, so not enough time has passed for it to be covered in a review. However, it was performed by the Griffiths et al. group at Johns Hopkins who are known for their rigorous scientific methodology pertaining to testing psychedelic drugs (see note #5 and commentary in the "Mystical experiences" section). Again, if it's not appropriate to have this recent study included in the article, I can comment it out and reinstate it later when a review comes out. I included the citation to the Johns Hopkins press release because it's freely accessible, includes interesting quotes from the researchers, and does not distort the results of the study (imho obviously), but again, I can remove this citation if you think if negatively affects neutrality. Sasata (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, I could drastically trim this final paragraph to a summary sentence or two and tack it on to the end of the preceding paragraph; this way it would still be mentioned, but with less WP:UNDUE? Sasata (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a cable repairman here, and am on dialup while he works to set up my whole house, so I may not get to this before the blackout <grrrr .... >, but your explanation above looks good ... could you cite the actual study, and then link to the laysource (on the press release), using the laysource parameter of cite journal? You can find samples on Autism or Asperger syndrome. My main concern is that unscientifc sources give glowing reviews to the psychedelic (web-based surverys, ugh)-- do scientific peer-reviewed sources have nothing else to say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done as you requested with the Griffiths 2011 citation (didn't know about the lay parameters, learned something new). I understand your reservations with the questionnaire study, but think of the practical difficulties the researchers would have otherwise had in extracting information about illegal drug use from 500+ people! The 2011 review focuses on the harm potential of psilocybin and thus does not delve into potential medicinal and therapeutic benefits of the drug, and unfortunately there aren't any other reviews that are new enough to discuss the recent studies on mystical experiences. Sasata (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still working my way through it, worried about (things such as) the statement sourced to:
  • ^ Strassman R, Wojtowicz S, Luna LE, Frecska E. (2008). Inner Paths to Outer Space: Journeys to Alien Worlds through Psychedelics and Other Spiritual Technologies. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press. p. 147. ISBN 9781594772245.
Is there not a more ... neutral ... peer-reviewed source for that statement? Since I don't have journal access, I'd feel more comfortable here if Casliber or some WT:MED folks reviewed for MEDRS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the title (and cover art) are ... provocative. However, the primary author of the book, Rick Strassman, is a reputable psychedelic researcher. Also, I think the statement cited is uncontroversial—it just lists the therapeutic indexes of three drugs to compare them. That said, I could find a different source. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you access the three follow-up letters at PMID 17382831 ?
  • Yes, the study was somewhat controversial. Other researchers complained about: the ranking of alcohol (x2); the ranking of tobacco; and the subjective nature of the methodology. None of these letters mentioned the low harm score assigned to psilocybin. Should I mention in the text (or a footnote) that at least one other researcher questioned the methodology? Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On PMID 14578010 (a 2002 review), I only have access to the abstract, but it uses words like "growing problem" and "growing capacity for abuse", but I find nothing from that source to this effect in the article?
When this review was written, psilocybin mushrooms were still legal (or quasi-legal) in many European countries, and could be purchased over the internet and at smart shops; psychedelic mushroom abuse was a growing problem at the time. Recent revisions to drug laws have curbed this. This info is in the article (briefly in the History section and later in Social/Legal section). Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PMID 21036393 is not a review, and based on the number of follow-up letters listed, was it controverial?
  • Any publication that attempts to assign criteria for drug harm (to inform drug law policy makers) is bound to be controversial, or at least result in prolonged discussion and debate; this 2010 paper has already been cited 44 times. I've read these responses, and while there is general argument over the criteria used to rank illegal drugs, there is no specific mention that the low harm ranking of psilocybin is controversial. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a more thorough check here for MEDRS issues, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for all the feedback, Sasata-- it's clear you've done your homework, and I'm sorry for so many questions (partly resulting from me not having access to the sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite ok, I'm enjoying this! I'm committed to making this article as good as it can be—within the obvious restraints imposed by the Wikipedia format :) Familial duties call now, so I won't be back until after our involuntary protest. Sasata (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:09, 18 January 2012 [18].

New York State Route 319[edit]

Nominator(s): Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC) and TMF[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after the failing FAC back in 2009, and help with User:TwinsMetsFan who practically redid most of the article, and is no longer active with Wikipedia unfortunately, this version of the article is much better than the one that I tried nearly three years ago. It has since met the U.S. Roads project's criteria for A-class, and hoping this time around, the results can be much improved over last time. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disamb. links and alt text good. Seems like you have some dead links though... --Rschen7754 01:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done two of the three. A quick explanation on the law citation. The state does not let you link any further than the front page, so if people WP:AGF and go to the Highway Law, Article 12, Section 341, you'll find the actual text being cited. I'd link to that but I am unable to. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed the article for the A-class review and believe it meets the criteria. This was back in 2010, but the article hasn't changed substantially since then. --Rschen7754 01:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Fredddie

(edit conflict) I reviewed this at the ACR level last year, but since then I've become a better reviewer, so I'll give it another pass. –Fredddie™ 01:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  1. You can barely see the outline of New York state in the map. I'll look at it once I'm done reviewing.
  2. The second mention of Preston (hamlet) could be reduced to "the hamlet".
  3. I believe, since you're talking about the city government of Norwich, you want to say City of Norwich. Also happens in infobox.
  4. Is there a pertinent article to which we could link from "maintenance swap"?
  5. Is the Chenango County section of 319 still called CR 10A? It should read "The Chenango County-owned section of NY 319's former routing is known now as County Route 10A (CR 10A)."
Route description
  1. I don't think you have to link to Hamlet (New York) again. I'll defer to someone else's opinion, though.
  2. "...as it entered the city of Norwich and became West Main Street." How do like switching "and became" to "along"?
  3. You should change "residential and commercial establishments" to "residences and commercial establishments". I know I'd never want to live in a residential establishment...
N&P Tpke
  1. 4.86 and 0.22 miles seem overly precise for 1907. Personally, I'd round those to the nearest quarter mile. I use fractions for this, but I'm aware some people don't like fractions in articles.
  2. I heard rumors that there is a new capital expenditures function of the {{Inflation}} series of templates. I'm not sure it's ready yet, but if it is, I recommend switching to that calculation.
    1. Not actionable at present. –Fredddie™ 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Designation
  1. "One of these highways..." is vague. You should take the middle three sentences of the first paragraph here and combine them into two sentences for clarity.
  2. When was ownership of NY 319 slated to be transferred to Chenango County?
Post-designation
  1. I would round the coversions down to the whole foot (29 and 71). I'd also change to the adjectival form since 29-foot-long is the adjective you want. {{convert|29|ft|m|adj=mid|-long}} → 29-foot-long (8.8 m)
  2. Does the new bridge handle 1154 cars per day, or is that the old bridge?
Major intersections
  1. Section looks good.
Refs and ELs
  1. These are not my forte, so I'll let others handle these.
Overall comments
Looks good. Fix these few things and I'll support. –Fredddie™ 02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardoning the capital expenditures questions and the link to maintenance swap, I have fixed everything to the best of my ability. Also, the citation from 1907 gives 2 decimal point precision. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 02:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. True to my word, I support this article for FA. –Fredddie™ 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't include ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes
  • FN 2: page(s)?
  • Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources, like Google Books
  • Compare formatting on FNs 21 and 22
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher location. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed for you I hope. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That small box which is linking to the related portal has made a lot of whitespace, you should put that above the "References" section:
{{Portal|New York Roads}}
==References==
{{Reflist}}
--Z 05:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it below, its going to add more whitespace putting it above. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 05:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. Found an excuse to get a see also section in there. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 05:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this for FA:
  1. Could some more desciptive information about the route's surroundings be added to the first paragraph of the lead?
  2. In the lead, mention where CR 10A currently runs from to from.
  3. NY 990L still exists, so "Main Street continued east of NY 12 as NY 990L" should be in the present tense.
  4. "This section of the turnpike was accepted into the state highway system on July 22, 1911", can another word be used instead of accepted?
  5. The sentence "Designated as NY 319,[1] maintenance was handled by the New York State Department of Transportation west of the Norwich city limits and by the city of Norwich within the city." sounds awkward.
  6. The sentence "The transfer would be made upon completion of this section of NY 23." sounds redundant to previous information. Dough4872 03:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is long enough already on number one, plus the route hasn't existed for 28 years. I've done the rest of the ones expect for number two, which is already implied in the lead. As for number six, I've removed it, however, I added it because of a previous FAC comment and not really happy about that. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article looks good now. Dough4872 04:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Comments by  VC 
  • Lead:
    1. Paragraph 1, sentence 1: I would wikilink Chenango County and New York separately.
    2. P2S4: I would be a little more direct and change "maintenance of NY 319 was handled" to "NY 319 was maintained by." Put NYSDOT in parentheses after the wikilink and use the acronym throughout the remainder of the article.
    3. P3S1: As it is, this sentence has too much unspecific detail for the Lead. I would mention when the swap was approved by the legislature. Otherwise, I would get rid of the sentence.
    4. P3S5: Redundant because the city has always maintained the section inside the city limits. You can say the portion in the city of Norwich became an unnumbered street, but that may be too much detail for the Lead.
  • Route description:
    1. P1S3: "NY 319 continued to climb in elevation" According to Ref 4, the highway descends to cross a creek before climbing again.
    2. P1S4: "From here, the route descended into a valley separating two large hills with peaks approximately 1,800 feet (550 m) above sea level." I would move the wikilinked "sea level" to after the first elevation you give. I would remove this sentence because those two hills are on the same ridge line as the hill that has the cemetery.
    3. P1: Because you mention Gilmore Brook in the History, you should mention it in the Route description to give the reader context.
    4. P1S5: "East of the hills": I would reword because the highway intersects CR 19 and enters the town of Norwich on the descent.
    5. P2S1: This is repetitive with the last sentence of the previous paragraph. I would remove one of the sentences.
    6. P2S2: Change "At the base of the valley" to "at the bottom of the descent"
    7. P2S3: You mention the maintenance regime of NY 319 in three places: here, the Lead, and the History. To avoid being overly redundant, I would remove this instance.
    8. P2S4: "passed a mixture of residences and commercial establishments" Mention some specific notable establishments to add color. For instance, the route passes the Emmanuel Episcopal Church Complex. The highway's terminus was within what is now the Chenango County Courthouse District. The county courthouse is located at the northwest corner of the terminal intersection. The district was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1975, before NY 319 was decommissioned. There should be references you can add to corroborate the existence of these historic sites along the route.
    9. P2S4: "Intersecting with NY 12...NY 319 ended here" I would mention in the fourth sentence that NY 319's terminus was at NY 12. Then you can eliminate a somewhat awkward four-word clause at the start of the next sentence.
    10. P2S5: "NY 990L, a partially unsigned reference route maintained by NYSDOT." Two things here. First, I would change "unsigned" to "signed" because this route is an exception to reference routes not being signed. Second, if NY 990L is entirely state-maintained, I would mention the route is entirely within the city of Norwich for the sake of contrast, because state maintenance for city streets is unusual.
  • History
    1. P2: If you are able, can you identify where the 0.22-mile section was in relation to the 4.86-mile section?
    2. P4: There is no date anywhere in the second paragraph of the Designation and removal section. When was it decided to perform the maintenance swap? When did the new portion of NY 23 begin construction? Most importantly: What is the date on the New York State Highway Law that is quoted?
  • References
    1. Ref 2: Page numbers should be added to the references to reflect citations to NY 23 and NY 990L within the article.
    2. Ref 5 is mostly redundant with Ref 4 and may be used incorrectly. For citations 5a and 5c, the linked map does not differentiate between state and city maintenance. Can you clarify how you know the highway was maintained by the city within the city limits? If you can make a reference to the fact that "cities in New York maintain their own roads," that would be good enough. For citation 5d, CR 10 is not marked on the map. Ref 5 is correctly used for citation 5b.
    3. Ref 10 should cite pages 232 and 233.
    4. Ref 11 has a retrieval date of 2010. Are the numbers in the article updated for 2012 figures automatically?
    5. Ref 16: Include the article number, subsections, and subsubsections to direct us to the relevant passage, since we have to use a self-guided tour to get to the information.
    6. Ref 21: Add a link to the specific webpage to make it consistent with ref 22.
I will copyedit and check for wikilink consistency later.  VC  20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything done but the last one of the lead, citation 11 (a template mess I cannot handle myself), the Citation 5 mess (I don't even know what you're asking me to fix) and the non-given dates of the source to when, besides upon completion. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out all comments that you have fully addressed. The others either have not been addressed or only partially addressed. I will start with your comments immediately above:
  • "the last one of the lead": Do you have an objection to my suggestion?
  • "the Citation 5 mess (I don't even know what you're asking me to fix)": I would like you to explain how you use Ref 5 to support that the portion of NY 319 within the city of Norwich was city-maintained. Also, I would like you to explain how you support the mention of CR 10 when CR 10 does not appear on the map (did I miss it?) used for Ref 5. For the latter, I offered an alternative, namely that you can state "cities in New York maintain their own roads." Both of us know this fact, but you would need a reference to support that contention because that is a statement people would question. I might have been wrong in saying Ref 5 is redundant with Ref 4, because citation b for Ref 5 is supporting something (the existence of NY 990L) that cannot be supported by Ref 4.
  • "and the non-given dates of the source to when, besides upon completion": I did a quick search for legislation that would have changed New York State Highway Law Article 12, Section 341.8.2 and found nothing. You know the resources better than I, so can you take another stab at it? While I do not feel the article is comprehensive without the date of legislation, if getting this information is impossible, I will not withhold support for something that is unactionable. However, I need for you to state solving this problem is unactionable and explain why, for the record.
For the comments that are not struck out that I did not address immediately above, please explain what you did or did not do, why you did not take action or object to taking action, or ask any clarifying questions.  VC  16:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is a good enough explanation to why towards the law. Fixed the rest to best I can. You're going to have to handle the elevation mess (along with Gilmore Brook) or tell me how you want this worded, because its not coming out the way I think you want. As for the .22 & 4.86 mile differences, the larger one is SH 598, the smaller one is SH 598A, the internal designations (ironically those two were commented out in the article.) What's missing from the last sentence of the RD? I fixed everything you suggested. I finished half of the Ref 5 issue, I noticed that CR 10, the route in Preston that darts west, isn't marked, added the next quad to the west to fix it. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the quadrangles do show whether a road is state-maintained or not, and the extents of state-maintenance. See the quadrangle legend. – TMF 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at the maps and control sections are marked and there are arrow markers to indicate ends of control sections. So I think the Ref 5 concerns have been sufficiently addressed.
I wanted you (Mitchazenia) to find a date for the legislation authorizing the maintenance swap. I realized that might be difficult, since it would have occurred decades ago and the records might be hard to find. I was asking you to confirm whether finding that information was actionable or not. The link to the NYSR project subpage would not have been sufficient enough for me because it does not explain why adding the date would have been (un)actionable. Thankfully, this is moot because TwinsMetsFan found an article that provides the date the maintenance swap was approved by the legislature.
I struck out several more comments because they have been resolved. The remaining unresolved comments are things I am going to edit myself and strike out once I am done. In particular, you fulfilled my request to get sources for the historic site and district, but I am leaving that unstruck until I work on the sentence.  VC  03:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some sentences in the Route description and struck out the remaining comments. Once I do a final readthrough and check for wikilink consistency, barring finding other issues that require your attention, I will support accession.  VC  03:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed copyediting the article. While I was doing that, I found two more issues:
  1. There is no article for the hamlet of Scotts Corners, it is not mentioned in the Pharsalia, New York article, and no maps I have seen label it. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names does not list it. For the benefit of readers, on the first mention, can you explain where Scotts Corners is in relation to the nearest hamlet and which town it is in?
  2. Due to the vertical size of the first image (department store), I would switch the first and second images so the History header is not pushed aside.
Once at least the first item is done, I will support.  VC  03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few places that I've seen Scotts Corners used is in the state highway law, which is why I went with that location versus another one. I've added a note specifying where Scotts Corners is in relation to the closest hamlet of consequence, North Pharsalia. That should also imply what town the location is in, since the junction with NY 26 was previously mentioned as being within the town of Pharsalia. As for the image suggestion, whether or not the image pushes the History header aside is going to depend on what resolution a reader is viewing the page at. On a widescreen monitor, it does affect the header location, but once you get away from the widescreen displays and make your way toward, say, 1280x1024 and lower on a monitor or a tablet or netbook, the effect on the History header is less pronounced. Long story short, there's a lot of factors there that's largely out of the editor's control, which makes me lean away from the suggestion. All of that said, the reason that image is there versus any of the others is that the image shows NY 319 when it was still assigned, and I think it makes the most sense to put it in a section that profiles NY 319 as it was prior to 1984. – TMF 05:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source check: Mitch, has there been a spotcheck on one of your past FACs for accuracy in representation of sources and close paraphrasing? If so, please link; if not, still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this even relevant? Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following the question? Since the Halloween 2010 debacle, we've tried to make sure every nominator gets at least one sourcing check-- I can't recall if you've had one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Between February 16, 2010 when Tropical Storm Marco (1990) passed and when M-185 (Michigan highway) was nominated (and later passed) in November 2011, I did not nominate an article at all to FAC. Besides the fact that I've had problems of it in the past, most of this writing is rewritten by now conominator, and this is technically his first FAC. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why was this not brought up on M-185 (Michigan highway)'s FAC? Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not close that FAC, suppose that Imzadi had had a recent check per his other FACs (but I really don't know), and delegates can't catch everything. For that matter, Ucucha may have a different method of checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1 had a spot check on May 30, 2011. Since I had copy edited and re-cited the M-185 article before nominating it, my Brockway spotcheck should have applied to that nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so is it the case that Mitch has not had a source check? That's what I'm reading, want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both me and my conominator, effectively. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check:The only one I see that looks at all funny is the 1966 image, this. The photographer's name doesn't seem to match the uploader. (his mother's?) Is there any chance that he can send an email to OTRS confirming that he owns the copyright? Also, the file description page lists a date of 2008, which is probably when it was uploaded. You should change that to the date this photograph was taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme explain how this happened. I have a Flickr pro account and photostream, I happened to come upon the photo in person, and I used a Flickr mail account, I emailed him, asking if he'd be willing to let us use the photo. He said yes on the condition that we credit his father as the photographer, which is exactly what I did. I responded saying he needs to change the copyright status, which he immediately did, and I went ahead and uploaded it. And now that I look, he's changed the copyright back, I have the mails that document this conversation, and if this photo is going to go away because he changed it back. However, I cannot forward the emails unless you have a suggestion since FlickrMail isn't regular email. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't beat the issue. That's fine. I misunderstood that Sandy wanted a source review and instead did an image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of speeding this along, I'll attempt the beginning of the source check myself, but I'm hitting some roadblocks and could use some help:

  • Text says: "The town of Norwich was created on January 19, 1793, and was originally much larger than it is today" (note WP:MOSDATE#Precise language issue with "today" needs fixing). There is no close paraphrasing cncern there, but the source says that Norwich then included what are today known as other towns. Our "much larger" is unclear (in that it refers to size, not population).
  • I am unable to access either of these sources -- get an error return:
  • 6.^ LaFrank, Kathleen (April 2009). "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Emmanuel Episcopal Church Complex". New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Retrieved January 11, 2012.
  • 7.^ MacDougall, Ellen T. (March 1975). "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Chenango County Courthouse District". New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
  • I can't verify any of the text from this source, but I suspect that's because I'm not reading it right, and just need some help:
  • New York State Department of Transportation (January 2009) (PDF). Official Description of Highway Touring Routes, Bicycling Touring Routes, Scenic Byways, & Commemorative/Memorial Designations in New York State. pp. 14, 35, 66. Retrieved June 9, 2009.
  • Could you please lead me to or quote the exact text from that source that verifies text in this article?

Trying to get this moving, since we are so desperately lacking reviewers to do this kind of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 7 is something with your computer, because it opened for me, it opened in the viewONE program when I loaded it on Chrome. That's not something I can rectify easily. I've adjusted the wording on the Norwich one and replaced the original Citation 6. My co-nominator is working on the last one.Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, it requires the ability to use Java applets in your browser. --Rschen7754 22:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant passages from the 2009 route log are on pages 35 and 66 (pages 39 and 70 of the PDF). Page 35 reads "NY 319 Deleted (7/84)". Deleted is the state DOT's term for removing a designation, so this means that the NY 319 designation was officially eliminated in July 1984. Page 66 reads "NY 990L East Main Street/City of Norwich Arterial from NY 12 to NY 23 – Chenango County." This means that NY 990L is a reference route designation that begins at the junction of NY 12 and East Main Street and follows East Main Street and the "Norwich arterial" (in reality East River Road) to a junction with NY 23. This alignment is confirmed by reference 8, which shows the entirety of the previously described alignment as state-maintained. – TMF 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:09, 18 January 2012 [19].

American White Ibis[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating bird this...from mass population movements, to having oodles of parasites, to changing colour of skin during breeding season. I started by rejigging this article for a new user and going from there. It had a very detailed Good Article review where Thompsma (talk · contribs) went over it with a fine-tooth comb....and I have found some other bits to add since. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments from Jim Hi Cas, lots of good stuff, and the AE looks good to me (you could be the next Rupert Murdoch (: ) but some niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a couple of tweaks, please check
  • Some overlinking, including methylmercury in consecutive sentences, but also others. Please check and make sure link is at first occurence
  • wading links to what the Americans call shorebirds
  • removed "wading" as it creates more problems by its presence than absence, given the different definitions Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the breeding season, the range spans along... — "spans along" sounds odd
  • Central America, and birds gather in huge colonies near water. Outside the breeding period, — "and" seems to be linking an unrelated theme, and I don't like the colonies stuck between the two range bits
  • pirate food away — Is "away" needed?
  • parapatric — link or gloss
  • matte — should this be "matt"?
  • as the inland marshes after usually flooded. — ??
  • Least Concern — why italics?
  • also caused American White Ibises to be more likely to abandon their nest — "nests"?
  • The University of Miami adopted the American White Ibis as the official athletics mascot in 1926,[56] the yearbook called "The Ibis" from that year. — doesn't make sense
  • I was a bit ambitious with the past participle, converted to proper clause now Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • university folklore — I'm happy that you can have native American folklore, but I need reassurance that it's also correct usage for the university
  • I've removed "university" - the actual folklore itself is native american and the uni adopted it Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 appears to be knackered
  • rem doi as jstor link is working fine and we only really need one... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (OR, so ignore if you wish) Ibises in Florida seem quite happy to scavenge along the sides of roads for leftovers, like the Sacreds in Africa and, I think, your local species. Is it really only starvation behaviour? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know - I am familiar with ours here and was looking for proper RS material on it, but couldn't find any. I will add when/if I find as it is something you and I have seen...have found some now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that would be the case, I'll probe around to see what I can find too, but not optimistic. Otherwise, all is good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carcharoth (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead section, this bit needs more explanation: "The two have been classified as a single species." Some reading that will get confused unless you make clearer that some consider it a single species and others consider them separate species. This is one of those instances where relying on the more detailed explanation later in the article isn't enough. Maybe something like "These two species have been classified by some taxonomists as a single species"?
  • I know, weasel words are not normally a good thing, but I think "by some taxonomists/authorities" here is more helpful than nothing Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you name two researchers who "found evidence of interbreeding", you should give the year in the text (of when they published their proposal for one species).
  • Why is the bit about ibises in Native American folklore sourced to a university student newspaper? Surely you can find a better source than that, and surely there is more out there on this ibis in Native American folklore?
  • sigh - couldn't find any other source. Agree we need a better one. Need to think on this one and have a nose around Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking of which, is anything known about the evolutionary history of this ibis? When did the ibises as a whole first emerge in the fossil record. Nothing on this in the article at all. I looked at the Threskiornithidae article as well, and nothing there, so I'm presuming the ibis evolutionary history is not well known or murky. If so, this should still be stated somewhere rather than left out entirely. Presumably the range was larger in earlier times as well - what about during the initial colonisation of North America by Europeans?
  • Yes, I can add something actually. I need to go to sleep in a minute, and will add tomorrow Chesser 2010 tells us the Eudocimus is an early offshoot, while Krattinger's 2010 thesis has ages. I can't get fulltext but have emailed the author as it will be very helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of evolution, while looking for something on that, I came across references to Apteribis, a flightless Hawaiian ibis that is thought to have evolved from this ibis. That is worth mentioning, especially if the standards for inclusion here extend to university mascots...
  • hmmm, not sure. Apteribis is very recent at 200,000 years old, so is much too recent to be integral to discussion of evolution of Eudocimus Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have an article on the practice of 'pirating' food?
  • Some sources refer to this as the New World White Ibis. Should that be a redirect and should it be mentioned in the article?
  • interesting - the only sources which use the term are all those discussing the Hawaiian ibises. I can only guess why they used the term, as maybe because Hawaii is American territory and they want to differentiate, not sure. I'd be happier if we found a bit more generalised use of the name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it OK to have an external links section with only a Commons category template?
  • There may be some external links to add, so it may not be an empty section soon. The Commons category signpost should be in the last section of the article, rather than in a section on its own. Snowman (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another few copyediting passes may be needed: "It has an mostly white plumage"; "the skin of the and legs darkens to a deep pink"; "A study of American White Ibis" (the ... Ibis vs of ... Ibises?); "reduce the birds energy consumption" (apostrophe missing); "American White Ibis are not faithful" (The American White Ibis is not vs American White Ibises are not?); "Breeding success of the" (insert 'The' at start of sentence); "Low and decreasing water levels predict good prey accessibility" (is 'predict' a technical term?); "Males are present around the nest in most of the day" ('for' instead of 'in'); "6 a.m." (I think the manual of style has guidance here); "sex dependent" and "larger sized" (hyphenation); "located on the border Columbia and Venezuela"; "Pumpkinseed island" (second occurrence, capitalisation); "aquatic insects there and the latter" ('there' is superfluous and can be lost); "coexist with the Scarlet Ibis, their diets differed" (tense - coexist versus differed) - I won't have spotted everything, as I wasn't reading slowly enough, so please do get it checked over some more.
  • I got those or ones I couldn't find seem to have been tweaked. I'll be nosing round for some more stuff to add (identified elsewhere on the page) so will keep reading as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I notice that "skin of the and legs" is still there. I'll wait until the material on evolution and folklore are added, as I'm unlikely to support before then. I'll check the changes at that point. One further point: there is text on the predation of the young and eggs, but nothing I can see (after a quite re-scan of the article) on predation of the adults. Presumably there are predators that would take an adult ibis, or is this rare/not covered in sources? Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • dang, got that last one now. I have not come across any specific discussion on predators of adults at all actually... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks good. May take a closer look later, especially if more is added on North American folklore or and presence in the fossil record and evolutionary aspects. Carcharoth (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • added some information on urban foraging, but has been very hard to find reliable sources with any information. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length and wingspan of adult female and male is not given separately, yet other measurements are for male or female. Could be more consistent. Would a table present all these measurements better and include beak measurements? (Northern Bald Ibis has table of beak lengths)Snowman (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description needs to add something about the pink face and blue irises of adults and colours of these in juveniles. Snowman (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am having trouble finding a source mentioning this. Am keeping looking Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a ref for the pink face, but not the blue irises. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now found two papers which go into detail about development of plumage (incl. iris) over time. Information now added, which has required some rejigging for flow, but I think works well now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • consensus is solidifying for this now. I'll double check official lists to see if we still need to add a footnote or something Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source for dimorphism?
  • ref got separated during page rejigging. Now fixed by Snowmanradio Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
  • I want to have them present if possible. Will sort and alert. AFAICT I got 'em all added now to all the books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 7: formatting
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Ranges need endashes, and be consistent about whether they're shortened or not

Images are all good from a copyright perspective, and a lot of them are great pictures. File:American white ibis2.jpg would benefit from Template:Information, if I'm being picky. Also, I've requested that the watermark is removed from File:Eudocimus albus -USA -eating a fish-8.jpg. However, neither of these issues should hold up the FAC. J Milburn (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I left a watermark in an image; however, someone has removed it now. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:American white ibis2.jpg does not have any location information. The photographer would most probably be able to provide missing information. Could these be juvenile Scarlet Ibises or hybrids? I would be inclined not to show this image in the article, because of its inadequate image documentation. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the commons page is a category of Cedar Point, North Carolina, which indicates it'd be exclusively White Ibis territory. The original uploader is still active on dutch wikipedia and I can clarify with him. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC) here[reply]
  • I have traced the edit where the category was added on Commons (it is a red link category), but I have no idea how the editor knew what location to write in. Snowman (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further the birds in "File:American white ibis2.jpg" do look like adult birds, so I think the caption, which says they are immature, is wrong. I think this image should be removed from the article owing problems with the image's documentation Snowman (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No answer yet. I have removed it. It is not as if we are lacking in ibis pictures and each picture should add something to the article Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: "Field Guide to Birds of North America" says that there are feral or introduced Scarlet Ibises that hybridise with White Ibises in Florida. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • found a good secondary source on this, which also has a whole lot of taxonomic detail, now added Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breeding age and longevity in "Description section" are not description and do not belong there. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I aways have trouble with this - I have moved the text to "breeding" which I've renamed "breeding and lifespan". I just came over another fact on the age of turnover of colonies which I can add. My dilemma now is whereabouts in the section the segment of text sits best. I have stuck it at the end for the time being and scanned over the rest of the section, and can't see a place to put it where it doesn't disrupt the flow at first glance. But it might be able to be shuffled in somehow earlier. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not how the subsection on "Parasites" should be part of the section on "Behaviour". Snowman (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • some articles we've renamed the parent section "Biology and behaviour" to encompass the material. I see it as sitting next to "feeding as both are about where the ibis sits in the food chain/web. Would you agree on the renaming of the parent section or do you have another idea? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was some discussion in detail about this on the White Stork, so I am surprised to see this problem recur. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. I would move all the text on parasites to a level 2 heading called "Parasites", similar to the White Stork article. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed it to a level 2 heading, so the heading is in a logical position now. Snowman (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... often in long loose lines or 'V' formations". This could be energy economy during long flying journeys, and the article only hints at possible long flights in the fall when they move inland. It could also mean energy economy during short flights (similar to geese and ducks flying a few miles to a nearby lake or pond). Does "often" mean once a year during the fall or is flying in V formation a daily occurrence, when flying between feeding grounds or between roosting and feeding grounds. More on V flying formations is needed. Snowman (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the main focus of the article was on the increasing frequency of juvenile ibises flying in formation, with rates going up from 17 to over 80% over the season, while over 80% of adult flocks observed in flight flew in formation over the season. The observers believed all flights were of greater than 2 km duration. The article mentions increased aerodynamic benefits but does not go into any detail on this. Have rejigged to give an idea of numbers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A video on Arkive appears to show adults in the breeding season with a blackish colour on the distal half of their beaks, so colour changes of the beak is something worth double checking. Snowman (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is already mentioned in the fifth sentence of the description section, but there is some discussion here and there about the extent of the blackening. I will double check tomorrow but it is very late here and I need to get to sleep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. The all-pink beak is presumably only short lasting. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FA status; nevertheless, it is entirely possible that reviewers will be able to suggest further improvements, which I think will be mostly minor issues. I have tried to be objective; however, I have edited the article and other bird articles and so I have a potential conflict of interest. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Here's some grammar/prose/linking nitpicks from a quicky readthrough. More later. Sasata (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think the article meets FAC criteria. Cas, I checked many other bird FACs, and only a small proportion of them (guessing about 15–20%) have the genus authority included in taxobox for species articles, so if it's a new wp:BIRD convention (tbh, I don't understand why it would be), it should probably be made consistent across the board. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggested lead links: Gulf Coast of the United States, plumage, Atlantic Coast, breeding period, foraging, Reproductive success, extra-pair copulation, nesting; unlink North America
  • "middle-sized" sounds odd to me compared to the usual medium-sized
  • "... affects the hormone levels of American White Ibis, affecting ..." -> tweak to remove repetition
  • why is the genus authority given in the taxobox?
  • link Louisiana, subspecies, hybrids, introduced, enzyme, pigment
  • "have also considered the two to be a single species" -> "also consider" unless they've since changed their opinion about this (similar change in tense throughout paragraph needed if you agree)
  • I tweaked the tense so that two are present and two are perfect tense (the actions they've done which are still valid - which is how one uses perfect tense) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link fledge, wetland, breeding colony, Alabama, mangrove (I see it's linked later), mudflat, estuarine
  • 800 square km -> convert
  • "61% of all nesting starts" shouldn't start a sentence with a number
active tense fixed problem Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • predation should be linked earlier (and is currently linked twice in the same paragraph)
  • what's a willow pond?
  • willows commonly grow in water, so just bodies of water where willows are growing I think....nothing is coming up on google search Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Prey switching
  • "Interestingly, this travel results in the wholesale transport of nutrients across the landscape by the colony, in a successful breeding year the colony at Pumpkinseed Island was estimated to have contributed a third as much phosphorus to the neighboring estuary as other environmental processes." -> Interestingly is not NPOV; I think the second comma should be a semicolon or period; link phosphorus
  • unlink summer
  • "In this last the ibis swings its wide open bill widely in open water." clunky
  • I linked the sentences to smooth it...unless you think the new sentence is too long... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was initially known as Ibis before" Not clear to what the "it" refers
  • Cas, do you have access to Birds of North America online? I did a content review by comparing the wiki article with this source, and there's a few areas that come up short:
  • vocalizations
  • fossil history
  • added - I figured out finally where to put it. Given it's pretty modern, under distribution and habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • historical changes in distribution
  • got most of this - but added an overarching sentence and some bits and pieces. Tricky to know how much detail to go into here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • specific details on flight behavior
  • added -I thought the energy expenditure veered into really specialised/esoteric territory... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • agonistic behavior
  • added. Some material on the page was quite speculative when one reads the sources so is tricky to add, and other refers to the scarlet ibis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • mortality and disease
  • more detailed info on population and demographics
  • a little added, though material from here is sprinkled throughout the article Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • management/conservation
  • I think the article content could be improved (i.e. criteria 1b and 1c) if you could have a look at this resource yourself and expand the bits you thought were appropriate. Please let me know if you can't get access, maybe I can send you screenshots or something. Sasata (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • dang, that was a silly miss on the vocalising, and I can fix that readily today. The fossil history is tricky and I have added a segment to the parent article Eudocimus and meant to nose around a bit more but was musing on where it should go in the species article. If you mean the Cornell University subpages I think I can see all of them. Will go through and see what I can access. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a sample species (thankfully) so can access it fine. Am going through it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making those additions! Now, some more nits:
  • "Drought conditions elsewhere in the United States meaning over 400,000 American White Ibis were breeding there in the 1930s." Something wrong with this sentence
  • "A field study late in the Florida nesting season revealed adult American White Ibis spent 10.25 hours looking for food, 0.75 hours flying, 13 hours resting, roosting, and attending to their nests." can we append "in an average day" or something?
  • journal article titles need to be consistent in usage of either title or sentence case
  • page range format not yet consistent (131–133 vs. 656–58), and I saw at least 1 hyphen where a dash should be (531-32) Sasata (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • dang, the hyphen-dash converter misses refs in the cite doi template. Anyway caught 'em now Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please ping my talk, the usual drill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sandy, who, me or Sasata? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think she meant for me to ping her when I'm done my review (I'll do so now). Sasata (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from PumpkinSky...

My first venture into FAC, excuse me if I misunderstand some rules or standards.
  • Lead: "It occurs from the mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coast"...is "occur" the best word for an animal? This phrasing strikes me as odd. Perhaps something using "is found", "range", or "lives" might be better.
  • Shouldn't ref 8 & 10 have page numbers since it's a book? Isn't that the norm?
  • ref 10 does (p.56) at the end, ref 8 is from a great book I found on google books but it has no page numbers (!!). I think it is the kindle version. Hence I have listed the chapter ("American White Ibis"). Not sure what to do otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 is missing a retrieve date. Aren't web refs supposed to have retrieve dates? Some of your web refs do, some don't. What about books that have URLs such as a googlebooks link (refs 7 and 3 for example)?
  • my understanding is the date isn't needed for journal articles and books, only web-only refs. I added a couple so I think all web-only refs have an accessdate now Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AH, web-only refs require it. I've been putting them in for all web refs, including googlebooks. For me, I'll keep doing so, doens't hurt anything.PumpkinSky talk 11:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a big gap between the URL and period in refs 47 and 48?
  • I'm getting the .pdf symbol between the url and period and no space... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see them now. Must have been a glitch. Last night I was having trouble seeing wiki images.
Prose and images seem good to me.
PumpkinSky talk 02:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Glad to see you took a break from all your Aussie birds to get a Yank bird to FA! PumpkinSky talk 11:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence in the lead is saying:

  • The breeding season range runs along the Gulf and Atlantic Coast, and the coasts of Mexico and Central America.

I thought a breeding season was time, not place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the range during the breeding season (so using "breeding season" as adjectival qualifier to "range" - can abbreviate to "breeding range") Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • Not your problem, but it's Los Llanos, not Llanos-- our redirect, set up in 2004, is wrong, but I don't know how to move over redirect. Llanos is a common noun meaning plains-- Los Llanos is a place in Venezuela, proper noun. Llanos should be a dab page, pointing to Los Llanos (Chile), Los Llanos (Venezuela) and describing Llanos as a Spanish word meaning "plains". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 22:15, 16 January 2012 [20].

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.[edit]

Nominator(s): AstroCog (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been worked on extensively by me for the past year. It has been greatly expanded, and I believe it is comprehensive. It has undergone two peer reviews and a copy edit, plus informal reviews by other editors upon request. Last month, it was promoted to Good Article status. I think it meets the FA criteria, and I am ready to make any adjustments as necessary during this process to bring it up to Featured Article status. AstroCog (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What can I do help the process here? A week has gone by without any comments, while almost all the other more recent nominations have received some feedback. I know everyone's busy, but I'd hate to slip through the cracks. I'm going to post requests on the Wikiprojects, but do any of the active FAC reviewers have some feedback for me? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a brief look. Not enough time to support or oppose, but hopefully it will get things moving. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Great comments. I'm working on some of the issues now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support following comments and discussion below. 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Initial comments made at 00:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Lead: I would put this bit (The series is set in 1893) earlier and in the first paragraph, as that is critical information.
  • Done. Had to rearranged a bit, but I think it actually reads better now. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone from the UK, I'd never heard of this. Is it as obscure as it sounds? Was it never, ever sold to networks abroad?
  • I think it was aired in Australia and Canada, because in my source mining, I saw newspapers from those countries mention it, but nothing substantial enough to include here. I've looked pretty much everywhere, but haven't been able to get additional info on this. Enough time has gone by that it may prove very difficult to find this for other countries. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link Jules Verne - I know it is within a quote, but here the link will be fine. You could also link The Wild Wild West in that quote, but it is linked later anyway.
  • Let's see what other reviewers say. This has gone back and forth during copy edits and peer reviews, and I don't want to change it just to have to revert it back. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear where the sourcing is for the 'Cast' section. You do need some sourcing here. Also, eight bullet points may not be the best way to present this information.
  • This has always been the section I'm on the fence with. WP:TVPLOT allows for a plot description, including character descriptions, with the assumption that the show itself is the source of the information, so citing the show isn't necessary. It could be that I could remove anything too "analytical" from the character descriptions, and work that info into the plot section. Doing this instead of having a separate character section is also allowed by MOS:TV. Would that be an adequate compromise here? AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1 on the name of the show is a bit overdone. You don't need all those examples to convince us.
  • Agreed, and done. I had done that originally to appease a reviewer earlier this year. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 1996 it was being used during coverage of the Olympics" - this would be the Atlanta Olympics? If so, why not link to that article? Or does this include the Winter Olympics as well?
  • Winter Olympics, too. When I watched the last winter Olympics in Vancouver, NBC was still using the music during every commercial break. AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sourcing looks WP:OR-ish. For example, you say "During the broadcast run of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., TV Guide was a frequent booster" - and you source that to what looks like one of the magazine's positive reviews. The question here is who is saying that 'TV Guide was a frequent booster'? You can't just conclude that yourself, you need some source to state that before you can say that in the article.
  • I just removed that bit. It's ironic, because I'm a nit-picker of OR in other articles (like when I do GA reviews), but because I've been editing this one for so long, I miss subtle stuff like that. AstroCog (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a general note, you give extensive quotes to buttress many of the sources. You shouldn't really need to quote as much as you do - that verges on what it sometimes called a quote farm. It matters little whether the quotes are in the footnotes on in the main text, you are still quoting extensively.
  • I'll just take those out. I use a generator for references, and it has a field for "relevant excerpt", which I used quite a bit. I rationalized that it'd help others confirm that the source supports the statements in the article, and didn't seem controversial when I put them in. Doesn't hurt the article to lose them, however. AstroCog (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should provide a source for the title listings and air dates - is this taken directly from IMDb and TV.com, or is it from the DVD release? Which of those three is the most reliable as a source?
  • From the DVD release booklet. I'll get that referenced. I actually thought it was! AstroCog (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Cancellation' section has a bit from Fox with the Sandy Grushaw quote. Did they make an official announcement about the cancellation, or does that not tend to happen? Also, why is the Cuse quote put in an quote box and not used in the main text? The quote box looks more like an image there, and I think Cuse's reaction should be covered in the main text as well.

Overall, the article reads well, and informed me as a reader. The weakest section is the 'Cast' section (unsourced, repeats stuff from elsewhere). My main concern, other than that, is the type of sourcing used. The sourcing appears to be mainly TV magazine reviews and guides from the time or retrospectives, and personal reminiscences and interviews with the producers and cast (as featured on the DVD extras produced). How reliable is that type of sourcing, really? There seems to be little from the Fox side of things. My concerns on that side of things are alleviated somewhat by the use of: Porter, Bartley and Porter, Lynnette (2010); Brooks, Tim and Marsh, Earle (2007); Longworth, James L. (2002) and other academic sourcing (such as 'Journal of Popular Film and Television'). But I looked at this and was distinctly unimpressed - I hope there isn't more of that level of sourcing in this article? What makes 'rci.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/Brisco-County-Jr' a reliable source? It looks to me like a fan website hosted at a university. Who is 'Charles McGrew' (an interview with him is used later as well) and who is being quoted in the 'Besides, we couldn't AFFORD' quote? Is that 'Dean Treadway' or someone else? It is very unclear from that page who is saying what. It looks like a record of a collection of correspondence between a fan and TNT, and some quotes from a USENET newsgroup. That needs sorting before any support is likely. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, apart from the TNT correspondence webpage, I'm not sure which sources you have an issue with. In the process of gathering reference material, I sorted through many other refs, and tried to only the include the ones that had the best quality. The sourcing isn't just from TV magazines and guides, it's from major newspapers and magazines. In the US, TV Guide is a major publication, and in the 1990s, it was (in my opinion) much higher quality than it is today. Hard to find fault with other publications, such as the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Some smaller newspapers are included, but I don't think they are given undue weight versus major publications. As far as the TNT correspondence from the self-published website, I'd like to find a way to keep this. It is only used for one fact - that of the cost of the show. While the website suffers from poor formatting, to me it's clear that this was actual correspondence, and that the quote used is from the network and not the person receiving the emails. As for the interview on the same site, I don't see why that couldn't be included. Again, it's used for just one statement in the article, and it's from an interview with Campbell himself. If these are the worst offenders in terms of refs included, I can live without them, but I'd prefer to leave them. I modeled this article originally after Firefly, an FA for a short-lived series, and that one includes WAY more fan-type and crufty references than this article... AstroCog (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the two 'Charles McGrew' refs and related sentences. Perhaps they can be put back in if a consensus emerges that they are reliable enough. AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have re-read the article and am comfortable supporting now, even though I said I wouldn't have time to do so. The support comes with the caveat that someone should probably do a spot-check of the sources used. I haven't had time to do that. Will try and check back on this, but am trying to disengage from reviewing for the next week or so. Will enter my support above. Hope you get some reviews from others as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jappalang
  • Synopsis
    • While the rules allow direct information from the subject to be used in plot synopsis without citation, analysis such as this, "... later form a partnership based on trust and respect" (determining that their future relationship is based on certain values), would require a secondary source in my opinion.
  • Cast
    • Perhaps it is my personal beef with the structure, but I do not like a bullet list for the Cast. There are also possible original research with "Socrates' milquetoast personality often puts him ill at ease during Brisco's adventures" and "Whip is impulsive and easily provoked" (per the earlier reasoning). Though the following examples are of films, I believe they can apply to television series and would prefer sorting the casting and actor information like Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, American Beauty, or Conan the Barbarian.
    • I've put character info into the synopsis and rearranged the cast info so that it resembles the pages you mention here. AstroCog (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Home Media
    • I do not think it is really appropriate to include Lacey's own opinion of his efforts here, considering that it is an extraordinary claim (in my view) and only himself states it as such. That said, if we cut out this claim, we can merge the first two paragraphs and rephrase the resulting statements a bit to obtain a smoother read of the events on the DVD.
  • Media
    • While File:BruceCampbellUSONov09.JPG is in the public domain and highly detailed, I have a preference for either File:Bruce Campbell2.jpg (if you want the body) or File:Bruce Campbell at FSC (2).jpg (crop it for the face). The spectacles in that USO photograph kind of distracts and the crop of his head does Campbell no justice in my view; furthermore, I believe Campbell's smirk (as shown in the Florida Supercon shot) is sort of Brisco's trademark look.
      • Good idea. I like the FSC picture. I downloaded it and I'll try a crop and upload it later. AstroCog (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, File:TheAdventuresOfBriscoCountyJr TheOrb.jpg and File:BriscoAd.jpg does not comply with WP:NFCC #8. There is no critical commentary about the contents of the advertisement, and one does not really need to see the fictional Orb to get the sense that it was a mysterious object capable of miracles (basically, what it can do is so outlandish that we can imagine anything; if it was based on science, then we might have a case to satisfy our "oh, so that is how it may be able to do that"). Regardless, I could describe the Orb as a golden globe studded with rods.
      • Fair enough. I'm a bit concerned that taking out all these images and quote boxes will make the article just a block of text, though. AstroCog (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like some other editor has restored one of the non-free images to the article. See here. This has happened before, and right now I don't feel like getting in an edit war. AstroCog (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not see his reason ("this one seems appropriate, both in section on showing Fox's original backing of the show")[21] as valid in any way: one does not need the poster to see Fox backed the show, it can be very easily conveyed in words. Personally, I suggest reverting and pointing to this FAC for further discussion; if re-reverted (or alternatively do this straight away), nominate the image at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Randy Edelman - Theme from The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.ogg requires a more detailed explanation (rationale) for why it would comply with NFCC; i.e. it needs to state what this sample is actually illustrating (is it "It was original, and it seemed to have the right spirit. It's got a very flowing melody, it's triumphant, and it has a certain warmth" or "a 'button,' an ending flourish that works really well"?).
      Just noticed that the commentary in the article is from Edelman himself. This does not feel quite right to me then if the only critical commentary on the theme comes from its composer. I think the inclusion of non-free material would be more justifiable if it was based on critiques from secondary sources. Are there no reliable sources that commented on the theme? Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the only commentary I know of. Given that, can we just include it? It comes from the LA Times, quite a major newspaper. The included sound clip illustrates the "flowing melody" part of the description. AstroCog (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless of where it is published, it is still from a primary source (to the music). It does not play well with the preference (or should I say, practice) here of relying on secondary sources. It might be throwing out a strawman, but allowing inclusion of a non-free material just because the author has commentary would open up a can of worms (or perhaps, better to say, establish a can-of-worms-like precedent) in my opinion; every "fresh" artist is going to have samples of all their work just because they talk about it (even if critics say the works are lacking in substance or so common that warrants not commentary at all). Jappalang (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll look for more about this theme. The LA Times itself is still independent of the artist, and the article is about the theme itself, and just happens to include the artist's take on it. I'd prefer to keep the music sample, because it allows a reader to recognize the theme, especially since it's used in the Olympics. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this article has a spike in readers every time the Olympics comes around, because people are googling the music to see where it came from. AstroCog (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the sample helps supports Darling's comments, so after changing its rationale, I see no reason to contest the use of this sample. Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • I do not think reference 65 should be attributed to "IGN DVD" (yeah, I know that is what they brand it, but..). "IGN DVD staff" would be more appropriate in my view.
I am mostly fine with the use of TV magazine reviews and guides (for a cult television series, sources would be more scarce than the mainstream); however, it seems Cinefantastique, which reports many insider news, and other publications are missing (Ultimate DVD may be useful for its report on the DVD release). That said, like Carcharoth, I am wary of using personal correspondences published by individuals of unknown background. They should be treated as self-published sources and a certain expertise and reliance by the industry on their part should be proven. I agree with Carcharoth that the article is well-written, and hopefully all the issues can get sorted out in a reasonably fast amount of time because I like Brisco County, Jr and would be happy to see a quality article on it here. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched Cinefantastique and found nothing on the show. As for Ultimate DVD, I cannot locate a searchable database for the publication, and I have access to every major periodical database. If you have access to the publication and can provide a link to the relevant article, I'll be happy to add it. As I've said, I've searched far and wide - I've gone through every available online periodical database, and have even searched through magazines/newspapers only available in bound volumes and microfiche, and what I've included is about as comprehensive as it gets. There's one or two short reviews I haven't incorporated yet, but if you can point to a specific article from a publication not included here, let me know. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Ultimate DVD may have something on the show (Ultimate DVD; May2006, Issue 75), but I don't have online access to the article. I'll have to do some footwork this weekend to track it down. AstroCog (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found Cinefantastique at the NY Public Library. Unfortunately, Ultimate DVD isn't available here, and isn't available in print or electronic form from any other source I've got. That review will just have to go on the wish-list. AstroCog (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear you might have more to do... looking around... since 1 Oct 93 Brisco has been in the bottom 10 of ratings (late Oxt 93, Jan 94, late Jan 94, mid-Feb 94, early Mar 94); X-Files is a sporadic companion. Instead of cancelling the series quickly per standard practice, Fox decided to go for a full season instead (X-Files too).[22] Fox's Sandy Grushow was openly declaring for Campbell to be the "next TV star" with Brisco when the show started.[23] And Cinefantastique said that Fox was actually thinking that Brisco would be the "break-out show for the fall of 1993" (X-Files was the overlooked second-stringer), but that X-Files became the "hot property" by the end of the season instead.[24] Kenneth Biller was also involved in developing Brisco (note:one sentence mention by Cinefantastique).[25] EW confirmed Brisco as "one of the lowest-rated shows" of the 1993–94 season,[26] and confirms in June 94 that the show was axed.[27] Bruce Fett says Brisco was more violent than Walker, Texas Ranger.[28] McNamara comments about the 8 p.m. timeslot here at EW. In December 2004, Kirthana Ramisetti appealed for the DVD to be produced.[29] Ken Tucker calls it a one-season wonder that was "ahead of its time".[30] There is some information about the sound production of the show on p. 311 of Practical Art of Motion Picture Sound Billboard notes that Edelman's scores that closed the Olympic games won him an Emmy.[31]

    There may be more information that can be mined at these web sources (several of which would definitely qualify as reliable or whose authors are recognized experts): "A Fistful of Geek" from Slant Magazine (quite a lot it seems from this one), "Friday Flashback" from CraveOnline, "Brisco County Jr. Rides Again at Comic-Con, and on DVD" from Home Media Magazine, "One-Season Wonders" at SFX, IGN's interview with Campbell (his thoughts on Brisco), Luke Copping of Auxiliary magazine suggests that Campbell faded after Brisco before redeeming himself with Burn Notice. Jappalang (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • IGN reviews the DVD here, Los Angeles Times has an article on Rutherford (with a few snippets on her Brisco career, including the Garbo-Dietrich image of Dixie). South Florida Sun-Sentinel's version of Rutherford, AllRovi's overview and synopsis for Brisco (if you need sourcing for plot details and such, this could be it). Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, the Railtown 1897 State Historic Park was also used for some scenes;[32] it still has the foam rocks[33] and a perspective painting.(Reed Parsell, "Nostalgia reigns at railroad park", ProQuest document ID: 1010210561) N. F. Mendoza has a short article on Clemenson, "With an Eye on ... Christian Clemenson on the virtues of playing Socrates to 'Brisco', Los Angeles Times, ProQuest document ID: 59493567. Peter Johnson, USA Today (Feb 7, 1994), ProQuest document ID: 4175066, comments about the change in direction in mid-season (more comedy and adventure). I also note that Cary Darling, whose article is currently used as a source, talked about how the show handled black cowboys and that its over-the-top fantasy elements may had been the cause of the show's demise. Those comments are not reflected in the article. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the additional articles/links. It could be that EW has improved its archive since I first looked. I primarily use aggregate databases (Lexus-Nexus, Film and Television Literature, Academic Search Complete, etc), rather than going to each source one by one, and what is in the article is at least comprehensive from those searches. I've done a LOT of googling, using scholar, books, etc and didn't come across a few you mentioned, so I'm glad you pointed them out. I'll incorporate them into the article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few of those EW links just have the ratings info for a handful of Brisco episodes. Ratings info can be best put into the episode table in the Broadcast History section. However, is it worth it to just include the ratings for a few episodes, rather than the whole thing? AstroCog (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the Ratings need to be listed (unless the entire season's are obtained; a partial list invites more consternation than bestows comprehension in my opinion). What I would find useful of those EW ratings links is to lump them up as one reference and use it to cite that since Oct 93, Brisco dropped to the bottom ten of the ratings. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've incorporated pretty much all the EW refs, plus a few others you mentioned above. The other web and blog reviews I'll incorporate later, probably using them as refs for plot and character stuff first and then also in the reception section for the DVD. The ref mentioning Edelman getting an Emmy for his Olympics work isn't specific enough about the Brisco theme for inclusion. He had other material of his used by NBC, so I don't want to claim Brisco as part of that Emmy until the fact has been verified somewhere else (I dug around, and couldn't find much). The EW article where Sandy Grushaw says that he'll eat his desk if Campbell doesn't become a star is unnecessary, since the same quote is used in the article with a different ref. AstroCog (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the two 'Charles McGrew' refs and related sentences. Perhaps they can be put back in if a consensus emerges that they are reliable enough. AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that you have made quite a few changes. I notice some roughness in the language (e.g. the sudden break in subject flow in Production design when the topic suddenly changes from horse sounds to the Orb, the proseline feel of the first paragraph in Home media, etc.). Take care. I think I will re-read the entire article before making more comments. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call it a roughness in language. I just forgot to separate the paragraphs when I put in the new material. It's fixed now. As for the proseline, I don't think it's as bad as you make it sound, but it can be tweaked. Thanks for the other sources. You've gotta be digging in the deep cuts of google to find some of those, because I've spent a year researching refs and never saw the railroad one. As for black cowboys, it's mentioned earlier in the article, and I do give Darling's quote about Brisco being "multiracial" - though I had thought about including his bit about the accuracy of black cowboys. I'm pretty busy right now grading and giving final exams to my college students, so it'll be few days probably before I fully implement some new changes based on this stuff. Also a few days before I can get to the NY public library to dig up old Cinefantastique and Ultimate DVD articles (only available on-site there). You're holding this article to a pretty high standard, but I do appreciate that. I wonder if current FA Firefly would hold up under such scrutiny. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put in a lot of work expanding the article with material from 17 (!) more sources. I've got a small handful other articles with redundant info and nothing new, so it's not worth adding those. Regarding Kenneth Biller, your Cinefantastique link isn't specific enough where to find that one-sentence. I flipped through several issues from that volume. The NYPL keeps those magazines in storage, and they have to be specially requested and read under supervision, so I wasn't about to spend a whole afternoon flipping through every page of a year's worth of Cinefantastique to find one sentence that says Kenneth Biller had something to do with the show. He's not been mentioned in any other source, or by the writers or producers of the show, so I doubt it's worth pursuing. I think I've incorporated everything else, or nearly everything else mentioned above. Let me know how the article is looking now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems (Biller seems more likely to have a very minor role in the writing). I am re-reading the article, so please bear for a bit. Enjoy the holidays. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some more questions:

Synopsis

  • "Clemenson mused, 'The orb was like the black rectangle in 2001, possibly from the future, possibly someplace other than Earth... I have a theory that [the writers] didn't even know and it would be whatever they needed it to be.'"
    This seems needless, especially when the in-story nature of the Orb was revealed near the final encounter with Bly.

Signature show elements

  • "Viewers of the show, living in the modern era, have the benefit of 100 years of hindsight and may be puzzled by the fact that technologies so familiar and useful in the 20th and 21st centuries are not exploited further."
    Are they puzzled that Cuse and gang did not create more stories with "old" versions of new technology or that the Old West did not have such technologies?
    You missed the sentence previous to that, which sets it up. Viewers could be puzzled by the fact that useful technologies discovered/created in the series often aren't remarked on again in later episodes (e.g. "Brisco, I wish we had those motorcycles again!") This is a criticism from the journal article. I don't completely agree with it, because Brisco does use the rocket car again in a subsequent episode, but since there isn't a secondary source counter to it, it would be OR of me to say that.AstroCog (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. It clarifies a lot; I asked because the original statement was very puzzling to me. Would this be a clearer representation? Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot episode

  • This section has a feel of a quote farm; i.e. quotes follow quotes. One way of rectifying this is to pick out common points among the reviewers and present it as a paragraph of its own. For example, it appears that while their overall opinions are polar opposites, David Hiltbrand and Walter Goodman actually raises the same points.
I've re-done and rearranged this section, so that common elements are combined and the structure is more coherent. Many of the quotes remain, though I find that the quote density is not that different from, say, the reception section in Star Trek VI, one of your FA examples. AstroCog (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • It seems to me that the IMDb and TV.com links serve the same content. External links are to provide extra unique helpful content (that cannot be put into the article). There should not be a list of sites that do the same thing. Either IMDb or TV.com should go (the one that has less useful content should be eliminated).
    Agreed. Those links are a relic from before I started editing this article, and I never messed much with that section. AstroCog (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited this section. Looking at the linked pages, the two websites offer slightly different information, which readers may want. IMDB has comprehensive cast and crew information, while TV.com has a decent summary of each episode. I pared the links down to reflect this. AstroCog (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I re-read the article with newly added material, it seems to me that it frequently justify several elements of the show with comments from the primary source (Signature show elements). Sparsely and carefully used, such a style adds flavor and fills gaps. However, if used too often, it introduces the question of bias (WP:NPOV: there is no problem if opinions are presented as opinions and countered or supported with secondary sources); Wikipedia policy advises to base articles on secondary sources to avoid such calls. Can we find opinion or statements from secondary sources to explain why certain parts of the show were done this way or such, rather than to rely on the cast and production crew? For example, Rutherford's own thoughts (primary) are used to describe her character (combining Mae West with Madonna), yet Porter and Porter's (a secondary source) comparison of Dixie as Mae West more than Miss Kitty is missing. It felt a bit odd that Porter and Porter's material, published by a university, is used only twice in this article. Jappalang (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these issues seem fairly easy to address. Before I do a bunch of work on this, though: is this all from your end? I'd like to know where the goalpost is. AstroCog (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards supporting the article; resolution of the above would have my support. Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the change to the reception section, has everything been resolved to your liking? AstroCog (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I thank you for undertaking the endeavor to make the article a comprehensive account of the show. There may be some things that might require polishing but your efforts here (and what already exists in the article) make me confident that the flaws would be few or can be overcome easily. Farewell. Jappalang (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made some more changes based on your feedback, especially with regards to using secondary sources over primary. I also used the Porter and Porter ref a few more times, per your recommendation. I'd say your feedback has really helped make this a much better article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Upon nomination it had some noticeable issues which were pointed out by other users (I was working on my own nomination and couldn't review this one in depth), but since these were resolved, I see no reason why not to support it. In contrast to many other FAC candidates, I found this one to be particularly interesting, informative and easy to read.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SynergyStar: this article reads well, is engaging, and provided a comprehensive picture of this series to the uninitiated reader. Having been more familiar with other works involving Bruce Campbell, it was fascinating to read about this short-lived but worthwhile series.

  • Very minor copy-editing suggestions:
  • All the minor typos have been fixed. Thanks for spotting them! AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a small identifying clause be added after the first instance of "Westerfield Club"? I searched after reading about it, assuming it was an actual building. Maybe "San Francisco's Westerfield Club, a members-only gathering place" etc.
First paragraph of the "Background" section, which is the first mention, already does this.AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that it says "controls from the boardrooms of the Westerfield Club." Just hoping for more detail...using Google found this: [34] "The Westerfield Club, like the Diogenes Club is privately owned and funded by a wealthy elite, yet it also has strong ties to the United States Secret Service and other Intelligence branches. It was created by..." Is this accurate? Perhaps a small summary clause could describe the Westerfield Club a bit more.
None of the article's sources (or any other reliable source I have read) goes into any significant detail about the Westerfield Club. Not even the show details anything about it more than what is said in the first paragraph. The site you found is some OR on a fan website trying to tie The Wild Wild West with Brisco, so I wouldn't use it as a source here. AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, it would be great to have references on international broadcasts. Via Google News, a Canada airing: [35]
  • Getting free-use photos for media productions is difficult, having done them myself before, it's a challenge to balance visual aids and FA requirements/MoS. While the fair-use photo of the Orb was correctly removed, perhaps given the importance that it has in the show's storyline, an external photo could be linked. Also, this Flickr page carries free-use photos of a "Denver Street" Western backlot, which is said to previously be the locale of "Laramie Street". Could it be a relevant photo?
I've searched in vain for a free-use image of Laramie Street. The "Denver Street" photo can't be the same location, since it's on the Universal Lot. Laramie was on the Warner Bros. Lot.
OK, thanks for checking.
  • The movie ranch article could be linked to; it claims that Red Hills Ranch was a Brisco filming location. Do any of the refs confirm that?
It's possible that Red Hills was used, but I don't recall it in any of the refs.AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for checking; found a spot where movie ranch could be linked---"Warner Bros. ranch in Valencia."
  • Versus this earlier article version, the episode chart has been condensed (writers and summaries removed, while actual order added). Is that for simplification or referencing purposes? That style chart has been used for other FA TV articles, such as Supernatural (season 2).
The current episode list is the style used for the FA TV article Firefly. The old one had poorly-written and crufty information. My plan is to take the reliable sources that exist for the episodes and make a separate "List of Brisco episodes..." article, which would justify keeping the current minimalist table.AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, that makes perfect sense. Right now clicking on the infobox's "list of episodes" links to that section, but if a separate article is planned, that would be great.
  • The article reads well chronologically. The final Reception (pilot/broadcast/violence), Broadcast (cancellation), Home media sections include review quotes. Maybe the post-pilot broadcast, cancellation/legacy quotes could be grouped together, but that's a judgment call.

Overall, the article was a pleasure to read. Thank you for your diligent efforts on it! Pending a response to my comments, I will be more than happy to support this article for FA. SynergyStar (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi SynergyStar, thanks for the comments and the kind words. I'm traveling for business for the next 5 days, but I'll try to eke out some time to address your concerns. I did respond to a couple things above. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you've already addressed/explained many of my points. Thanks for your diligence! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the latest edits help out.AstroCog (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts. The copy-edits look good. Not to belabor the point, but FCC should be linked and written out per MOS:ABBR to better inform readers, and it would be good to add some international broadcast referencing, such as the above provided ref or a better one. Such a ref could be placed as a brief blurb in the Broadcast history prose section (e.g. "The show also aired in Canada,...). This would help strengthen the article with regards to the FA comprehensiveness criterion...and particularly since there are Canadian reviews of the show, some info on its airing there seems only natural (the reviews may have also mentioned airtimes and channels).
Using the Firefly (TV series) article as a model is a great idea; reviewing that article provides some further suggestions:
  • A cast section with main and recurring characters, similar to Firefly_(TV_series)#Cast. The current "Cast" section should then be a subsection under "Production", and renamed "Casting". After all, it discusses the audition and character development process, which is part of the production effort. The Firefly-style "Cast" section (this type of list is found in other GA/FA TV and film articles) would then have brief list-style blurbs on Brisco Jr., Bly, Socrates, Lord Bowler, etc.
  • The organization of the review quotes in the Firefly article shows tighter focus: all such quotes are located in the "Reception" section (none in "Broadcast", "Home media"). Plus the Firefly article's review section evenly covers the entire show, rather than being weighted towards reviews of the pilot. I think the different format and use of quotes in the Brisco "Home media" section is fine, but would like to see improved flow and organization of the "Reception"/"Broadcast" area. Using the Firefly template, I've taken the liberty of formulating a suggestion which adjusts the last paragraph of the "Pilot" reception section, and moves items below (changes underlined versus the current "Reception" section):
  • Emphasize that reviews are about the pilot in the "pilot" last paragraph
  • WSJ + later Toronto Star quote moved out of "pilot" section
  • Adjust sentence starting off "Broadcast run" section to explain TV Guide emphasis
  • WSJ / Toronto Star / Spin quotes combined in a "Broadcast run" section paragraph
  • Quotes towards cancellation kept together

Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker enjoyed the "nervy attempt to do something different with the TV Western" in the pilot and said that "Brisco County is less a satire of the Western's cliches than a revitalization of them."[1] Writing in the Toronto Star, Greg Quill said that the pilot introduced Brisco as "a western in the loosest use of the term". Quill noted that the pilot includes "every cliche in the western movie arsenal", but that "everything, from characters to plot turns, is skewed away from the norm", and that the first episode rose above the level of western spoof to become an "outrageously confident tribute to... the best of the genre".[2]

Broadcast run
During Brisco's broadcast run, the show was repeatedly featured in TV Guide, including a positive review in its Couch Critic column which stated, "It's as funny as it is exciting, which is not an easy combo to pull off... it's fresh and funny and different, and that's why we like it."[3] The magazine twice listed Brisco as a family-friendly TV program: "Back when some of us grew up, Westerns were synonymous with great family entertainment, but – let's be honest – some of them were dull as dust. Not this one. Brisco is a Western with a sense of humor, filled with impish action for kids and adults."[4][5]

The Wall Street Journal reviewed a host of Westerns from 1992 and 1993 and said that Brisco was "the most sheer fun of the bunch", calling it "a period piece with slick production values and a mix of drama and humor, fast pace and high camp."[6] In an article on the 1992 TV season, the Toronto Star's Greg Quill wrote that Brisco was a program that represented "American TV craft at the top of its form".[7] In contrast, Elvis Mitchell of Spin magazine gave Brisco a scathing review, calling the show's premise a "tedious... rickety gimmick". Mitchell acknowledged the show's "quick reflexes", but said the humor was "uncomfortable" with a "cynical quickness". He added, "Brisco County relieves us of the burden of laughing. It spends too much time looking at itself in the mirror, admiring its own adorable dimpled half-smile."[8]

Viewership figures for Brisco fell as its season progressed and in 1994, it was listed in TV Guide's annual "Save Our Shows" article. Readers were requested to write in and vote to save one of the four listed shows – one from each television network – that were in danger of being cancelled. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., won with 34.7 percent of the 72,000 votes cast. Cuse said the vote "reaffirms for me a feeling I've had – namely that the Nielsens aren't accurately reflecting people's interest in this show," adding that, given Fox's then relatively small share of the market, it was notable that the show got more votes than any of the programs from NBC, CBS, and ABC.[9]

Writing in USA Today, Matt Roush also encouraged readers to watch the low-rated show, saying that families should watch it rather than "that interchangeable T.G.I.F. tripe". He said, "Brisco is mighty lavish but even more mightily loony, happily saddled with broad sight gags and tortured puns."[10] Bruce Fretts of Entertainment Weekly speculated that mainstream success eluded the show because of its mixing of genres. He said, "Brisco refuses to behave like a normal Western, mixing in sci-fi, slapstick, and... kung fu."[11]

Similarly, for the bifurcated "Broadcast" history section, the following suggestions:
  • The following introductory sentences from "Cancellation" should be moved above: "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., opened its season with strong ratings. Fox Entertainment chief Sandy Grushaw openly touted Brisco and its star Bruce Campbell. The network fully expected the show to be its breakout hit of the year... These sentences can fit above the chart, since they discuss the beginning of the show's broadcast history. It also seems repetitive to have the initial ratings mentioned both above and below the chart in the same section.
  • The last paragraph of the "Cancellation" section is more of a "Legacy" section than addressing its cancellation directly. Rather, it is a "Retrospective" of the series as a whole after much time has passed. Most of the material would better fit in a "Reception" subsection rather like how the Firefly places post-cancellation reviews there.
These comments are just my 2 cents, so please feel free to do with them as you wish. I'd like to support this article fully, and so hope that these suggestions, which elaborate upon my earlier comments, can be taken into consideration. Again, I commend the diligent effort that has made this article already quite excellent, and hope it can reach FA soon. As a note, I will be quite busy after tomorrow, so if my comments cannot be addressed in the next few days, I may not be able to comment or respond any further. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the additional feedback. Augh! I keep forgetting about international broadcasts. I'll get that up. I'll also try to address your other concerns by the end of the day or tomorrow, so you'll have time to review them. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the structural changes you suggested, including rearranging content from the "Cancellation" section into the "Reception" section. I think it reads better that way now. Thanks! I added a sentence about the show being broadcast in Canada, though I'm not sure saying what channel it was broadcast on is OK (two sources I read said Channel 29). Concerning the cast list, I originally had a Firefly-style list, but FAC reviewers (see above) objected to it and suggested the format currently in the article. I like the new format, which feels less crufty, but like you said, it's a stylistic choice. Otherwise, how does the article look? AstroCog (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great job!!! You did even better by combining the review quotes from the "Home media" section into the aptly-titled "Post-cancellation" section. Thanks for the details on the "Cast" section, that's fine. Glad to see the quotes combined together and organized in "Reception", it now gives a broader picture of the critical reaction to the series as a whole. Two minor bits...
  • Category:Channel_29_TV_stations_in_Canada; "Channel 29" probably is different by Canadian province or city; looking at the wiki category, and given that the source is the Toronto Star, I'd guess that it is CIII-DT. The sentence could be more specific as in "The series was aired in Canada, including on Global Toronto (channel 29)."
  • Just to reiterate (per MoS), that FCC is an acronym that can be written out and linked.
Thanks for bearing with these suggestions! Looks almost done from my point of view. SynergyStar (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot about the FCC thing. I changed it. My only qualm with it is that "FCC" is in the quote. MOS:ABBR says "The abbreviation style used in quotations from written sources should always be written exactly as in the original source, unless it is a Wikipedia-made translation." So I'm not sure how to solve the problem, other than revert to the original abbreviation, but wikilink it within the quote. AstroCog (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, thanks for noting that. Here's a workaround: "The Los Angeles Times printed a story about Senator Dorgan's efforts to elicit a response from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the title "Fox Tops Tally of Violence on Major TV Networks Media: Study of a week of prime-time shows also lists 'Brisco County' as bloodiest series. Senator wants FCC to issue report card, name sponsors." That should satisfy preserving the original quote, plus writing out the abbreviation. SynergyStar (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a nitpick, the italics goes after Times. You had it correct before adding my FCC suggestion... SynergyStar (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed!

Support. Thank you for your diligent follow-ups to my comments, and those of earlier reviewers. The changes made and justifications provided, have addressed my concerns. As before, the article is an interesting read and piqued my interest in a show I previously knew little about. Thanks also for expediting your edits in the final round of updates! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - 3 photos illustrate this article.

  • Title card is fair-use and low-res as permitted.
  • 2 fair-use photos of individuals involved; 1 is CC-by-2.0; other is CC-by-3.0, appears to be fine (one is author uploaded, other has been reviewed for licensing and passed).
  • File:Bruce Campbell at FSC crop.jpg is uncategorized, please add Category:Bruce Campbell.

Image review appears satisfactory. Good job on adding the optional but helpful alt text. SynergyStar (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone spotchecked this article's sources? Ucucha (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks done

This is my first attempt at spotchecking an article's sources. Although I don't have access to everything used, I checked most of the external links, and it looks good to me. No issues with copyright violations or sources not matching what is present in the article, etc. (On a sidenote, I also fixed the spaces per the MOS, as I noticed spaced em dashes were used throughout, which goes against WP:DASH.) María (yllosubmarine) 14:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ucucha (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article quotes someone as saying "I can't imagine Brisco having ever existing without him." Is that the correct quote? If so, it should be indicated with "sic". Also, check for double periods in the references. Ucucha (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't understand. Indicate [sic] because it's incorrect grammar? AstroCog (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ucucha (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got that fixed, along with double periods and some page number errors. Those were from recently added refs and result from a bug in the reference generator I use. I need to let the developer of that tool know about that... AstroCog (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The double period thing is an annoying and hard to avoid bug in the citation templates. Ucucha (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • WP:SEASON in the lead ("It ran for 27 episodes on the Fox network starting in the Fall 1993 season".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your edit to fix this looks good. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 01:53, 13 January 2012 [36].

Faryl Smith[edit]

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination failed mostly because of the heavy usage of unimportant quotes; I promised to make an effort to trim them, but took longer than I expected to find the time. While I've written FAs on other products of Britian's Got Talent, they saw little success in the real world; Smith has sold well, performed at prestigious events and broken several records. I look forward to reviews, and will do my best to address them quickly. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from Jim Not an article type I would normally review, but well written, and I think this time round the number and nature of the quotes is acceptable. I ran together the first two sentences of the Faryl section, please revert if you're not happy with the change. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks and images I checked half a dozen of the refs, no obvious problems. The two images have OTRS permissions and are clearly appropriate. I don't think you need her name in the caption to the first image, it's assumed that the subject of an image is the same as the article title unless otherwise stated. I don't like the positioning of the second image, on my browser it's forcing a subheading into the page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your thoughts. There's not much I can do about the image; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location, I can't place it directly under a section heading, and if I shifted it to the next section, it would conflict with the "Faryl" subheading. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I read this last time, rather liked it, made some comments which were properly addressed. I've just read it again, rather carefully, and needless to say I've managed to find a number of (mainly) prose issues for attention. Many of these, I have to say, are very minor, and some are more a question of choice:-

  • "number six" and "number 4" together in lead - inconsistent
  • "Smith was nominated for two Classical BRIT Awards in 2010 due to Faryl, and became the youngest artist to ever receive a double nomination." "Due to" is weak; "on account of" or "as a result of" would be stronger. And "to ever receive" should be "ever to receive". Personally I would reorganise the sentence along the following lines: "In 2010, on account of Faryl, Smith was nominated for two Classical BRIT Awards, and became the youngest artist ever to receive a double nomination".
  • Perhaps say what "The Prayer" was (song, video, film or whatever), rather than requiring readers to use the link.
    • Rephrased to call it a cover. Hopefully that clarifies? J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the sentence "Smith lives with her parents in Kettering, where she attends Southfield School for Girls" really leadworthy?
    • I wanted to give an impression of what her day-to-day life is like- also, it ties the personal life section to the lead. I can remove it if you like. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed her into the final" → "placed her in the final" (or "gained her a place in the final"; "placed into" doesn't sound right.
  • "During her first live show, Cowell described her as "literally one in a million". Being pernickety, wouldn't he have said this "after", rather than "during", her performance?
    • Yeah, it was after the performance, but during the show. I can rephrase if needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "call in" → "call-in" (as in "phone-in" which is probably a better choice of term; I haven't heard of a "call-in")
  • "with the other semi-finalists"; She was a finalist, wasn't she? (Above: "She then performed in the final..."
    • She was. I believe all finalists and some semi-finalists appear on the tour, but I'm not certain about that particular year. Rephrased to "with other contestants". J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While she was competing in Britain's Got Talent, Cowell arranged for Smith..." Switch it round: "While Smith was competing in Britain's Got Talent, Cowell arranged for her..."
  • "...Burnett. Burnett previously coached 2007 Britains Got Talent winner..." The "Burdett. Burdett" repetition should be avoided, and it needs to be "had previously coached". The sentences could be linked, thus: "...Burdett, who had previously..." etc
  • "Syco": again, don't make readers use a link to obtain basic information. Brief description: "Cowell's media organisation Syco".
  • "her tutor, Sylvia Berryman"; Last we heard, she was receiving lessons from Yvie Burnett. Who is Berryman, and what is her "tutor" role?
    • "In November, it was announced that Smith would be performing on stage in Kettering with Sylvia Berryman, a vocal tutor who had worked with Smith prior to her appearance on Britain's Got Talent." J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After signing with Universal, Smith performed at the Royal Albert Hall with Jenkins for the press". Can you give a little more detail? In what sense was this event "for the press"? A press benefit concert?
    • I've rephrased to "Smith signed the contract at the Royal Albert Hall, following which she performed with Katherine Jenkins." I was trying to get across that the press were invited to watch, but I think that's clear. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Jenkins, who first met her when she won a competition in Wales." Ambiguous; who won the competition in Wales? Needs clarification.
  • What became of the plans concerning Domingo? They re not mentioned again.
    • As far as I know, nothing. I could remove it, but I don't want to leave the Charlotte Church stuff on its own. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd add the words "but was not realised" to "The idea was suggested by him". Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a cover of "Annie's Song" by John Denver" could confuse. Suggest; a cover of John Denver's "Annie's Song"
  • "has previously" → "had previously" (? sounds better)
  • "week leading up to release" → "week before release" (saves words)
  • U2s" → "U2's"
  • "Faryl officially entered the charts at number six..." How does that square with, a couple of lines earlier. "On the day of the release the album was at the number one spot on the UK Albums Chart"?
    • I honestly don't know- I'm just going off what the sources say. I'm assuming that, though it was in the lead, it had dropped by the end of the week when the "official" list came out. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're probably right - that's the implication with the word "officially". Let's assume that. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her return from the US," - unnecessary; you've already said she's back
  • "...where she, according to Elisa Roche of the Daily Express..." Positioning of "she" is awkward. Better: "...where, according to Elisa Roche of the Daily Express, she..."
  • "...later in 2009" To avoid giving the year twice in the sentence, you could say "later that year".
  • The word "but" in the phrase beginning "but Cohen..." is not appropriate, since what Cohen says is not a contradiction of what Faryl had said.
  • "In mid-November, Smith was awarded the best classical award at the 2009 Variety Club awards,[52] the youngest ever recipient in the awards' 57-year history." What work was this award given for? Placing this sentence in the middle of a paragraph about the making of her second album could confuse readers.
    • I don't know- no-one mentions it, so I'm assuming it's not for any one particular work. However, I have moved it to the para about her awards- it breaks chronology, but I think it still makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her highlight of the year" would read better as "the highlight of her year". (Didn't I say this last time round?)
  • Her father noted that "because she is still so young, we don't want her doing complete shows on her own..." etc. This is a statement, not a casual observation, so "noted" is wrong. "Her father stated that" would be appropriate.
  • "Smith also opened the Serenata festival, Britain's first ever classical music festival." (my emphasis). So Britain had never had a classical music festival before? Come, come, there have been thousands upon thousands of classical music festivals in this country. I have been to dozens myself. You need a rather less all-embracing form of words.
    • Removed- I was actually going off what the source said there; "The Serenata festival, Britain's first ever classical music festival, is set against the backdrop of Dorset's Jurassic Coast, with tickets available now." I can only assume it's following a particular format not followed by other festivals. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She performed at further charitable events later in the year, including raising £2,700 for a hospice in Cransley and performing in aid of The Salvation Army in Portsmouth." Not grammatical as it stands. Probably best to rewrite it completely: "In further charitable events later in the year she raised £2,700 for a hospice in Cransley, and performed in aid of the Salvation Army in Portsmouth".
  • "intending to go to university afterwards" → "with the intention of..." etc

Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughts; I have replied inline. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding so promptly. I think this is a goer, and will support am supporting, subject to sources and images clearance. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, see above, I've done (limited) spotchecks and image reviews Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look okay, just a few stylistic comments Auree ★ 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of overlinking in the newspaper, magazine and newswire names; I'd suggest only linking upon first usage
  • Each ref may reasonably be looked at in isolation, meaning that the concept of a "first" reference doesn't necessarily hold true. This has come up at FAC in the past, and I believe my way has been OKed, as it were. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, guess it's up to editor choice. Auree ★ 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than using and manually italicizing the publisher field for newspaper names, you could use the newspaper parameter instead for convenience. (In fact, there are some references that make use of the newspaper field, and I suggest this be done consistently.) For magazines and such, the "work" parameter might be preferable instead
  • Will that make any difference to the reader? I'm not sure I'm prepared to spend 20 minutes doing something that will make next to no difference. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, it was more of a stylistic suggestion. Maybe something that could be useful in the future? Auree ★ 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely- it's actually something I became aware of in the middle of writing the article. I've been working on this for literally years, so I've learnt a lot from when I first started writing it! J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using the agency parameter for newswires like Associated Press, Reuters, etc.
  • Consider changing spaced hyphens to en dashes as separators in article titles
  • Ref 69: RTÉ rather than RTÉ.ie as publisher?
  • Ref 89: Article author?
  • Done. I don't remember seeing that before, I'll have to bring it in to the article on the album... J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 90: Recheck title?
  • Ref 91: Instead of separating the newspaper and agency with a slash, you could simply use their respective parameters to notate the two separately. Auree ★ 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done the last. Thanks for your thoughts- I have replied inline. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good, thanks. I'll give the prose a look through later on, but with Brianboulton's excellent review and support I feel there won't be much for me to comment on. Auree ★ 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment on prose, sources and style. I can see a lot of work has gone into this article--and it has definitely payed off. Nicely done! Auree ★ 06:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede looks good; I decided to be bold and give it a quick copy-edit. Feel free to revert if the changes were unhelpful.
  • In my edits, I removed the redundant "received" in "she received singing lessons from Yvie Burnett and received offers from various record labels", but I realize it doesn't much better. How do you feel about tweaking to "she took singing lessons from Yvie Burnett and received offers from various record labels" or something similar? Auree ★ 21:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "she was tutored by singing coach Yvie Burnett and received offers from various record labels"- what do you think? J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Ave Maria" be in italics rather than quotations? Not too sure on this one.
  • It's a song name- I'm pretty sure it should be in speech marks. If she was performing an entire opera or something, then perhaps, but I don't think italics are needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I thought so, commented just to be sure. Auree ★ 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was again reported that it was hoped" – Could be reworded. Reported/hoped by whom?
  • "In January 2009 plans were released for Smith to perform with Placido Domingo. The idea was suggested by him." – Can these two sentences be merged?
I'm really scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to nit-pick about here. The article is well written, comprehensive and appropriately structured. I'll hold off on supporting for now pending on additional reviews from others and the fixes made, but at heart I feel this is ready to be promoted. Good work! Auree ★ 21:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your kind words and the time you've taken to review this. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look good. I'll look it over again tomorrow (as I'm out of significant editing time for today) and switch to support thereafter. (: Auree ★ 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One last comment: "Sampson eventually won the show as a result of the phone-in, with Signature second, and Johnston third." seems a bit oddly worded. I also made a few small changes again. This article seems ready to me now, so switching to support. Auree ★ 06:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A very clear, thorough article. This seems to cover all aspects of a short career very clearly and looks comprehensive. No big problems, just a few nitpicks on prose. Several of them are fussy, and feel free to treat them with contempt and ignore them. And I confess to never having heard of Faryl Smith as I carefully avoid going anywhere near BGT! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, they're appreciated: BGT and X Factor really are my guilty pleasures. I'm not even in to pop music, normally... Smith certainly isn't someone I'd choose to listen to! J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who rose to fame after auditioning for the second series of the ITV television talent show Britain's Got Talent in 2008": Maybe specify she rose to fame when her audition was seen on TV? Otherwise it suggests that the act of auditioning made her famous. But feel free to ignore.
    • I don't want to overload the opening sentence. I could change it to "...after appearing on...", if you think that would be preferable? J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She received praise throughout the competition, and although she was the favourite to win after the second round, she finished outside the top three in the live final on 31 May": Do the "she"s pile up here? Maybe omit the second to have "and although favourite to win after the second round, she finished…"
  • "and offers from various record labels": To sign for them, presumably?
    • Well, sort of. Technically, she wouldn't be able to sign with them until long after the competition, because of Cowell's notorious contracts. The press are very vague as to what the offers were, so I don't want to drift into too much detail- especially in the lead. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her debut album, Faryl, was recorded in December 2008 and January 2009 and released in March 2009": Not sure about the repeated and. Maybe "Her debut album, Faryl, recorded in December 2008 and January 2009, was released in March 2009."
  • "In addition to her albums, she featured on a charity cover of "The Prayer"…" Reads as if her albums also featured on the cover.
    • I see what you mean- how would you phrase this? J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about "In addition to releasing her albums, she featured...", unless that changes your intention. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She won her semi-final, performing a cover of Sarah McLachlan's "Angel", by the public vote.": A little ambiguous; was the choice of song or her victory through public vote?
  • "She then went on to perform in the Britain's Got Talent Live Tour with other contestants,[8] where she first performed her duet of "Walking in the Air" with Johnston." Suggests we should know what this duet is. Maybe just "a duet"? It would then make more sense to call it "her duet" in the "Record deal" section.
    • Fair. Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be fine to call it "her duet" or "the duet" when mentioning the recording, but just an observation, not a suggestion! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Smith was competing in Britain's Got Talent, Cowell arranged for her to receive free singing lessons…" Was this standard practice or just favouritism from Cowell?
    • It's questionable; that's why I've included it. It's meant to be a talent competition, but some of the favourites are being coached? I don't really want to go into the tabloid sensationalism, but I could make clearer that this wasn't made clear to the viewers. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was a big deal in the tabloids or wherever, yes make it clear that it wasn't clear. (I think that makes sense!) Otherwise, leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pair first met when Smith won a competition at the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod" I assume they met before BGT? A date would maybe help and if this was the case, I wonder if "the pair had met" would work better?
    • Added "had". I think this is a bit of publicity- they may have shook hands or something, but I bet Jenkins didn't remember Smith... J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 2009 plans were released for Smith to perform with Placido Domingo. The idea was suggested by him." Two points: did she ever perform and if so when? If not, it should be specified why, if it is important enough to include. Second: the short sentence does not work all that well and could be combined with the first part: "In January 2009 plans were released for Smith to perform with Placido Domingo, an idea suggested by him." Or "In January 2009, Placido Domingo suggested Smith perform with him [and plans were released]."
    • Already rephrased. Sadly, nothing came of this and no paper ever mentioned it again- other reviewers have mentioned it. I could remove it, but that would leave the Charlotte Church stuff on its own, and I certainly want to keep that in. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quite like Brian's idea above about "but was not realised". --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that in several quotes, there is no punctuation after "said". Should something be there? ( I tend to use a colon, but I may be wrong.)
    • I think my way is acceptable. The use of commas in that way really doesn't work for me. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and also played for the club's Under-13 girls IX.": Just checking that "IX" should not be "XI". If it was nine-a-side, I've never seen it written as IX, but that could be my ignorance. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed, it's not in the source. Not sure when that got in. Thanks again for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There are still a couple of points under discussion, but none of them affect my support for an interesting article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments. I'm going to go back and look at the sources about her duet and about the singing lessons; there may be a little more which is worth adding. I'll do this tomorrow afternoon/evening- I have an early train to catch... J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added some reactions to the lessons, but have still been unable to find anything about the duet. She did duet with Jose Carreras, so I've added a mention of that. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 01:53, 13 January 2012 [37].

Stanley Holloway[edit]

Nominator(s): Cassianto (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Having worked on the article for over two years, taking it from a stub to GA, I now feel the article is ready to be considered a FA. Advice was given in relation to various points that would need addressing before Stanley Holloway could go ahead for WP:FAC, as per the WP:GAN process. I have now answered these points and feel confident that this article meets all the relevent criteria needed to be considered a WP:FA - Cassianto (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. That is much appreciated! -- Cassianto (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a well written article which deserves FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your kind comments -- Cassianto (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After this, Holloway joined the Royal Irish Constabulary but left, a year later, shortly before its disbandment in 1922" - source?
This has now been fixed. Unable to reliably cite so deleted pending this -- Cassianto (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holloway deeply regretted that Henson never got to see him in the role of Alfred P. Doolittle" - source?
This claim has now been elaborated on slightly with reliable source added. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can speak to the Oakapplepress one (the "Gilbert and Sullivan Discography"). This has been accepted as a reliable source in the G&S FA's, including H.M.S. Pinafore. The list of reasons why it is a RS is here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this has now been replaced with a RS. I will work on the others shortly --Cassianto (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting print alternative sources marshalled to replace or back up the free genealogical site ones. Query: the print sources so far examined all corroborate the free online site, and assuming they all do so once we have finished checking, can we leave the free online refs alongside the new printed sources? It could be useful for readers who haven't got access to the printed sources, and we would know the online refs to be accurate. Tim riley (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having both the online reference and the print reference would be helpful to readers of this encyclopedia and the fact that they are shown to be entirely accurate could help establish, in the future, that the website is an WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having it as a convenience link is fine, so long as it's clear that's what it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FreeBMD

I consider FreeBMD to be a WP:RS. Free BMD is a UK charity founded in 1998. It is an ongoing project to transcribe the General Register Office Civil Registration index of births, marriages and deaths for England and Wales, and to provide free, searchable Internet access to the records. It is a part of the FreeUKGEN family, which also includes FreeCEN (Census data) and FreeREG (Parish Registers). The recording of births, marriages and deaths was started in 1837 and is one of the most significant resources for genealogical research. The transcribing of the records is carried out by thousands of volunteers and contains index information for the period 1837-1983. See Christian, P., The Genealogists Internet, 3rd Edition, The National Archives (2005), pp 50-53. ISBN 190336583 The site now contains 209,323,684 distinct records; on 5 Dec 2011, FreeBMD users made 188,657 searches. In 2007, FreeBMD was awarded the Prince Michael of Kent Award by the Society of Genealogists. Also, Over 600 books mention FreeBMD. The main researchers, historians and quality control staff, including the founders, are:

Executive Director - Nick Barratt, a genealogist. Dr. Barratt has written many books and other publications in the field of genealogy.

General Manager - Graham Hart. He provides consultancy on genealogy issues. He has been in IT for 15 years and a genealogist for the same amount of time.

Project Founders: (1) Ben Laurie - technical consultant for the operational system. He is Technical Director of A.L. Digital Ltd., a founding director of the Apache Software Foundation, author of many publications including Apache: The Definitive Guide, Apache-SSL, the basis of most SSL-enabled versions of the Apache HTTP Server, and is a co-author of OpenPGP:SDK; (2) Camilla von Massenbach - Scan Co-ordinator for FreeBMD, she has been a genealogist for many years; and (3) Dave Mayall - another General Manager for FreeBMD and provides database support expertise. He is a Syndicate Co-ordinator.

Quality control: The Corrections Co-ordinator is Kevin S. Howell. He records and reviews submitted corrections, before forwarding validated corrections/changes to transcribers for action. He has worked in the IT industry for over twenty years in computer networking. The Web Proof Reader is Anne Cruise. She performs web-page proof-reading and has assisted in the wording of entries.

Further evidence which suggests Free BMD is a Reliable Source is The Guardian which selects FreeBMD as one of the best "family history" websites. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing bibliographic info for Gale, no citations to Gaye - unless those are the same?
    • My fault, sorry. Now fixed. They are indeed the same. Tim riley (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how you cite web sources - for example, compare the various BFI citations
Consistancy for BFI refs now complete. [Nikkimaria, did you see any others? I don't. -- ssilvers]
  • Check for consistent italicization
Article italicization now completed. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still finding a couple of errors here - for example, FN 107, or 78 vs 79. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I just fixed these. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One merger to Who was Who source - stage references -- Cassianto (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, it looks like Cassianto has now addressed all your concerns, except two of the RS issues. Did you see any other consistency issues? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're just about good to go. One nitpick: compare punctuation on FNs 71 and 72. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of fixing this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: More references are needed in the Recordings section, as marked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done -- Cassianto (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On another topic, should we make it clearer that Holloway spent a considerable amount of time in the army in WWI? It seems that he was in the army for three or four years. I find the dates around this part of the bio to be a little vague and so it appears that he spent less time in the army. Can you add which year he enlisted (1915?) and which year he was demobilised (1919?) with a good ref? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to elaborate but his autobiog is still very ambiguous as he states he was 25 and no year was given. My suspicions are that it was 1915 as he returned back from South America in the Jan of 1915 and it certainly would not have been long into the year before he was called up. He states "By twenty-five I was very grown up. I met a young man in uniform whilst walking around Clacton on sea. I was thinking of various ways in which to enlist in the army so I invited him for a drink and he suggested I join his boys in the Connaught Rangers. So there I was a fully paid up cockney serving in an Irish regiment" I refed this all the same. re my second ref see the attachment I sent you. Best regards -- Cassianto (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms for FreeBMD, if you want to source that information, I suggest that you call the source the "GRO Register Index", and give the FreeBMD scan of the page as the link, rather than the FreeBMD transcription. However, the trouble is that the index itself does not support the information in the article. In particular, it just says that the birth was registered in "West Ham Registration District", rather than in Manor Park, which is part of East Ham parish, which is part of West Ham RG. The index also doesn't support the full date of birth, merely the quarter of registration. My suggestion would be to use his birth certificate as a source, quoting the reference for it (which you can take from FreeBMD, without attribution). Bluap (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent thanks for the advice! I do have copies of births, census, death, registers which are being worked on at the moment which I intend to use in conjunction with the BMD refs. I have replaced the first reference with the births register for months oct-dec 1890 scan found courtesy of your helpful link. The other BMD scan is not that clear so have not used at this stage, pending the success of the scans I have given to Tim riley. Thanks for your help -- Cassianto (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have copy-edited this article over a period of many months and have assisted (pestered?) the nominator with suggestions about prose, balance and structure. He has certainly brought the article a very long way, and I believe that it now meets the criteria for a Featured Article. I just did a fresh read of the article, and I support the nomination. The only question that comes to my mind is very minor: why do we mention (in a footnote) where Michael O’Leary worked after the war? Is this necessary to understand Holloway's life? In any case, congratulations to Cassianto on an excellent job with this biography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have addressed this issue now (forgot it was there to be honest) and have ref'd accordingly. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportive comment – At the pre-GAN stage I extensively copy edited and added info and refs to this article, and so I think any formal support here from me would be ultra vires. But having added nothing much to the article since my pre-GAN additions, I feel at liberty to say that Cassianto has taken the article on very considerably since then, and if I were a disinterested party I should certainly be registering my support for its promotion to FA. Tim riley (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's understood Tim thank you for your comment -- Cassianto (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very impressive and with a mind-boggling amount of detail. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it. I've been a Holloway fan since I first heard Albert and the Lion (as my family knew it), My Word, You Do Look Queer and Brahn Boots and I've seen a lot of his films (most recently the cameo in The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes), but have never read anything about his life before, and it's all very interesting and an enjoyable read. Small niggle: I realise that this FA candidacy doesn't include the numerous blue-linked pointers but a) I'm rather surprised that SH doesn't appear in either dramatic monologue or monologist or (perhaps) one-person show, and b) the discography needs more work - at the very least it should say whether each item is a monologue, poem, song, etc. A sortable WP:Wikitable (I can help, if required) would be good. --GuillaumeTell 12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for your gracious comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an image review and a spotcheck of the sources on this article. Ucucha (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes not a problem. Anybody in the know when it comes to reviewing images? -- Cassianto (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on Image concerns:

  • File:Stanley Holloway 1904.jpg: Fails NFCC #8, no contextual significance evidenced. His childhood appearance is needless for us to understand this man (no critical commentary whatsoever).
    This image IS necersary as it helps illustrate the biography of a famous person of notable stature within the field of acting. A biography, according to the Collins dictionary, is defined thus: "an account of a person's life by another". Note life; this covers from birth to death. This picture is an illustration of his early life and is therefore as important as any picture taken during his life whatever age that would be. The image also serves a purpose in terms of his clothing and his age. Fourteen was the age Holloway started his long and successfull career as a performer and the garb illustrates the fact he was in a choir as mentioned in the article, which in itself acts as a reference. I have elaborated slightly on the image page as to my findings re the above source entry. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The photograph does not show his garb (I cannot believe a collar is a unique representation of his garb); neither do we need an image of him at the age of fourteen when nothing in the text describes his youth or appearance as critical in his life at that stage. The existing text of his exploits at the age of fourteen is perfectly comprehensible without the need of an image (failure of NFCC #1). Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely disagree. The article states "He began performing part-time as Master Stanley Holloway – The Wonderful Boy Soprano from 1904, singing sentimental songs such as "The Lost Chord". This was the start of his career which in itself was notable, due to the kind of career he had and what it became as a result. The picture is from 1904, the caption is that of what has been described in the source and I'm confident that this picture is a visual representation of his first professional performance. We ARE talking about his early life and and nothing compliments words more than pictures. This is a picture of his early life. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All of what you say does not require an image to further reader comprehension. "This picture is a visual representation of his first professional performance" is untrue to me. It is just a headshot; it definitely does not show his acting ability or any critical opinion of it. What you are doing (and with the other non-free images below) is simply using the image as a "proof" that he performed in a certain show. That (using a picture as visual confirmation for participation) is not necessary since words are perfectly adequate. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Millie holloway aged 18.jpg: What is the copyright status of this image in the US?
    copyright status in US has been updated and rationale improved. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first rule in determining US copyright status is of first authorized publication. When was this photograph published? Creation (1906 in this case) is not publication, which is defined in US law as the authorized distribution of several copies of the work to the public. This is a private photograph, hence, it would be considered unpublished till reproduced and given to the public. If the photograph has not been done so before its appearance in the book from which it was taken, then first publication (assuming the Holloways are the copyright holders) would be considered in Wiv a Little Bit O'Luck (1967), which runs into the problems detailed below for File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG. If the Holloways are not the copyright holders, the photograph could still be considered unpublished and still be copyrighted (120 years since creation, so that is till 2027) in the US. 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Leslie Henson.jpg: We need more information from the uploader. Ideally, the back of this image (if a postcard) should have been uploaded to allow verification. How was it determined this was a card published in 1920? The uploader used ca (circa), which is unlikely to be printed as a publication date on such a material. If it is the uploader's guess, then on what reliable basis was it made?
  • File:Stanley-Holloway-as-René-in-a-night-out.jpg: Is this a personal scan or taken from somewhere online (note: this is a just a query for improvement, not quite valid for grounds of opposition) ?
    Uploaded by me. Happy to expand details if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the photographer/copyright owner credited or identified in the publication? Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG: What is the copyright status of this image in the US?
    I have now corrected the licence to this image and have elaborated on the rationale, giving all the information possible. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now been changed into a non-free image. The size should be reduced; at the moment it would violate NFCC #3b. The rationale is that "it is a historic photograph of a famous production that closed long ago, ... being used as an example of a famous production of the work that is written about in the article; ... to illustrate the article about Stanley Holloway." That fails NFCC #8 per above: there is no critical commentary of the scene in this photograph. The closet relevant passage talks of Holloway's part in the production, but not of his role as the constable, nor of his fellow actors' mien. Neither is the mood or atmosphere conveyed in that shot discussed of. A more relevant photograph that could likely be used and compliant with NFCC would be one that illustrates the quoted "the understated look-on-the-bright-side world of the cockney working class. ... Holloway’s characters are [mischievous, like Albert, or] obstinate, and hilariously clueless. He often told his stories in costume; sporting outrageous attire and bushy moustaches", but that is not what this photograph is showing. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fine and dandy with Holloway and Henson.JPG: Why are there declarations of public domain and a fair use rationale on this image page? Where and when was it published to warrant using {{PD-1923}}, especially when Fine and Dandy was produced during the Second World War? If we are going with it as a non-free image, then what critical commentary in the text is describing the scene in this picture that warrants the image's inclusion for further understanding?
    This image has now been relicenced with an extended rationale added giving all possible information known. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now totally a non-free image with the rationale of "a historic photograph of a famous production that closed long ago; ... used as an example of a famous production of the work that is the subject of the article; ... to illustrate the article about Stanley Holloway". A cookie-cutter reasoning (untouched and no different from the above), this does not tell why it has to be this image and why. The closest relevant passage simply states that Holloway starred in the production. Without critical commentary on his portrayal, the use of this image violates NFCC #8 and #1 (since words alone are perfect substitutes for simply stating his role). Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I boldly rewrote the fair use rationale;[39] these rationales should be specific on why the image would be useful to the reader. Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, why did you remove this one? Jappalang approved of it as rewritten. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fine and dandy with Holloway and Henson.JPG looks to have been reinstated on the article with no outstanding issues. I can only assume that it was moved by me by mistake in the recent image mix up. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK! Looks good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG: What is the precise date Frewin published the first edition in London? What is the date Stein and Day published the book in New York? As far as I can tell from the Frewin, Stein and Day did not publish as of yet (searching to see if a match occurs between "Frewin" and "Stein"; copyright information is on p. 4, which has Frewin and 1967). If Stein and Day published within 30 days of Frewin (thus qualifying to be judged as a US publication), then a simple copyright notice would be sufficient to give this image 95 years of copyright protection. Since this image was taken from Frewin's, where is the proof that Stein and Day did not put a copyright notice?
Please note that copyright status of media in the US is a must for consideration when uploading to Wikipedia or Commons. Uploaded items not in the US public domain violate policies (their copyright status in their countries of origin are irrelevant if such violations exist). Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we now with this? It seems to me that there is no serious suggestion that there is any actionable copyright infringement, but that we haven't satisfied WP's rules for some images. Tim riley (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, there are "actionable copyright infringements". No one has been able to explain why certain images taken from Wiv a Little Bit O'Luck are supposed to be free of copyright. The use of non-free images and failing to abide with all ten criteria of WP:NFCC is also an actionable item. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has evidently resigned from the project, but that shouldn't mean the end of this FAC. On the image issues: there are 12 images in all, of which Jappalang has raised problems with 6. Of these problem items I would say that two of them ("Stanley Holloway 1904" and "Millie holloway aged 18") are relatively unimportant and could go. It may be possible to justify use of a couple of non-free performance pics (probably not more), subject to some minor elaborations in the text. That would leave the article with eight images; does that seem a practical way of ending the image impasse? Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with that. It is a very great pity that the nominator, Cassianto, has withdrawn from contributing to Wikipedia (and I hope a few of us who have worked with him will eventually persuade him to return) and I agree with Brianboulton that the FAC should go ahead. If there is a consensus for Brian's suggestion, I will volunteer to add some elaborations to link text to images for two of the pictures. Thoughts on which two would be welcome. Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend removing File:Millie holloway aged 18.jpg, File:Leslie Henson.jpg, and File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG unless more details are provided and proven on why they are public domain in the US and UK. I do not think there is any way to justify the inclusion of File:Stanley Holloway 1904.jpg. Unless there is specific commentary about File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG, that would have to go in my opinion too. I am more interested with File:Fine and dandy with Holloway and Henson.JPG, since to me, it sort of illustrates that quote about Holloway's character, which does include Sam Small ("most famous"). The photograph does show Small, and in a pose that, to me, seems to be of the "understated look-on-the-bright-side world of the cockney working class". That would also mean moving this image to near that quote. Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right back to the business in hand. I have removed both File:Millie holloway aged 18.jpg and File:Stanley Holloway 1904.jpg as I think thier rather unfortunate fate is inevitable. I have replaced File:Fine and dandy with Holloway and Henson.JPG nearer to the quote "understated look-on-the-bright-side world of the cockney working class" as advised by Jappalang. As a result of this, I have had to move File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG, up slightly up until we know where this image is going. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone checked with Jappalang re outstanding image issues? Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on his talk page. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright concerns: The claim of File:Leslie Henson.jpg and File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG as being in the US public domain (and/or in the UK) have yet to be proven. Non-free image issue: It is still unexplained what salient critical comment requires File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG, which is also too large a size to comply with NFCC, to illustrate. I am striking my oppose not because the issues are resolved but because I am not participating anymore in the projects (so it will be terribly bad of me to raise an oppose I cannot come back to strike if resolved). I leave my concerns to highlight the possible issues; with regrets, I have to leave it to others to take up the concerns if they decide to. Sorry. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry your leaving, thank you for all your reviews and I wish you the best for the future. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the above, I have now removed the three images which were posing problems; File:Leslie Henson.jpg, File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG and File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG. The only image I have replaced is the Henson image and, as far as I can see, it's also devoid of any issues. Incidently, If anybody knows a thing or two about images and would like to review these latest changes due to Jappalang's sad departure, then I would be most grateful. -- Cassianto (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Spotcheck – please explain required Out of the main references I only have ODNB. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sentence also needs to cite A Wee bit, read the ODNB again, you'll see why. "Looking back in 2004, Holloway's biographer Eric Midwinter wrote, "
It isn't clear to me what is being sought here. As far as I can see, this quote from the ODNB is adequately cited. Am I missing something? Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain:
    • Source: " was awarded the Variety Club of Great Britain special award in 1978"
    • Wiki: " was awarded the Variety Club of Great Britain special award in 1978."
Is the suggestion that the wording amounts to plagiarism? The statement seems so wholly factual that it would seem perverse to rephrase it, IMO. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim that it's rather factual, but perhaps a tiny little change can be made so it's not strictly word-for-word? "In 1978 he received the Variety Club of Great Britain special award"? María (yllosubmarine) 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I have now reworded this sentence to... " In 1978, he was honoured with a special award by the Variety Club of Great Britain" will this do? -- Cassianto (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 01:41, 11 January 2012 [40].

1st Provisional Marine Brigade[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 04:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It's a GA and a MILHIST A-class. Last FAC review got through most of the basics but ran out of time before it picked up enough supports. —Ed!(talk) 04:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no citations to Bickel 2001. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Bickel from the list. —Ed!(talk) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Looking good.
  • "substantially changed morale": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The regiment ... landed at Pusan in South Korea on 3 August. It was put under command of Brigadier General Edward A. Craig as it sailed to Korea. Craig met the brigade in-country.": See WP:Checklist#chronology. At FAC, you need something like: ... Its recently appointed commander, Brigadier General Edward A. Craig, met the brigade in-country. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search for periods before double quotes, and per WP:LQ, if the period wasn't in the original, or if it was but the quoted string is so short that the period isn't relevant ("Task Force Kean."), move the period outside the quote marks.
  • "... forcing the diversion ... Task Force Kean, a force of about 20,000 men. The plan of attack required the force ...": Forcing followed by three forces is two too many. Search for "force" throughout and lose it where you don't need it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It surged forward to Pansong, inflicting another 350 casualties on the North Koreans. There, they overran the North Korean 6th Division's headquarters." When you've got two short sentences in the form: "At [city], this happened. There, that happened.", combine them to: "At [city], this and that happened.", assuming "this" came at the same time or shortly before "that". - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far so good on prose, per standard disclaimer, down a little more than halfway, to First Naktong Bulge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing to the end. "the bulge salient": Doesn't "bulge" mean "salient"?
    • In this case I was referring to the Naktong Bulge, the geographic location. I've clarified this. —Ed!(talk) 12:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an estimated two North Korean regiments": Would "close to two full North Korean regiments" work? - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which then assumed their lineage": I don't know what this means.
  • "it was moved to the Marshall Islands for a planned invasion of Guam from the Empire of Japan": I don't think they were going to invade Guam from Japan.
  • I'll support when these last two are fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to everything. Thanks once again for your thorough copy edit. —Ed!(talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I reviewed this article for GA status, and am pleased to see that it's since been further improved. However, I don't think that it's of FA class yet, and have the following comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs)
    • I still don't think that including the 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division's patch in the infobox is appropriate given that the brigade only briefly used it, and this wasn't even the version used.
      • Do you think one of the other images would better embody the unit in the infobox? I don't have a problem moving this insignia out of the box but it's the only one to ever represent the unit. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The narrative of the brigade's engagements in Korea is still vastly more detailed than that of its actions on Guam (which also involved some tough fighting). Even allowing for the fact that the brigade saw about two months of fighting in Korea compared to about two weeks in Guam, this is rather unbalanced (for instance, the Korean War narrative is generally at battalion and even company level while the Guam narrative is at regimental level). I'd suggest trimming the material on Korea, as this feels over-long and is heavy going for readers.
      • I expanded the WWII info per your recommendation on the GA. Should I contract it all now? —Ed!(talk) 05:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'd suggest chopping back the material on Korea (and transferring it to the articles on the various battles if it isn't already there).
          • To be honest, I'd prefer to expand the Guam information, as I think coverage two levels down (Brigade -> Regiment -> Battalion) is comprehensive and necessary for a complete understanding of the unit. Would that work? —Ed!(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that would be OK. This seems to be my only outstanding comment now :) Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Outstanding. I've added more detail into Guam about battalion level actions, trying not to add an inordinate amount of weight toward the Guam operation. —Ed!(talk) 14:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That looks good, and I'm shifting to support. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be worth saying something about the Marines' doctrine of forming provisional brigades for one-off operations to provide additional context for this brigade's history.
    • Why is the full Korean War order of battle for the brigade provided in the 'Organization' section, while less detail is provided for other periods? I'm sure that Rottman provides a very detailed breakdown of the 1944 incarnation, and probably the 1941 one as well.
      • This information was lower in the article. I've moved it up from the history to the organization section. —Ed!(talk) 02:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There they relieved the British Army 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division of control of some areas of the country." - who controlled the rest of Iceland?
      • They only relieved the 49th Division of some areas, the division continued to control the rest. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, it would be worth saying this.
    • Caporale 2003 is referenced four times, but what it is isn't included in the References section
      • Accidentally deleted it addressing above comment. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo caption which reads "Lemuel C. Shepherd (left) oversees planning for the Guam operation with members of his senior staff" is a bit odd - this is obviously a posed photo, and not from any actual planning session. I'd suggest changing this to something like "Lemuel C. Shepherd (left) with members of his staff prior to the Guam operation".
    • "In July, it was moved to the Marshall Islands for an anticipated invasion of Guam, as Guam had been captured by the Empire of Japan." - this is awkwardly worded. The invasion was 'planed' not 'anticipated', and the reference to "as Guam had been captured by the Empire of Japan" is confusing given that the operation was being made to capture the island for use as a base and not to avenge the Japanese invasion of it way back in December 1941.
    • The chronology of the first two paragraphs in the 'Guam' section jumps around a lot and repeats itself. These paras should be re-worked.
      • Reworked the two graphs. —Ed!(talk) 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most intense fighting struck the III Amphibious Corps to the north" - this makes it sound like the brigade wasn't part of III Corps
    • Did the 1st Brigade face 22,000 troops (as the article currently implies), or was this the force opposing the entire corps? Given that this number of Japanese troops would have greatly outnumbered the brigade, it doesn't gel with the statement that it only met "lighter resistance"
    • The 22nd Marines didn't operate any LVTs - these would have been attached from a specialist battalion
    • "Task Force Kean kicked off its attack on 7 August, moving out from Masan.[54] It surged forward to Pansong, inflicting another 350 casualties on the North Koreans as they overran the North Korean 6th Division's headquarters.[55] The rest of the Task Force however was slowed by North Korean resistance." - the second two sentences here are a bit unclear. Who were the 'they', and the second sentence seems to say that the entire task force made good progress against ineffective opposition while the third states that it advanced slowly due to resistance from the North Koreans.
    • What's meant by "inadvertently encountering the North Korean 83rd Motorized Regiment"? Was the brigade attempting to infiltrate through the North Korean lines without being detected?
      • No, but they hadn't intended to run right into a North Korean unit and did not know the regiment was there. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "F4U Corsairs from the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing strafed the retreating column repeatedly" - it's not previously stated that the North Korean regiment was retreating
    • Appleman doesn't appear to support the statement that "Task Force Kean continued forward, supported by naval artillery" which is referenced to it - is this the right page number?
      • Removed that until I can find the right page number for it. —Ed!(talk) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The North Korean attack caught the Americans, who were expecting an attack from further north, by surprise" - having ' who were expecting an attack from further north' in the middle of this sentence makes it a bit awkward
    • You use both "4th North Korean Division" and "NK 4th Division" - please standardise the terminology.
    • "Of its original 7,000 men, the regiment now had a strength of only 3,500, having suffered over 1,200 killed." - do you mean 'division' rather than 'regiment'?
    • "In total, American forces suffered around 1,800 casualties during the war, including about a third them killed." - I think you mean 'battle' rather than 'war'
    • What unit did 'E Company' form part of? (I presume it was E Company, 9th Infantry Regiment, but this is a bit unclear under the current wording)
    • "The American counteroffensive of 3–5 September west of Yongsan, according to prisoner statements, resulted in one of the bloodiest and most terrifying debacles of the war for a North Korean division." - I'm note sure that "prisoner statements" are a good source for this, given that these soldiers would have only have seen part of the war up to that point and obviously didn't see any of the rest of the war.
    • "The brigade completed its merging" - passive voice (change to something like "the brigade was merged")
    • The online version of Appleman p. 496 doesn't appear to say that the brigade was de-activated on 13 September as it cited to it.
      • Found an alternate source for the statement. —Ed!(talk) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the relationship between this brigade and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade in the see also section?
      • It's likely readers will come here confusing this brigade with that one. The two have no relationship, so I don't think a seealso template is appropriate. I think this highlights that another 1st Marine Brigade does indeed have an article on Wikipedia. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it possible to add cited text to say that there's no relationship? Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outpost in the North Atlantic: Marines in the Defense of Iceland is available online here, and so could be linked Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed most of the things you noted, and am ready to discuss the rest if necessary. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support My above comments have now been addressed. Great work with this Ed. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I will support you once these are addressed.
    • The brigade's best-known duty came in 1950 Can you source this please?
      • Cut it. It was kind of anecdotal. —Ed!(talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not an uncommon practice for the US Marine Corps, which created such ad hoc units regularly in wartime. You italicize ad hoc here but not in the lead.
    • Sometimes military police is capitalized, sometimes it isn't.
    • The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade surged forward to Pansong, inflicting another 350 casualties on the North Koreans It doesn't describe any casualties before this.
    • depended on the arrival of the entire U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, as well as three more battalions of American tanks. Where were these arriving from?
    • MacArthur responded by assigning the 17th Infantry Regiment, and the 65th Infantry Regiment to Walker's reserves Where were they coming from? Tango16 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. I've responded to everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy with the page now. Tango16 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a well-written piece with great sourcing. It could serve as a blueprint for how other articles are written about units within the USMC. Semper Fi!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: G'day, it generally looks fine to me, but I spotted a couple of minor prose issues:
    • sentence fragment/missing punctuation here: "After a series of unsuccessful counterattacks[78][85] The threat to Yongsan necessitated more..." (after "counterattacks" it seems like there should be a full stop because of the capital "T" in "The". That of course would create a sentence fragment, so it needs to be reworked slightly);
    • needs tweaking: "Permanent Marine brigades were established decades years later" (either "decades" or "years" would be fine, but not both together). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems to have been a disagreement between two other editors. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed all captions to complete sentences. —Ed!(talk) 12:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Streamer_WWII_V.PNG: date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It's Ordnance, not Ordinance. And it would be useful to link to a definition or an example of such.
  • Consider deleting USS from all mentions of ships. It's rather redundant given that you've specified that they were USN ships at least once.
  • Why does Pacific Theatre use British spelling?
  • Add |sp=us to your conversion templates to change them into American spellings of units.
  • Can we get a map of the Guam operation?
  • You sure that it was the 17th Infantry and not the 15th Infantry?
  • This could probably be rephrased: The brigade moved to Japan and merged with the 1st Marine Division[132] and was deactivated as an independent unit for the last time on 13 September 1950 I'd suggest breaking it in half.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 01:41, 11 January 2012 [41].

Garret Hobart[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Well, if you think US Vice Presidents sometimes come out of left field, meet Garret Hobart, a political amateur who nevertheless did a good job as VP until his untimely death. New Jersey’s only vice president by representation, and today almost totally forgotten, except for the fact that his death cleared the way for the rise of Theodore Roosevelt. I went to take a picture of Hobart’s statue in Paterson and found a Christmas tree in his face. My second vice president, and the second article in the McKinley series. Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:McKinley_and_Hobart.png: page numbers?
  • File:Hobart_statue_1910.jpg: does the licensing tag apply to both the statue and the photo?
  • Missing bibliographic info for Hatch, Horner
  • Be consistent in whether Ohio is abbreviated. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will get back at these after the holiday.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done. Hatch I sourced to another reference, so don't expect it in the biblio. Thank you as always for your nitpicks:) .--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support: I apologise for not delivering the promised peer review. The article is generally in good order; I have identified a number of mainly minor points that need attention, after which I see no problem in switching to full support.

Early life
  • "many Hobarts served as ministers". It may help some readers if you clarify this as ministers of religion
  • "the first major-party vice-presidential candidate from New Jersey" → "the first major-party vice-presidential candidate to come from New Jersey"
Umm, that doesn't work. Aaron Burr was born in Newark, though he ran as a New Yorker. I'll play with it.
Lawyer and part-time politician
  • I was curious to learn whether Hobart had any military service in the Civil War, so I checked the sources. He apparently didn't; it may be worth adding a line to this effect, to satisfy anyone else who wonders about this.
That one I saw coming. :) It's not clear why Hobart didn't serve, New Jersey was a strong Union state. Connolly mentions it; Magie does not. Jennie Hobart tells an anecdote that after Hobart's election, two Virginia women sent her a letter expressing an intent to come to New Jersey to research Hobart's military service. Jennie Hobart told them not to bother, as Mr. Hobart had never fought with anyone but her. She does not comment further. I can certainly tell the reader that Hobart didn't serve, but I can't explain it.
  • In the legal profession, what is the significance of the office or status of "counsellor-at-law" and "master in chancery"?
New Jersey had archaic legal procedures until the late 1940s, including separate courts for law and chancery. I'm content to throw the terms at the reader and let him decide if he wants to research further. I would have to research pre-1949 New Jersey legal procedure for the answers, and I think I'll leave it for the reader.
  • "he served as President of the Senate" - clarify this is the state Senate
  • Re his nomination for the US Senate, would it be advisable to explain that US Senators were at that time nomiated by state legislatures, rather than directly elected (a fact I gleaned from someone's excellent article on Mark Hanna)?
  • It is odd to find a paragraph beginning "Despite his success..." just after you have recorded Hobart's only electoral defeat!
  • "his success made him wealthier". As there is no earlier reference to his wealth, perhaps just "wealthy"?
  • "...for which he served as receiver, he served as president..." The repetition of "served" jars somewhat
  • "One reason for Hobart's success both the private and public sectors was his genial personality". Word missing (after "success")
Election of 1896
  • Spelling "abundently"
  • "Garret Hobart was an early supporter of McKinley, who helped to assure New Jersey's support for him at the Republican convention." Pronoun confusion ("who" and "him")
  • What is meant by the "mid-Antlantic region"? Sounds distinctly damp to me.
  • "McKinley drove Hobart to his home..." Clarify whose home
  • We need consistency in the capitalisation or otherwise of "vice president". Earlier it has been shown in lower case, but now we have "Vice President-elect" and a section heading "Vice President (1897–1899)"
Vice President
  • The captalisation issue arises again in the first paragraph of the "Presidential advisor" subsection: "breakfast and talk with the Vice President" - and elsewhere in the section
Ah, it should be standard lower case when referring to the office; capitalized when a title or referring to the incumbent. I'll look it over. Yes, there is an argument that the section title should be "Vice president (1897-1899)" but that would look odd.
  • "Ida McKinley" and "Mrs McKinley" in successive sentences; I'd change the latter to "the president's wife" or some such
  • The third paragraph of the "Illness and death" section, though in the correct place chronologically, is intrusive in a section that otherwise is concerned with illness and death. I wonder if it would be better repositioned?
Legacy
  • "little remembered" in this context does not require a hyphen.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Sorry about the spelling error, I usually am more careful. I will work on these over the next couple of days. And thank you for the praise on Hanna, but really, I just let the story tell itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are either done or commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You'll see I have switched to unqualified support, though I'm still not happy with the possible ambiguities in "Garret Hobart was an early supporter of McKinley, who helped to assure New Jersey's support for him at the Republican convention." What about: "Hobart, an early supporter of McKinley, helped ensure New Jersey's support for him at the Republican convention."? Also, I'd like to see Hobart's non-military service mentioned, even though no reason is apparent, but I'll leave this to your judgement. The article is impressive, up to the usual high standard of your political histories, and well worth FA status. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, Brian, I overlooked your comment. I've taken your suggestion and inserted your proposed text. Thank you for your thorough review. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your reviews then and now. I enjoyed writing it. Having grown up in New Jersey, it's fun to do an article about there.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did not realize Mr. Hobart was such a fan of the Jersey Shore! In all seriousness, I found the article to be a delight, it's just a shame he fell into Roosevelt's shadow. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to insert the phrase "down the shore" into my articles for years. Again I have failed. Thank you for the review, and I heartily agree about TR.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a great article. I really enjoy it when I learn things from a well-written piece.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the praise and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 01:41, 11 January 2012 [42].

White-necked Rockfowl[edit]

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the White-necked Rockfowl article because I believe it is a comprehensive overview of the species, well-written and well-illustrated with the materials available, and that it meets the criteria. The White-necked Rockfowl is an odd, elusive species, composing half of a unique family of African birds. It nests in caves and rarely flies for any considerable distance. Thank you for reviewing the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how you notate multi-author sources
  • Be consistent in how you punctuate initials
  • Retrieval dates in YYYY-MM-DD format should use hyphens
  • Not sure this ref is really helpful or necessary
  • Some books missing ISBNs
  • Multi-page refs like FN 32 need page numbers
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • FN 30: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge I have addressed your concerns. Except for the editors of Handbook of Birds of the World, all multi-author sources are presented in the same way, and the format for citing multiple editors doesn't seem to permit a different presentation to allow HBW to conform. Per the dictionary reference, it is supporting how the word "pied" is derived from "magpie" and therefore supports the use of the Latin word for magpie in the genus name. At least one bird editor desired clarification on this linguistic chain, and the ref is supporting that. I've left it in for the moment. Thank you for looking at this. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better ref for the derivation of "pied" from "magpie" is Brookes, Ian (editor-in-chief) (2006). The Chambers Dictionary, ninth edition. Edinburgh: Chambers. p. 1138. ISBN 0550101853. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC) just seen Shyamal's edit[reply]
Shyamal's book disproved an internet resource, therefore removing the need for the dictionary reference. ISBN has been added to the new ref. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, 1 overlink fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - great article on a rare and poorly known species.I made a few changes, feel free to revert if you don't like them. Some comments:
    • Perhaps give the family name in the first line? While using informal names is fine, I think this is significant enough to warrant inclusion as well.
    • Lead says This bird is believed to be long-lived., Text says This species is long-lived.. Why the uncertainty in the lead but not the main text? How long is long, or is that not known? Do we have any ages for zoo specimens?
    • The head is nearly featherless with bright yellow skin except for two large, circular black patches located just behind the eyes. Is unclear if this means the black patches are feathered or not.
    • Despite its secretive nature, some natives of Sierra Leone considered the species to be a protector of the home of their ancestral spirits. Non sequitur. Why would the secretive nature (or not) have any bearing on the belief systems of locals? Also, and this is personal taste, I dislike the term native. It may not be meant in the colonial sense, but it could stand to be reworded a bit.
    • I'd suggest that conservation is a subheading of Relationship with humans.
  • This is good and I'll support soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing, and good catches. No reference puts a number on the species' lifespan, though the reference used does state it is a long-lived species. I'll think about moving conservation under Relationship with humans; while the White-necked Rockfowl's section almost entirely deals with humans, I like a roughly standard template for headings, and in some cases Conservation may have little to do with humans; for example, what I've read suggests that the Labrador Duck was going extinct naturally and that humans had little impact. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it shouldn't be inflexible, but in this instance the decline and efforts to save both strongly involve us. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Great, thanks for the changes. I've contacted a Flickr User to see if we can't get a photo of a live bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I wonder, since you mention the Grey-necked Rockfowl in the text and its range is displayed on the map, whether it is worth noting that in the map's caption. Given they are said to be related, this helps geographically to illustrate this.
  • "Two eggs are laid twice a year." This isn't mentioned in the body, at least not in these definite numbers (rather "One to two eggs").
  • "It used to be believed that the rockfowl rarely ventures far from its breeding grounds; however, new information suggests that the species has a much broader range than previously thought." Aside from a brief history of study of the Rockfowl, this doesn't really say much. Is it known how far the bird may venture?
  • Some repeating of cites. If several sentences are covered by the same source, it should be fine to have a single cite at the end of the last sentence.

I made a few minor edits to the text; review and revert as necessary. Apterygial (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. The first two changes have been made, and your differences look good (and taught me some things). It is not known how far the White-necked Rockfowl ventures; however, the fact that it does is of interest, particularly as it appears that the Grey-necked does not, and as earlier reports contradict this, the history of rockfowl thought bit clarifies this for readers who may read an older resource. I also removed two extra refs where the following sentence implied continuation of thought. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. My personal attitude is that one cite can follow several sentences if it can support it; continuation of thought is not important. But I can see your logic, and it's far from a sticking point. Apterygial (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy with the changes with the article that were made following my suggestions. Apterygial (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did the GA review for this, and also did an early ce when it came here. Looks worthy of the star to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise as wikiproject birds member) on comprehensiveness and prose grounds - I just tightened the prose in a few places and it is possible there are a few more tweaks in there, but I don't see any clangers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirects done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused:
  • The White-necked Rockfowl breeds primarily in caves either alone or in a small colony ...

How can they "breed alone"-- doesn't it take two to tango? And how does a whole colony breed if they're monogamous?

The second clause modifies in what surroundings the breeding takes place. Changed the wording. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose attn needed:
  • It used to be believed that each pair builds two nests, one for breeding and one for roosting; however, recent surveys have found no evidence of this, with all nests in the colony being used for breeding.[21]

WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, and it's just awkward ... how about something like ... "It was once believed that ... however, surveys in <year> found ...." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward (passive) prose:

  • ... some birds have been seen to use their tails as a prop underneath the nest to help support themselves. Why can't we say "some birds use their tails"?
trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This behavior, rare amongst other birds but prevalent amongst this species, is not fully understood and has been suggested to happen for the sake of resource competition or sexual selection. (besides awkward, two "amongst" words apart).
reworded, but a tricky one Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the rockfowl lives in close relation with these rocks, it was considered a guardian of these rock formations, ...
  • Must we read rock three times in a few words? There is a more creative way to word this ... close relation with its habitat? why do we need the final rock?
a rock removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • inaccessible habitat have led to this species being unknown by the local population ... hard on the reader ... there must be a more elegant way to state this.
a bit better methinks. Could do with some more tinkering maybe (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1954 Attenborough was the producer on the new television program Zoo Quest, which traveled to Africa to record attempts to capture animals for display in zoos with the focus of the series being on the White-necked Rockfowl. We need an independent ce here ... which traveled ... for zooes ... that's a fairly tortured sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged sentence, but a tricky one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Blank_Map-Africa.svg: on what source or data set was this image based?
The author did not mention it and has not been around for several years, though it does appear to be accurate and is being updated. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is there any way to source it to whatever is being used for the updates? Is it maybe based on a world map that does have a source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rufous hasn't edited since December 20; I've pinged him, and will also ping Casliber to see if he has any ideas on how to resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly, many blank maps of Africa at commons lack where the original drawer got the data from. I have found this and this with better base data information, so can reproduce the species map later tonight when I am home. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
update - have replaced map with one I made and has base map sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • File:PicathartesKeulemans.jpg: any further info on source? Page number? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page number in image description. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as is source and link. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I completed spot checking of the references and found no concerns with copyright violations, sources not backing up information, etc. I don't have access to all of the sources, but the ones that I checked gave no cause for concern. Dana boomer (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria and Dana boomer for image and spotcheck! Rufous, I'm sorry you had to wait so long. On your next FAC, please remind us that you've had a spotcheck here, and link to this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 22:26, 9 January 2012 [43].

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias[edit]

Nominator(s): • Astynax talk and Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, is widely regarded as Brazil's greatest soldier. He fought in his country's independence war and several other international wars. He also quelled rebellions in the early reign of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. Not only that, he was a member of the Conservative Party, became senator for life and was prime minister in three different occasions.

As you can see, this is a man who did a lot in his lifetime. To bring so much information in one short, single place, Astynax and I had to do a lot of homework. It took almost six months to bring this article from this to its present form. As we usually do as a team, I wrote the article and Astynax copy edited it. Not content enough, we asked Clarityfiend (from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to improve whatever was necessary on grammar, prose, or anything related to it. Fifelfoo was also kind enough to check all sources on the peer review we requested. Having said all this, we believe the article is good enough to be ranked among other Featured Articles.

The ones who had a chance to take a look at both Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil will certainly feel at home here. Have a good reading. Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Given the command of loyal forces, from 1839 until 1845, he put down uprisings": did he have have the command of the forces from 1839 to 1845, or put down uprisings during that time? - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Both. You'll see in the main text. --Lecen (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --Lecen (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was officially designated as the army's tutelary patron, and is held as both its paradigm and the most important figure in its tradition.": I'm just pulling this out so others can comment on it.
  • Otherwise, the lead section looks very good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't generally deal with and don't have a good feel for referencing, but it's possible that some will argue that the article is overreferenced ... for instance, his height, hair color, eye color, and "round face" are supported by 5 references, 3 if you don't count duplicates. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Royal Military Academy, he took the infantry course. To graduate as an infantryman, he was supposed to take classes of the 1st and 5th year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. Although the entire course (which ran from the 1st to 7th year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers, he opted to take classes of the 2nd year in 1820 and the 3rd year in 1821,": I'm sorry I don't follow ... for instance, are you saying he was supposed to take certain classes during his first and fifth years at the school, but took them in his first and second years instead?
  • I'm not sure how to interpret the link to "bullying"; what constitutes bullying has changed quite a bit, even from decade to decade and country to country. It might be better to say briefly what he did that merited reprimands. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dank.
1) Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprise if another reviewer appeared here and complained about how the article is underreferenced. Could we keep until the article is promoted? I'll remove after that. Is that ok to you? [Lecen]
I don't generally deal with refs and don't have a preference. - Dank (push to talk)
2) He and his friends used to force the freshmen to handle them their money, he beated them, made pranks, etc... Isn't that bullying?
Okay, then "bullying" works for me. I'll remove the link, because I think the link raises more questions than it will answer for most readers. - Dank (push to talk)
3) The entire course in the Military Academy was ran for seven years. A student who wanted to graduate as infrantyman had to take classes in the 1st and 5th year. He could simply ignore the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th years. That didn't mean that this student had to wait other 4 years until he could take classes in the 5th year. He could finish the 1st year and start the 5th year on the following year. --Lecen (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow that, but I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each year in the Military Academy had different disciplines. To graduate as an infranty man, Caxiad had to graduate in all disciplines of the first and fifth years. He took classes of the first year in 1819 and of the fifth in 1820. He was not obliged to take classes in the first year, then second, then third, etc... He could "skip" the non-obligatory years. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ORDINAL, ordinal numbers up to "ninth" should generally be written out, except when they're part of a name (so, keep "1st Fusilier Battalion"). "4th" etc. generally needs to be written out. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of Caxias' uncles (died 1837) joined the rebels.": This doesn't quite work in scholarly English. If you can make a case that the uncle was notable, then a link (even a red link) on his name would be best. Or, you could leave the date of death out if it's not important. Otherwise, if he was born in 1787, I'd go with: "one of Caxias' uncles ([name], 1787–1837) joined the rebels." - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was actually of the same age as Caxias. I thought it was important to add him to show how his family behaved and how different Caxias was. The date of his uncle's death was given so that readers wouldn't be wondering if there was a "Lima e Silva vs. Lima e Silva" showdown, each on a different side. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To other reviewers: note that I don't read Portuguese and I can't speak to the accuracy of any translations. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following is copied from my talk page. The issues aren't serious enough to withhold support, but I'm hoping someone will sort it all out.
  • [From Lecen] Hi, Dank, I made a few changes to a paragraph of Duke of Caxias that you found a little confusing. Here is what it looked like before:
  • In the Royal Military Academy, he took the infantry course. To graduate as an infantryman, he was supposed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. Although the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers, he opted to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. He took classes in the Royal Military Academy that ranged from arithmetic ...
  • Now it looks like this:
  • The the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) in the Royal Military Academy was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves was only needed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. The subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from arithmetic ...
  • Is it better now? Does the paragraph looks clear enough that anyone could understand it? --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to shorten it; let me know if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have some issues with the changes. If you read it again, you'll think that artillerymen and engineers study in a different course, not on the same as the infantrymen. You also removed "...subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from..." which will lead anyone to believe that he only studied "math, geometry, tactics, strategy, camping, campaign fortifications and terrain reconnaissance". There was a lot more on the curriculum than that. Now take a look at the next section ('Independence of Brazil'). It mentions that he was about to begin the fourth year in the academy but dropped it. Without the reference to the other years, this will look weird. You must also remember that "1st year", "2nd year", etc... do not mean "his first year in the academy" or "his second year in the academy", etc... The name for each academic year was "1st year", "2nd year", etc... this is why he did the "1st year" and then the "5th year". --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating my support, given the change of the disputed section to "Youth and military education", and given the recent supports. The personal appearance stuff doesn't rise to the level of a stopper, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order
  • "How far their relationship progressed is unknown, but there may have been a failed engagement." - source?
  • "i.e., the monarchy, his "second faith"" - where is this quote from?
  • "Caxias supplanted Osório because he was seen as a loyal and dutiful officer who could serve as a role model in a Brazilian republic plagued since its birth in 1889 by military insubordination, rebellions and coups d'etat." - source?
  • Please review MOS:QUOTE for formatting and other relevant guidelines regarding quotations
  • Note C is missing the closing quotation mark. Please check for other omitted punctuation
  • When you provide English quotations from foreign-language sources, is this your own translation? If so, please review the MOS' guidelines regarding such translation, and also please double-check grammar/formatting; if not, please provide the translator info
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Why do some references have doubled locations?
  • For journal references, should provide the complete page range of the article in the reference entry
  • Doratioto 2003: an article in Portuguese has an English title, or is this a translated title? If the latter, should be notated as such and applied consistently
  • Kraay & Whigham: this is an edited collection of essays by different authors, so is not currently cited correctly. The individual authors must receive attribution, not just the editors
  • Lyra 1977b: spacing
  • Google Books and WorldCat both give a different publisher for Lyra, and both include a series that you omit. Can you explain this?

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I note that the article would benefit from further copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:
1) I'll leave this one to Astynax.
2) "source?" It's there.
3) "where is this quote from?" My own. There to explain the reader what he meant by "little church".
4) "source?" It's also there. "According to Adriana Barreto de Souza,[217] Francisco Doratioto[218] and Celso Castro[219]..."
5) Also to Astynax.
6) Fixed.
7) "When you provide English quotations from foreign-language sources, is this your own translation?" If they came from foreign-language sources, it could be only my own translation.
8) "Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not" I placed them exactly as they can be found in the books. Nonetheless, they are all the same now.
9) "Why do some references have doubled locations?" They aren't. The first name is the city, the second one is the state (or province, or if there isn't any, the country).
10) "For journal references, should provide the complete page range of the article in the reference entry". Where it is said that this is necessary?
11) "...or is this a translated title?" Translated. I placed the Portuguese title, followed by the translation.
12) "The individual authors must receive attribution, not just the editors" I used as source the essay inside the book which was written by Kraay & Whigham.
13) "Lyra 1977b": spacing" Also to Astynax (I'm awful on anything related to these gadgets)
14) "Can you explain this?" I can't. I'm using the books I own.
Thank you for your imput. P.S.: Further info about Caxias can be found here. --Lecen (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order" I've fixed those. Is there something in the current MOS or FAC requirements that stipulates this? I don't mind reordering and agree that it looks better, but I'm asking because I could never find anything on this point other than some old guidelines that were dropped quite some time ago.
5 & 6) Closing quote marks have been added to the quotation.
13) The missing space was added following the comma. Thanks. • Astynax talk 09:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support content on 1b Comments on content. Given some discussion of content, I decided to take a look at this military-political biography of a 19th century Brazilian aristocrat. My perspective is of a 20th century labour historian who focuses on organisations. I previously looked over this in a peer review where I looked at citation formatting quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check' by GrahamColm - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62 from Cryptic C62:

  • "Once again, unlike his father and relatives who either joined or supported the rebellions," Is there a non-trivial difference between joining and supporting a rebellion? I suggest shortening to "Once again, unlike his father and relatives who supported the rebellions,"
  • "In 1875, old and sick, he headed a cabinet for the last time. After years of failing health, he died on 7 May 1880." The phrase "old and sick" seems somewhat redundant with "after years of failing health." I suggest removing it.
  • "and is held as both its paradigm and the most important figure in its tradition." I don't think that "paradigm" is the correct work here. Perhaps you mean "paragon"?
  • "His godparents were his paternal grandfather, José Joaquim de Lima da Silva, and his maternal grandmother, Ana Quitéria Joaquina." I realize that there is not much information available about Caxias's early years, but is this even worth mentioning? Unless these two individuals are somehow noteworthy in their own right, I don't think that a person's godparents make for encyclopedic material.
  • "there is scant information regarding Luís Alves' life prior to age 36" I find this sentence somewhat peculiar since the next section begins by describing the subject's enlistment at the age of five. I think I would prefer to replace "life prior to age 36" with "early life".
  • "Seven years later, on 4 May 1818," Well this is rather obviously redundant. There's no reason to precede the sentence with two time statements like this. I suggest removing one, though I have no preference as to which.
    Removed "Seven years later".
  • "(equivalent to a second lieutenant today)" Assuming this refers to the equivalent rank in the modern-day Brazilian Army, I suggest linking "second lieutenant" to Military ranks of Brazil.
    It's the equivalent on Brazilian, U.S., French armies and others. I didn't add the wikilink because there is no table for comparison between the old (imperial) ranks and present-day ranks. Thus the link would end up being useless.
  • "A young man of regular features," Not really sure what this means. Are there many historical figures who possessed irregular features?
    This is how he was described by the source. It means that he was neither handsome nor ugly. There was nothing distinguishable on his face.
  • "he was supposed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively" What does the phrase "of the first year" mean? Clearly it doesn't mean "during his first year", unless he did a bit of time-travelling.
    This part was changed. Now it reads "The entire course (which ran from the First to Seventh year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves only needed to take classes of the First and Fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the Second year in 1820 and the Third year in 1821." Is it clear now? --Lecen (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of the section title Between family and loyalty to the crown. All of the others give a clear indication of where the information fits into his life, either chronologically or politically. This one sounds like the chapter title of a historical fiction novel.
    This is exactly what happened. His father and uncles joined the protest and the Emperor asked what side he would chose. Do you have any suggestion? --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something related to Dom Pedro I? A cursory glance at the content in this section seems to indicate that it all relates to Dom Pedro I's reign and Caxias's involvement therein. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Wars and military crises". Better? --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, much better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Thanks for the hard work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Great stuff, thanks. I personally don't think there's a contradiction in saying that not much is known, but then laying out what we do know ... for more modern subjects, a lot more will be known, most of which we don't report because it's not important enough. The writers are saying: this is pretty much all we've got. I'm not sure if that's important enough to mention, but it might be. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cryptic C62. Good to see you here.
  1. "Paragons" and "old and sick": fixed.
  2. "Is there a non-trivial difference between joining and supporting a rebellion?" His father and an uncle gave their moral support for one rebellion. Another uncle of his actively joined the rebellion. That's why we used "joining" and "supporting".
    But the uncle who joined the revolution must necessarily have supported it. Thus, shortening "joined or supported" to just "supported" is not incorrect, and it is less likely to result in the reader thinking "That seems a bit redundant. What's the difference?" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to answer this one: you're right. I removed the redundant word. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Unless these two individuals are somehow noteworthy in their own right, I don't think that a person's godparents make for encyclopedic material" It made more sense before I removed huge pieces of the article and removed them to the talk page. They gave far more information Caxias' ancestry and his grandfather's life. I kept them in case in the future a researcher or another editor has interest on working wih that information. I kept the information that his grandparents were his godparents because both are mentioned later on the article. His grandmother, who possibly educated him and his grandfather, an officer who remained loyal to the crown and to the law and served as a role model to him.
    Fair enough, struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "I find this sentence somewhat peculiar since the next section begins by describing the subject's enlistment at the age of five." Another editor correctly remarked on the talk page that it made little sense that we claimed that there is little information about Caxias prior to age 36 but then there are several sections on this article talking about his life prior to age 36. But here is the problem: what looks full of info in an article looks mediocre at best on a 400pg book. All biographies of Caxias spend 80% of their pages talking about him after he went to Maranhão. The reason is that there is simply not enough information about what he did before. It is known that he fought for three years in the Cisplatine War, but exactly where? What did he do there? There are no surviving letters or memories of this period. All that has been used as source was taken from official documents ("Cadet Lima e Silva was removed to X base" Why? We don't know). However, I opted to remove this information since it won't matter. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mark Arsten I just read through the article and while I'm not experienced with the FA criteria, I think the article is pretty solid. I made a few small changes to the prose, overall it was in pretty good shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum. This isn't bad, but it's still a bit rough in too many places. A few examples:

Birth and childhood
  • "He may have learned to read and write from his grandmother, Ana Quitéria." Unidiomatic: "He may have been taught to read and write by his grandmother, Ana Quitéria."
Military education
  • "A young man of regular features, Luís Alves was of average height, and had a round face, brown hair and brown eyes." What has any of that to do with his military education?
Independence of Brazil
  • "Luís Alves would normally have begun the Fourth year at the Royal Military Academy sometime in March 1822." Should be "some time", not "sometime".
  • "On 18 January 1823, Pedro I created the 'Emperor's Battalion', a handpicked elite infantry unit ...". Why is Emperor's Battalion in scare quotes?
  • "During the Bahia campaign, high ranking officers mutinied against Labatut ...". Missing hyphen: should be "high-ranking".
Balaiada
  • "For his achievement, Luís Alves was promoted on 18 July 1841 to brigadier". Rather awkward: "For his achievement, Luís Alves was promoted to brigadier on 18 July 1841".
Liberal rebellions of 1842
  • "... he was appointed as military commander of Minas Gerais". He wasn't appointed as, he was appointed.
War of the Ragamuffins
  • "When the republican secessionist rebellion known as War of the Ragamuffins began in Rio Grande do Sul in 1835 ...". Missing "the", as in "the War of the Ragamuffins".
  • "Caxias had made a short trip to Rio Grande do Sul in 1839 to inspect the war effort against the Ragamuffins". How do you inspect a war effort?
  • "A year later, Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas resigned after he quarreled with Pedro II". The subject, "Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas", does not match "he".
Platine War
  • "The army commanded by Caxias crossed into Uruguay in September 1851." Was there another army commanded by someone else?
    • Always glad for your help, Malleus. Lecen, I'm starting a new project and my time is really limited these days ... I have no spare time for settling disputes, so if you and Malleus start yelling at each other, I'm out of here. Malleus, I'm not 100% sure I agree that I was wrong on some of these after looking them up as best I can ("some time" is less common in AmEng, except in sentences like "He waited for some time", and constructions like "Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas resigned after he ..." are okay with Chicago, although I think it's a little better with "his"), but otherwise, I'm quite happy with all your suggestions, and I'm implementing them now. Lecen, I don't think I've seen descriptions of height, eye color and hair color in our bios; usually we let the image suffice. What's the shortest description you're comfortable with? - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know, there are other FAs that give physical description such as in Augustus ("He was unusually handsome ... He had clear, bright eyes ... His teeth were wide apart, small, and ill-kept; his hair was slightly curly and inclining to golden; his eyebrows met. His ears were of moderate size, and his nose projected a little at the top and then bent ever so slightly inward. His complexion was between dark and fair. He was short of stature ..."), Queen Victoria ("Victoria was physically unprepossessing—she was stout, dowdy and no more than five feet tall—but she ..."), etc... I wasn't aware that we are not allowed to do that anymore. --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And do they do that in a section entitled Military education? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just saying that I don't remember seeing detailed descriptions in any of this year's Milhist bios at FAC. "A handsome young man of average height, he was considered ..." would be fine. Readers can see the brown hair and eyes in the image in Failed presidencies of the Council of Ministers. Malleus, we can rename the section if you like, but I can't see a place to move the description; that's when he looked like that. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • They don't have a section called "military education". They do it in a section called "Legacy" (see Queen Victoria) and you could ask the same question to DrKiernan: "What does her physical description has to do with the Legacy section?". In my case, I did it because the section describes the moment he became an adult and acchieved full maturity. And I also wasn't aware that I have to follow closely other Milhist bios. --Lecen (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You don't have to do anything other than to explain what the duke's appearance has to do with his military education. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I changed the subsection title to "Adolescence". I also shortened the description as I mentioned above, but this is just a recommendation, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I had to revert it. It doesn't make any sense saying that I'm not allowed to give his description on this section or any other. Worse: that I have to change the name of the section because of that. --Lecen (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay, I don't think the description is an issue so far, that was just a recommendation. On the subsection title, see below. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It's an issue for me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Okay, if the subsection title is "Adolescence", does this work for you? "A handsome young man of average height, he was considered ..." - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't demand that the changes I suggest are made if a reasonable counter-case can be made. And I'm not about to start yelling at anyone, but I do think that the prose is (or was, I haven't looked at your changes or the whole article yet) a little on the rough side. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for spending time on this. I made the changes I think you were asking for except for that one question to Lecen, and I've just changed around that last sentence to: "After Honório Hermeto quarreled with Pedro II a year later, he and the saquaremas resigned." - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the subsection we're talking about, in full:

On 22 May 1808, Luís Alves was enlisted at the age of five as a cadet in the 1st Regiment of Infantry of Rio de Janeiro.[9][19] Historian Adriana Barreto de Souza explained that this did "not mean that he began to serve as a child, the connection to the regiment was simply honorific", his perquisite as the son of a military officer.[3][9] This infantry regiment was informally known as the "Lima [family] Regiment" because so many members of the family served in it, including his father and grandfather.[20]
In 1811, Luís Alves moved with his parents from his grandparents' farm to Rio de Janeiro and was enrolled at the Seminário São Joaquim (Saint Joachim's School).[9][21] On 4 May 1818, he was admitted into the Royal Military Academy.[22] On 12 October 1818, he was promoted to the rank of alferes (equivalent to a second lieutenant today), and to lieutenant (nowadays first lieutenant) on 4 November 1820.[22] A young man of regular features, Luís Alves was of average height,[2][23] and had a round face,[24] brown hair and brown eyes.[2][23] He was considered a very reasonable[25] and honest person.[26] Historian Thomas Whigham described him as someone who "learned the art of giving orders early in life. Immaculate in his dress, he was soft spoken, polite, and smoothly in control of himself. He seemed to radiate calm composure and authority."[27]
The entire course (which ran from the First to Seventh year) in the Royal Military Academy was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves only needed to take classes of the First and Fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years.[28] In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the Second year in 1820 and the Third year in 1821.[29] The subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from arithmetic, algebra and geometry to tactics, strategy, camping, fortification in campaign and terrain reconnaissance.[30] Though an accomplished student, the young lieutenant was often reprimanded for bullying new students.[31]

Note that none of the first paragraph and only the first half of the second paragraph are about his military education. I agree with Malleus that that's not the right title for this subsection. Since this subsection covers his life from ages 8 to 18 (with a brief reference to age 5), "Adolescence" would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose it. It's not about his teenage years, but about his early military career. I know where this is heading to and what Malleus Fatuorum really wants. If he was smart enough, he would have ignored my nomination, since he doesn't review all nominations. He picked this one for one sole reason. Let's finish this once and for all. Malleus Fatuorum, you may place your "oppose". --Lecen (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm done here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. Lecen's demonstrable inability to deal with criticism is something the FAC delegates have to deal with, not me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read this article a couple of times in the last few months, the article is looking very good in my view. Astynax and Lecen worked very hard on this one, well done. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read the article and I find that it is well-written and very informative. It is structured in a well-done fashion and has no bias. It clearly envelopes the life of D. Luís Alves and covers all important topics on the duke's life. The article is well sourced and I support its candidacy for featured article status. {Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment: Reviewing Criteria #3--Media

  • I counted 8 portraits of Luis Alves. Overkill? His father was an important influence--can we get a pic of Francisco? Could the article benefit from a family tree?
  • Captions are fine per WP:CAPTIONS.
  • Question about public domain: the description page at commons for File:Angela fuerriol gonzalez 1832.jpg indicates that the image was published in 1832, but the source O Duque de Caxias was published in 2003. How do we know if the image was originally "published" in 1832? – Lionel (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lionelt. Good to see you here. There is one picture for each section, although the early ones have none. I didn't add a picture of his father because I plan to create his own article (as a former regent he had a certain importance historically). Do you really think there is the need to for a family tree? After all, the article only mentioned his father and paternal uncles.
The book "O Duque de Ferro" ("The Iron Duke"; not "Duque de Caxias", I made a mistake, sorry) was originally published as two separate books: "O Duque de Ferro" and "Novos aspectos da figura de Caxias" in the early 20th century. The oval pictue of Angela Fuerriol Gonzalez was not published in 1832, but created in that year. All it says was that it was made by a person called "Odogerti" in 1832. This person has certainly died a long time ago. All pictures used on this article (with the sole exception of the last one) were made in Caxias' lifetime. The lithographies seen in the Paraguayan War sections were in fact published by news magazines. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 19:50, 9 January 2012 [44].

Plateosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): HMallison (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has matured over time, and many people have made minor improvements since GA status. This includes edits with improvements based on a review of the identical German wikipedia article that ended in an "excellent" rating.

Being the world's expert on Plateosaurus biomechanics I do not know of any recent studies of significance that are not covered in the article, and thus believe the content to be as complete as befits an excellent article. I had several native speakers and colleagues read through the article; whereas all had minor gripes, there seemed not to be any consensus on them. To me, that indicates that improvements can at most be cosmetic.

I have to acknowledge that the article is fairly technical and demanding of less educated readers. However, I tried my best to either link and/or explain difficult words in laypeople's terms, thus I believe that improvements in this respect will be practically impossible without reducing quality. HMallison (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide PDF of most sources cited for fact checking. email me! HMallison (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media Review I fixed the description for the map, other than that, it's all good. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the page ranges used are quite large - is it possible to use smaller ones to aid in verification?
  • FN 3: translate author formatting. Also, page(s)?
  • FN 4: page(s)? In general, print-based sources need page numbers
  • Be consistent in how pages are notated
  • What is ATTEMPTO?
  • FN 23: formatting
  • FN 35: need specific page number(s)
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for books, and if so where these are placed
  • FN 37: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As one of the major contributors, I am not an impartial judge; however, I will be around to help with reviewers' issues. J. Spencer (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
partial reply to Nikkimaria
* "Some of the page ranges used are quite large" - sources (not footnotes = FNs! Those are for "sissies") are given according to scientific standards: full citation, with full page range. The habit of pointing to a specific page of a book is nice and useful, because books tend to be very long (but come a new edition, even one with no text changes, and you're f-ed!). However, most sources are scientific publications, and thus it makes little sense to cite a specific page! These sources are highly structured, and thus it is easy to find the relevant passage WITH CONTEXT anyways.
Additionally, to add a reference to a specific page within the given range, which admittedly could be done, is a task taking a whole work week! Just so that people can do an out-of-context-"fact check"? With science papers you need to read the entire thing anyways to check if the paper is quoted correctly. PLEASE REPLY if you really think this necessary, or maybe list the specific claims you would like to see page-sources; if the total number is manageable I'll try to do so. For example, I can at least point to the relevant chapters within Moser (2003), which is quite lengthy - but only if the reader really gains from this. Moser (2003) is not OpenAccess, btw., so I doubt there is a big gain for anyone.
* missing pages for some sources are caused by articles being online-first, thus lacking them. Some have since appeared in print, so it is possible to add pages numbers (will do). Some do not officially have any (e.g., Palaeontologia Electronica papers). EDIT: FN 3, e.g., has still not appeared in print. Do you want me to add "onlien first" to ref text for these cases? /EDIT EDIT: equally, Yates et al. 2011 /EDIT
* missing pages for some old books etc. stem from the book being inconsistently numbered in different catalogs and editions. I'll TRY to fix.
* ATTEMPTO is a publisher (of Tübingen University). Last time I checked they were just ATTEMPTO, not ATTEMPTO Verlag or so.
* will fix formatting inconsistencies.
Thanks a lot for finding these issues! HMallison (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly done now; awaiting reply on specific page issue. HMallison (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum you definitely should include more specific pages for direct quotes. I would prefer also to see them for FNs 4, 6, 35, and 36. (Also, while I didn't do a full re-check, I'm still seeing quite a few formatting inconsistencies here...). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about direct quotes. I'll see about the mentioned sources, too. However, I still think that it is not sensible to quote individual pages for everything. And yeah, as I said formatting is mostly done, not completely done ;) HMallison (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done direct pages for journals, other than to cite the page range of the articles. For books I generally have, or alternately cited the chapter or segment of text pertaining to the subject. I'll take a look at the formatting. Hmallison, I am happy to put the journals into cite format if you're ok with it as it automatically does all the bold/italics/spacing etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead! it's very helpful, and if I watch I may learn how to do it properly! HMallison (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what the problem here is, don't you? Most people really write wikipedia articles by stitching quotes from sources they often do not fully understand. That's usually the best laypeople can do, and that's how I'd be forced to write outside my direct field of expertise (which is why I don't). If you write in this way it is very easy to just add the page number to a citation.
An expert, in contrast, has at least half the main sources reliably in his memory, thus is required to re-check them just to add a page number. Heck, I don't know any page numbers for my own papers - why would I? (in addition, some don't have them). That's a huge waste of time. For example, I would need to find 18 specific things I quoted Moser (2003) on in that paper, with each of them being very likely to be mentioned several times.
I guess, if you really insist on conforming to the letter of [45], I won't be able to do it. I happen to have a life. Sorry.
I'll source the nomenclature part. I'll find the page range referring to Plateosaurus in Jaekel (1911). Same for other works that have specific parts on the critter. But I won't rip Moser (2003) apart, nor any other work that deals exclusively with Plateosaurus. If that means no FA status for Plateosaurus, so be it (no hard feelings). HMallison (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'HELP - is there a way to do this: I want repeat instances citing the same source (e.g., Sander 1992) to point to ONE entry in the reflist (i.e., Sander (1992) is listed only once), but also want to refer each entry to a specific page within that document. It seems that this is not easily possible. Can we have the page number given, e.g., with the superscript number linking to the reference? If it can't be done, sourcing to individual pages would mean that we end up with Sander (1992) listed ten times in the reflist, which is idiotic. HMallison (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've done the sourcing a bit differently with White-bellied Sea Eagle - see there are page templates with SFN that then link to ref section and to book ref directly below. We can use that way (??) You like? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that would work - but it is SO "humanities and arts", and so un-"natural sciences" ;) I'll see if I can get this to work so that those refs without need for distinction between pages jump right to the reflist. HMallison (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, what do you think? is it OK if I add this for important topics? HMallison (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean SFN or similar? Sure, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it seems to me that it is not possible to have a SFN for those refs that need distinction wrt cited page, but have all other refs show up directly in the list of References. Does anybody know a solution? As a scientist used to "proper" reference lists (ideally alphabetically sorted) what I see at White-bellied Sea Eagle does not really look "pretty" to me. HMallison (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be done with ref groups? HMallison (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems possible, I'll give ti a shot. HMallison (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Casliber, anyone else interested in proper citations: please check the examples I added for the Etymology section [46] and how they show in Notes [47] and References. If this is OK, I'll add page numebrs for everything as I find time (I must caution that they want $13/day for internet during SVP, to next week will see me mostly offline). HMallison (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points - I'm still happy with what I see to pass the article (3 is really minor below). You happy for me to format the refs? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, go ahead with refs. 3) will be addressed once I find a quite 30 minutes. The text needs a bit of clarification on "monospecific" with regards to the additional finds, too.
Regarding ref formatting: I guess that Nikkimaria sees inconsistencies where there are none. I use three different formats for three different things: journal articles, non-edited books, and chapters in edited books. If you assume that non-edited books and chapters in edited books need to be the same, then the refs are indeed inconsistent. However, the different formatting is intentional; I copied the style of a paleo journal. Anything else you find - fire away! HMallison (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you're just not seeing them ;-). Some quick examples: hyphen instead of endash for page range in FN 58; formatting of the larger work in FN 26 vs FN 57. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Hmallison has not participated at FAC before, hence some of these bits are fiddly. I have tweaked the dash/hyphen things, but now need to sleep. WIll format refs in morning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thanks for giving examples! It makes it a lot easier for me. I'm a style editor for a journal, so well versed for finding formatting errors in word docs, but not here. I didn't mean to say that you ONLY see errors where there are none (sorry!), only that SOME things that may seem odd or wrong to you may stem from my (admittedly odd) choice for formatting scheme. And yes, the Special Papers in Paleontology are a problem (good catch!), because even the publisher initially had differing formatting in the PDFs, so that zotero and Endnote etc. extracted them differently. AARGH! HMallison (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References all changed to use templates. HMallison (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had an unmentionably horrendous day and had almost zero time to help out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - this way I was forced to learn how to do it - and once I got the hang of it things worked out well and quickly. HMallison (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that would have been a real surprise, except for where I cite my own work ;) HMallison (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to misunderstand this comment, but even if you're citing your own work, you can't "plagiarize" there unless you own the copyright and do some OTRS thing to release it to Wikipedia-- I hope you're not saying you've copied your own words from elsewhere, unless you've released the copyright to Wikipedia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments (pending discussion on 3 below but that is really minor)- I was an early contributor and did muse on buffing this myself, but someone alot better qualified came along. I have since copyedited it. Looking good overall. I'll jot any final queries for discussion below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Commonly, the animals lived for 12 to 20 years at least - not greatly thrilled about the sentence as it sounds odd to me - I think "The animals commonly lived for 12 to 20 years at least." is better, but there might be some other options.
2) Three localities are of special importance, because they yielded specimens in large numbers and unusual quality - wondering whether there is any ambiguity and that " Three localities are of special importance, because they yielded specimens in large numbers and unusually good/high quality" is better (?)
3) Between the 1910s and 1930s, excavations in a clay pit in Saxony-Anhalt dug up between 39 and 50 skeletons that belonged to Plateosaurus, Liliensternus and Halticosaurus - is it worth saying "Between the 1910s and 1930s, excavations in a clay pit in Saxony-Anhalt dug up between 39 and 50 skeletons that belonged to Plateosaurus, and two small theropod genera/theropods/predators Liliensternus and Halticosaurus" (bolded bit - take one's pick of descriptors...)
4) Plateosaurus material has also been found in Greenland - I think it balances if we give where in Greenland (as we have specific localities in all the preceding countries)
Replies to Casliber (I took the liberty of numbering your points for easier referral)
1), 2): Agree, will wait for suggestions EDIT: altered, please check if good now./EDIT
3) will check on amount of material and add that to sentence you suggestedSander 1992 has tables, is more up-to-date. Changed text and source. Halticosaurus is not listed by Sander; I trust him more than the Tübingen Proceedings paper. HMallison (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4) done as well as I can; have only abstract of relevant paper. HMallison (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with a few minor comments. I think I see a mixture of US and UK spellings (not many) such as "behaviour" perhaps a quick spell check is needed. Is there a special meaning to "subadults" that "juveniles" does not convey? I think this should be "or" as in "nor of catastrophic burial". And "under 10 years of age" should be "less than". Lastly do we really need to hyphenate "zigzag"? Thank you for an engaging and highly informative contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll spell-check as suggested, fix "or" and "under". No need for a hyphen, but it was suggested by my spellchecker. "subadult" and "juvenile" - I wish there were scientific terms to distinguish between "children" and "teenagers". I and many of my colleagues use "subadult" for the latter, and that is exactly what the P. finds represent: adults and teenagers (i.e., probably fertile or nearly fertile individuals). If you can think of a concise way to make this point in the text I'd be very happy to alter the text. HMallison (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "immature adults"? Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! But you just gave me an idea: "nearly adult" HMallison (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spellchecking done, Word 2011 UK English. Terms not included there may be wrong in my personal Word dictionary, so please yell if you think something is wrong. HMallison (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
other changes made, I left "subadults" in, but added parentheses with "nearly adult individuals" for clarification. OK? HMallison (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course - thanks for your friendly (and entertaining) responses. Graham Colm (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support

  • 1) Notes H and I are identical, could they be combined?
  • 2)Just a thought, but I wonder if swapping the second and third paragraphs of the lead would help with flow. I think a physical description of Plateosaurus follows on first paragraph which explains the period the dinosaur lived in. The second and fourth seem to focus mainly on the study of the genus.
  • 3)Also in the lead, "taxonomy" is linked (and an explanation given in brackets) on the second occasion rather than first. There is a similar issue with the term "monophyletic" as it's explained in the taxonomy section, but not where it first occurs in the description section.
  • 4)"Average individuals had a mass of around 600 to 4,000 kilograms (1,300 to 8,800 lb)": The word "Average" doesn't strike me as necessary as you go on to give a range. If it was the median (what most people think of when they hear of averages) surely it would have a single value?
  • 5)It's not preventing me from supporting, but could the red dot on File:Plateosaurus cent europ localities2.png be made a bit brighter? I think it's a bit too dark at the moment and doesn't stand out from the black dots.
  • 6)"In contrast, von Huene interpreted the sediment as aeolian deposits, with the weakest animals, mostly subadults (nearly adult individuals), succumbing to the harsh conditions in the desert and sinking into the mud of ephemeral water holes": did he explain why juveniles were not found with the remains? The same question applies to Weishampel later in the same section.
  • 7)Maybe "obligate" could be explained in the article?
  • 8)Could something be added on the Plateosaurus' habitat?

The illustrations are excellent and I feel the article mixes technical terms with brief explanations well. I've made a couple of edits you'll want to check over to make sure I didn't screw anything up. Nev1 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(For easier reference I numbered your points, I hope you don't mind)
Many thanks, I am constantly surprised at how many things are left to hone to perfection (as if that could ever be reached)
1) sorry, no idea how I could do this. I could, theoretically, just delete the first, and have the second refer to both sentences. But because of some bad experiences on German wikipedia, and because I dislike the "paragraph citing" in research articles (u don't want me as a reviewer, trust me!) I would rather stick to the present way of doing it. If someone can merge these refs while retaining a ref for each sentence, please do! Done!
2) I'll think about it. Gut reaction is to say no, because paragraph four ties in with three, and two doesn't fit after four. I need to read this a few times in both versions and see.
3) Will fix! (me idiot, should have done a search for first occurrence of linked stuff) Done!
4) Typo! "Adult", not "average! DOH!!! Done!
5) I'll ask the file creator, I am an idiot with these things. You're entirely correct!
6) Huene (1928) says nothing about very young individuals. Sorry! Weishampel & Westphal (1986) have two theories: mud deluge transported babies elsewhere (we know there was no catastrophic death, thus nonsense), or babies lived elsewhere. Also unlikely. IIRC, Probable answer is in Sander (1992): only "correct" weight leads to sinking into mud. I'll check.
7) yep. Will do. Done!
8) Ooff! That is quite a task, I first have to check what the current literature says - if there is any. A plaeobotanist by training I never dug into that mess. I know a lot of stuff that was later found to be incorrect, but I do not know where to find current data. I'll see what my PDF collection has to offer, and what I can get via institutional access. But I do not have high hopes! The area was studied to death a century ago, and the current consensus seems to be that all things published as a resut are not really accurate. I know fro sure that the current excavators are Trossingen think a full-blown study of sedimentology and playnology to be required.
What I can add is some palaeogeography. That's less controversial.
As for the quality of the illustrations: I did my best, and FunkMonk went throught the hassle of uploading it all. So many thanks for the praise. Your edits, btw, all seem perfect HMallison (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out how to do #1. J. Spencer (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're a genius! HMallison (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though the article looks great, there are a few questions I have, with the first two in the "Description" section and the rest I have designated:
  • 1) "The arms of Plateosaurus were very short, even compared to most other "prosauropods", but strongly built, with hands adapted to powerful grasping." Something about this sentence is a tad off, perhaps you could divide it into two sentences with the second one beginning with "Despite the length of the arms..." or something of that nature.
  • 2) It seems to me that there are some inconsistencies with tense, it says "The skull of Plateosaurus is small and narrow..." and then later says "The ribs were connected to the dorsal (trunk) vertebrae..."
  • 3) In the "Classification and type material" section, it says "Plateosaurus was the first "prosauropod" to be described,[1] and gives its name to the family Plateosauridae as type genus." Is there any reason the citation is in the middle of the sentence and there is no citation at the end?
  • 4) First sentence of "Valid species" section: "The taxonomic history of Plateosaurus is complex and confusing." Confusing is a strange word to use here. It sounds a bit informal and could be an opinion, perhaps say "The taxonomic history of Plateosaurus is complex and there is debate in the scientific community concerning the topic" or something to that extent.
  • 5) "Invalid species" section: "Later, he collapsed several of these species..." What exactly do you mean by "collapsed"?
  • 6) In the second paragraph of the "Growth, metabolism, and life span" section there are a few facts that have no citations with them, such as the one about the varied growth rate probably being caused by environmental factors. I think that we need a citation especially when words such as "probably" are used, since that is a scientist's opinion
Overall, I was very impressed and I have learned so much about the wonderful Plateosaurus. Thanks for all your hard work! Basilisk4u (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have numbered your points for easier reference, hope you don't mind.
1) I'll split that. Done!
2) The example you give is correct: the skull IS, but the ribs WERE attached. The animals are dead, you know, and the ribs no longer attached at all. but I'll go through the text for inconsistencies ;)
3) I'll check that out. Ref added.
4) I seem to remember that this is used in a paper, will check and turn into direct quote w source or replace. Found exact quote, so no need to source to all of Moser. HMallison (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5) will fix
6) That section is all from one source, and the one case where I used paragraph sourcing. But you're correct: I used sentence-sourcing for all the rest, so need to be consistent.HMallison (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were addressed. Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—The article looks to be in pretty good shape with plenty of detail. Here's a few concerns that caught my eye:

  1. Unless I missed it, there doesn't appear to be any information on fossil dating. A time range is given in the lead, but is not cited.
  2. "...back, and a large, round orbit (eye socket),...": Why the extra 'and' with the comma?
  3. "...both positions determines the air exchange ... determined to be ... ": The double use of 'determine' in this sentence stands out. Can a synonym be used?
  4. "...were only recognized recently": this is a dated statement.
  5. Artistically, that size comparison illustration doesn't look quite right, especially when I compare it to the life restoration illustration and some of the skeletal mounts. In particular, the limbs aren't postured correctly and they seem to be in the wrong position. There are other, lesser concerns about the silhouette.

Sorry for only getting to this so late in the review cycle. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, this will take a long time to get perfect (I have a real life, y'know?), so you're not late but early!
I numbered your points for easier reference, hope you don't mind.
1) That's an issue.... In Trossingen, the Norian/Rhaetian border may be in the Knollenmergel. However, nothing published on that. I'll add something, and stick to the published wisdome, and use the stratigraphic table for Germany in its latest version. Done - range is shorter than before because of sticking to stratigraphic table. Uncertain about validity, but big paper that would clarify has been rotting in someone's drawer since 2003. This is the best I can do right now. HMallison (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2) rephrased. Please tell if satisifed.
3) "define" instead of "determine".
4) "in 2010".
5) I agree, this is not really great. I can cobble one up from one of my papers' figures.
Many thanks! HMallison (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New paper on P. skull in AMNH Bulletin; skimmed it, will add it. Makes odd claim about P. erlenbergensis being valid; no major changes as big study by Moser 2003 ignored. Give me a day or two to add this. HMallison (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added to taxonomy section, with qualifying comment and source HMallison (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was just published: doi:10.1206/3727.2. Not sure how much of it is relevant to this article. Ucucha (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the four lines before yours ;) It also has some relevance if I ever get around to add a very detailed description of the skull. Thanks for pointing it out, though - sometimes I miss these things! HMallison (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been holding back a bit because I was waiting for a paper to come out which now has appeared: the field notes of Trossingen excavator Seemann. PDF of paper includes EN translation, can be accessed for free here: [48] I'll work anything important into the text then address what remains. I hope to find mention of plant remains or lack thereof at Trossingen, etc., which pertains to some open questions. HMallison (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I stopped reading about dinosaurs when I was about 8, so I have little knowledge of the subject matter. That said, I found the article to be scholarly, well-written, and interesting, and I think it will make an excellent addition to FA. All I can offer to help improve it are suggestions for minor prose and MoS tweaks. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "… as is the case in other basal sauropodomorphs." -> "as in other basal sauropodomorphs."
  • "… was adapted to rapid bipedal locomotion." -> "could run quickly on its two legs."
  • suggested links: Royal Ontario Museum, crown, histology, clade, phylogeny, basal, cladogram, plasticity
  • "…, which has allowed reconstructing the inhaled and exhaled… " -> "which has allowed researchers to reconstruct the inhaled and exhaled positions of the ribcage."
  • "determined to be ~20 l for a P. engelhardti" I think "about" or "approximately" should be used rather than a shorthand symbol in text
  • "Adult individuals had a mass" could this be shortened to just "Adults" (the previous sentence starts out the same way)
  • "The older species, P. gracilis" Older as in described before the other species, or older as in lived in an earlier geologic era?
  • unlink physician; Frick should be linked earlier than it is now
  • "revealed a total of 35 complete"
  • "In 1997, workers of an oil platform of the Snorre oil field located at the northern end of the North Sea were drilling through sandstone for oil exploration when in a drill core extracted from 2,256 meters below the seafloor they stumbled upon a fossil they believed to be plant material." this sentence sounds a bit cumbersome, maybe adding some commas for pauses will do the trick; "stumbled upon" is idiomatic; -> imperial convert for 2,256 meters; the other instances of this unit are spelled with British English
  • "P. gracilis, the older species" should avoid starting a new paragraph with an abbreviation
  • [33][34][6][19] -> citations should be in numerical order
  • what's a "type series"? Haven't heard of this phrase before.
  • I think it's excessive detail to include museum specimen numbers in the figure captions (this info is available to the curious by opening the image page anyway)
  • I'm thinking that citations should be given for two various statements given in figure captions:
  • "This is the most complete Plateosaurus skeleton from Frick."
  • "Anatomically, this mount created under the direction of Friedrich von Huene is one of the best in the world …"
  • [Z][49][57][58][AA][60] -> please consider bundling citations to avoid citation explosions like this
  • how about a link for Prieto-Márquez & Norell 2011 (or perhaps just link directly to the PDF?)
Cool, thanks :) Many good points!
FYI (will add this to text or find link), a type series is the material that is used to describe a new taxon if no holotype is picked. HMallison (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at bundling citations. I do not think that would be a good idea here, where there already are two lists: 1) notes, where pages are given for 2) References. HMallison (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
regarding "[33][34][6][19] -> citations should be in numerical order": they are in historical and alphabetical order. I'd prefer to keep that, because otherwise, if you cite on source or remove one source early in the text you may end up having to re-arrange them everywhere. Obviously, this is a consequence of citing the same source over and over. HMallison (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Current interpretation" runs afoul of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language-- nowhere in that section are we given a date or time frame reference. Source 47 tells us it might (??) be since 1913? Similar in the lead: "The latest research ..." Can that be rephrased to something that gives us an indication of what "latest" refers to? Please check the article throughout for similar.
  • In the lead: " ... that is still considered valid today ... " today is redundant to "still". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several nicknames and alternate names mentioned in the lead: should these be bolded as alternate names per WP:LEAD and should redirects from those names be set up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm finding several things in the lead that I don't understand as a layperson. I don't know how we went from Engelhardt and von Meyer to Owen. Another sample: "It was nicknamed the Schwäbischer Lindwurm (Swabian dragon) because it was so common a fossil in south-western Germany." It's not clear to me what that name has to do with it being common (I shouldn't have to read the article to find that out-- the lead should stand alone). Is "so common a fossil" optimal wording? Could it not be, "because the fossil was so common in ... " "Some researchers proposed theories" about what? I guess it's about the list of things in the next sentence ... but I shouldn't have to guess. Some readers will read only the lead, it needs to stand alone and be digestible to idiots :) See WP:LEAD.
  • Text is quite awkwardly sandwiched between images in "Posture and gait" and somewhat in "Discovery and history"; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location. Is it possible to relocate or juggle those images to avoid sandwiching text?
Thanks a lot for being so thorough; that's what the text needs right now. I'll address these things over the weekend (unless the kids get sick) HMallison (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck:

  • Mallison (2010) seems to be used correctly (I wonder who wrote that paper :-) ).
  • As far as I can see, Hurum et al. (2006) don't say that the Norwegian fossil was originally identified as a plant, or that it was at 2256 m below the sea floor; they do say that it was found at 2590 m below sea level.
Yeah, that one was from the old version of the article, and originally sourced to a new article, too, which went offline at some date and was removed (maybe even by me). The text was not adapted to that, sorry. HMallison (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on other sources, I made some minor changes, but overall I think we're good.

Ucucha (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha, in your reference to Mallison, it is paraphrased adequately? I explained to MHallison that unless he owns and releases the copyright, still has to paraphrase if sourcing himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any close resemblance in wording. Ucucha (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I summarized; my papers are horribly long and rambling ;) HMallison (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dinosaur's body is intact now, and we've located Germany, France and Switzerland. It's always a pleasure to see Yomangani work his magic! I still see text sandwiched between images, but won't hold up promotion over that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 19:58, 7 January 2012 [49].

Mathew Charles Lamb[edit]

Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newly-promoted GA which I wrote aiming for the FA criteria, which I believe it now meets. Prose, I think, is of a high standard, and I find the article to be comprehensive. I made a big effort to find contemporary newspaper sources, which I think bore considerable fruit and improved the article immensely. Judging from feedback I have received it is also well-presented and neutral, which I thought would make it a good candidate for an FA even while I was nominating it for GA. In her favourable review for GA, Dana boomer said she thought it "ha[d] a good chance at FAC", which encouraged me to nominate it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in where you include publisher and location for newspapers
  • Check italicization: titles of works within larger works, volume and issue numbers, etc needn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reasoned there was no point in me putting the location and publisher for the same paper over and over again, but okay, I've put them all back in. Okay on the other one. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget page numbers, and narrowing down the ranges. Footnote 6 right now, for example, covers 25 pages. Not exactly good for verifiability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the quote in the lede should be referenced. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the quote from the lead and done some work on the page numbering of the Nosanchuk reference. What do you think of it now? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those issues look fine (as a side note, my mother still lives in Windsor; I've asked her to see if she can find and photograph his grave for us). I'll take a more meticulous look at the prose soon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be very helpful. I don't believe the grave is marked, but I think it is next to his grandmother's. I'm not sure of either of these things though. Thanks for the review so far. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch that. I misinterpreted the article; no name of the cemetery? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I could find. It would be a Catholic cemetery but apart from that I really don't know. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk; please read the instructions at WP:FAC and avoid using templates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments from Jim I made a few minor edits as I read, please check the history. An interesting read, but a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Law enforcement (x2) — is this different to "police"?
  • No, just an attempt to avoid repetition.
  • extended to bombs, which he taught himself to crudely produce using parts of various weapons. — I think you mean extended to crude bombs, which he taught himself to produce using parts of various weapons.
  • Okay.
  • relapse into recidivism and re-offend. — don't the two terms mean the same thing?
  • I suppose so.
  • 200-acre farm — needs conversion
  • Okay. Put in both km and mi.
  • black communist guerrillas — Could you check that the black organisations actually described themselves as communist? I wonder if it's a term used pejoratively by the whites.
  • I hope you think better of me than that! Yes, they did call themselves communist: in fact they were very proud of it, spending extended training courses in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and so on, wearing hammers and sickles and/or red stars on their caps, and obsessively reading Lenin and Marx. Each of the two major nationalist parties announced its intention to form a one-party communist state in the early 1960s. One, ZANU, became aligned to China and Maoism, while ZAPU took a pro-Soviet line. In the field the term of address for guerrilla fighters from both parties' military wings was "Comrade". Throughout the conflict members of both parties attended conferences and so forth with nameplates also marked "Comrade". In fact, even today government and military officials in Zimbabwe are referred to as "Comrade". At election time the posters beseech you to "vote for Cde. Robert Mugabe". I have put a reference to one of their own "chimurenga war communiqués" in there.
  • insanity.[2][3][26][31][35][36]... "When the Saints Go Marching In".[4][47][48] ... the remains of his grandmother.[43][49][50] — those strings of refs look awful. Please condense each to a single ref in the text, with the details in the notes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, have done so. How does it look now?
  • Do on-line archived versions of newspapers need retrieval dates — just checking?
  • It's online, so I presume they do. I can't say I know for sure though.
  • If you go dead south from Detroit, the next country you get to other than the US is... Canada! (useless fact I acquired in Windsor, not actionable).
  • Images two self-made, one Fair Use with an appropriate format and rationale, one OTRS ticketed. A contemporary image would obviously be better than the reconstruction, but I suspect that a suitable free image is not likely to be available, so no issues. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support' most issues resolved. Comments

  • Early life: Linkie for "Grade 8" for us non-Canadians?
  • Okay.
  • Early life: "Under Hasketh's wing..." seems unencyclopedic to me, rephrase?
  • Okay. Have replaced with "With Hasketh's support"
  • A big concern I have with the article is that there are soooo many quotations in it. It feels at times like a bunch of quotes strung together - especially in the trial section. Is there any way that some of the quotations can be left out, or shortened? This might help make the article more engaging, as I almost lost interest in reading the article about halfway through the trial section.
  • I've taken a few of them out in the "trial section" and replaced with with paraphrasing. What do you think now?
  • Likewise, I realize that you put the quote boxes in as part of an attempt to break up the wall of text effect, but they really don't do that much since they are all identical in color.
  • I find they help; I couldn't find appropriate images, sadly. What would you suggest?
  • I cannot support at this time, because I don't find the prose engaging enough. I don't consider this an "oppose" either, but I really think the article would be best served by eliminating a number of the quotations (probably at least a third of them) and replacing that with paraphrases where appropriate. If this was my own article, I'd probably cut over a half of the quotations, but I recognize that the editors would probably have an issue with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See comments above. What do you think now? Thanks for the review by the way. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's helped. I'm comfortable with supporting. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • In "early life," you write "This violence rubbed off onto Lamb from an early age." Does the citation support the idea that his family's violent life made him violent, is is that your own conclusion? I don't doubt it, but I was wondering if the sources say that specifically.
    • Nosanchuk heavily implies it but on re-reading of his material doesn't say it explicitly. I have reworded: "Lamb started exhibiting violent traits of his own from an early age."
  • In the last paragraph of "Kingston Penitentiary", I would change "He had, Scott noted,..." to "Lamb had, Scott noted,..." just to clarify who the "he" refers to. It's fairly clear, but I had to stop while reading it and look back at the previous sentences.
    • Okay.
  • Other than that, it all looks good. Very nice article -- I enjoyed reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and paraphrasing is pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - pending outcome of the spotchecks. I made a few minor edits to a well written, engaging contribution. No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I completed spotchecks during my GA review of this article and found no problems at that time. I just checked a few more sources, and again found no problems. (Also, nice work to Cliftonian!) Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dana (general note to nominator, if you've already had a spotcheck elsewhere, pls mention that in your nom statement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dana, sorry Sandy. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [50].

Typhoon Gay (1992)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it could be a good candidate for April Fools. Something like - "A gay typhoon blew saltwater to turn plants brown, curiously ignoring gymnosperms." The article got a thorough copyedit from User:Hylian Auree, and since the storm primarily affected English-speaking areas, I'm confident the article is comprehensive. It was a rather interesting gay typhoon that was considered by one agency to have been the second strongest typhoon in the world! So, gay things can be powerful. I am not gay-bashing by any means; quite the contrary, I'm supporting my community. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm more than satisfied with the article's condition, though I have just one inquiry. Can't you merge one of the paragraphs in the "aftermath" section? HurricaneFan25 — 17:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • Be consistent in how newspaper sources are notated
  • I couldn't get FN 10 to open - can you verify the URL and add volume/issue numbers? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, Tito and I added the page numbers. I checked the newspaper sources, and I thought they were all formatted the same. That ref #10 should be fixed now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, some minor quibbles, though:

  • For most of its existence, Tropical Storm Gay maintained a general west to west-northwest track to the south of a strong anticyclone. — while true, this sentence de-emphasizes the influence of the anticyclone. I'd say, "For most of its existence, Tropical Storm Gay was generally steered to the west or west-northwest by a strong anticyclone located north of the storm" or something similar.
  • The JTWC upgraded it to typhoon status early on November 17, — we have an article on typhoons. Use it. (Read: add a link here for us people who don't believe that there are hurricanes in the Pacific…)
  • With favorable sea surface temperatures and upper-level wind pattern, — wind patterns, to maintain consistency in the plurals
  • On November 19, the JTWC upgraded Gay to a super typhoon, which is a typhoon with 1-minute sustained winds of 240 km/h — link to super typhoon (it's an anchored redirect) and remove the link to typhoon, since you placed it in a sentence above.
  • Gradual intensification continued, and based on satellite estimates, — link to Dvorak technique
  • In the 24 hours after peak intensity, the JTWC estimated that the winds decreased by 65 km/h (40 mph) to below super typhoon status; — I'd say "In the 24 hours after Gay reached its peak intensity," as the whole sentence is missing an antecedent.
  • … the typhoon maintained a large size, with a wind diameter of 1,480 km (920 mi) — Is this the radius of maximum wind, or something else?
  • Gay made landfall on Guam, becoming the third typhoon in three months to strike the island; the others were Typhoon Omar in August and Typhoon Brian in October.[3] — an em dash would work better than a semicolon there
  • While becoming extratropical, Gay affected Okinawa Prefecture with heavy rainfall — link to Extratropical cyclone#Extratropical transition here
Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I forgot we had links to some of those things. I believe I addressed all of that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Auree (talk)

Comment on prose from Hylian Auree (talk)
  • "While moving to the west, Gay steadily intensified and moved through the Marshall Islands as an intensifying typhoon." – a bit of redundancy here
  • "Typhoon Gay" – You've previously used just "Gay" and we know it's a typhoon by now, so change to "Gay"
    • I changed some, left others. I think it works in some places for sentence variety. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The typhoon briefly re-intensified, although it weakened as it turned toward Japan and became extratropical on November 29" – it weakened as it
    • Changed first. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now you have three different ways to refer to the same subject in one double-clause sentence. What I meant was, try rejigging that sentence so that you only have two subjects for each clause ("The typhoon" and "it"). Auree ★ 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nation's capital of Majuro lost power during the storm and experienced power and water outages." – redundancy
  • "Due to its substantial weakening, the typhoon had a disrupted inner-core that dropped minimal rainfall, which caused extensive defoliation of plants due to salt water scorching." – verbose yet vague
    • I split the sentences. I disagree that it is vague. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is vague in that readers won't know what a disrupted core and little rainfall have to do with defoliation due to saltwater scorching. An important factor is missing (the winds), and even then it might not be clear how "little rainfall" contributes to the whole. Auree ★ 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later in its duration" – can we reword this?
More later. Auree ★ 22:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering source review - also done spotchecks on sources with formatting problems. Auree ★ 00:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1: Where did you get the document date (1992-12-25) from?
    • The JMA, as cited. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)-[reply]
      • I can't find any evidence that this is the publish date in the document cited, nor in the directory leading to it. Auree ★ 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The publication date is on the BT itself - coded as 19921225 aka 1992-12-25.Jason Rees (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That isn't the publication date of the data list being cited, though. That's just when Gay's bit was edited in. I'd remove the date altogether since a best track is a list of data that is continuously updated. Auree ★ 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Isn't that valuable though? That's when the data was created. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 3, 4, 13, and 15 (possibly others as well) need cite report templates
    • Is there any difference between making them cite web or cite report? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is, for validity and accuracy. It is a report by an official body issued online after all, not just a simple cite to a website. For more information, please see here Auree ★ 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4: Nitpicking, but replace the hyphen in the title with an en dash
  • Newspaper sources need cite news templates
  • Ref 8: Check publisher and author field. Also, you add a location for the publisher here; this needs to be consistent with the rest of the article (I suggest removing it)
    • There is no author listed, and the agency is fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are quite right, my mistake. Auree ★ 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10: Publisher/page numbers?
    • Page numbers are already included. I added the publisher, however. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, it's because it should be "pages=" in the editing window (it is a range after all) and the range should also be notated with an ndash instead of a hyphen. Auree ★ 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11: surely this is inadequately formatted. It is a book (needs cite book template), so publisher and chapter fields are required
    • Converted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page number is just 37, not 5-37. The 5 before the page number stands for the chapter number, which also needs to be notated using the chapter field and the appropriate title. Publisher should be URS Corporation, while author can be Guam Office of Civil Defense. Title also needs to be rechecked. Auree ★ 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done all of that, and I added "2011" to the title. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna stop for now. Citations need a lot more accuracy in how they are formatted. The above sources do back up their claims accurately without close paraphrasing or copyvio, however. Auree ★ 23:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Support Note on all of criteria 1, 2, and 4 - continued the citation review offsite with Hink and gave the article a quick copy edit—please check my changes. I could only discern one problem while spotchecking (ref 14), which I have relayed to the editor and will be an easy fix has been fixed now, all okay. Good work on this article! Auree ★ 03:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Power to the gays! I was born when this one came and went. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 03:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You didn't including the specific page number(s) for Reference 10; "Tinian island" - shouldn't that be "Tinian Island"? Otherwise, I will support this nomination.--12george1 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The above comments corrected anything I had a problem with. Tango16 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still need an image review here. Ucucha (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Two of the source links for File:Whole_world_-_land_and_oceans.jpg return "Page not found" errors
  • Tracking data link for File:Gay_1992_track.png doesn't seem to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This article is well-written and got everything. Jeffrey Gu| Cyclone 21:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
  • There's something amiss in this citation:
  • 4. ^ (PDF) Annual Report on Activities of the RSMC Tokyo – Typhoon Center 2000 (Report). Japan Meteorological Organization. February 2001. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  • When you click back from the citation to the text, it goes nowhere (something goofed up with the cite ref tag?) Could you figure out what's amiss, and see if it's occurring elsewhere? Also, I see no one has yet fixed the blooming cite report template which, as I pointed out on Auree's last FAC, puts the PDF for some reason first instead of later as in other cite templates. It's not your problem, but I've posted a query to the CITET page,[51] and it would be good if you hurricane folk would follow there and help get that fixed so you can have consistent citations.
  • Hey Sandy, thanks for dropping by. I'm not sure I understand your first inquiry (everything seems to work fine for me). Maybe I'm not interpreting something correctly? As for the second problem, it is quite irritating. It seems to do this only when there is no author field; when an author field is applied it formats it the way as it does with ref 17 (which in this case uses the |type= parameter). This still places the PDF differently from the other citations but aesthetically it looks less disruptive. I've tried adding those parameters ("type=Report") to the other citations but without success, confirming that it has to do with the lack of an author field. Will keep an eye on the discussion on there. Auree ★ 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to explain the first problem, but I'll try. When you click on a citation with the article, it takes you to that citation at the bottom of the article. You should be able to click back (to the text) by hitting the carat in front of the citation. Neither is the four showing up in the text, nor can you click back to the text from the four. Perhaps someone will come along who can understand what I'm saying ... it's weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation is referred to in the second of the "Notes". When I click on the ^, it takes me back up there; perhaps the screen doesn't move for you because you have a wider screen. Ucucha (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here. I tried this in a narrow screen and it works for me the way it should. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, now I see. I third what Ucucha and Tito have said--brings me to the ref for note #2. Auree ★ 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, ha! Solved then, thanks. Still need to resolve the international designation-- watching WP:ERRORS lately has given me a greater appreciation for how Dabomb87 gets clobbered if he puts anything in a TFA blurb that isn't completely clear, so we need to get our leads as good as they can get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, by saying "other storms with the same name", you are basically saying what Sandy suggested (since, after all, it is named "Typhoon Gay"). How about "Other storms named Gay"? Auree ★ 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good catch! I never thought about that before. I changed it to the more proper term of JMA designation. Do you think it should be linked there? I don't want to do Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) designation, since that's a lot to carry in the first sentence of the whole article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about just changing it to "designation code", would that make any sense? I'm not familiar with the terminology for typhoons and their naming, but I know it would be much clearer than "JMA designation" or "international designation". Auree ★ 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that'd make much sense. I think "JMA designation" makes sense though, since that is what that agency called it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that'd introduce a new problem. Readers won't know what "JMA" stands for until they read further into the article... and that isn't how it's supposed to be. What else would you call "9230"? Per definition, I would call that a code or a number. Auree ★ 21:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it says "JMA" at the top-right of the page. I think "code" seems weird. JMA does call it "International number ID". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This probably can get resolved by linking the "international designator" to Tropical cyclone naming#Western Pacific, and explain there what the number actually is. Otherwise you would introduce a long, clumsy explanation in the first sentence of the article—the place that needs it the least. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [52].

Nicky Barr[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Article last year that achieved MilHist A-Class a couple of months ago, this focusses on one of the most remarkable RAAF fighter aces of World War II, by virtue of the fact that his feats earned him not just the Distinguished Flying Cross and Bar, but also the Military Cross, a decoration generally awarded to army officers. For those who reviewed for A-Class, I've expanded upon his incarceration and escapes in Italy but otherwise made only minor changes since then. Thanks in advance for your comments...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As usual with Ian's articles, not a lot for a copyeditor to say. Pout. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, there aren't many occasions a pout makes me happy, but this is one of them... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I own a copy of Dornan, please ping my talk page when we get to spotchecking (last 2/3rd of the fac list). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: another excellent bio, IMO. When I read the lead and saw that Barr had an MC, I thought this would be rare for a WWII RAAF pilot, and indeed as you clarify later it is. A very interesting individual. I have the following points for the review:
    • I found the prose very engaging. It was a pleasure to read. Well done;
    • there are no disambig links and the external links all work;
    • the images appear correctly licenced to me;
    • internet searches/spot checks revealed no copyvio issues on the internet (I have not done a paper based check, though);
    • Bobby Gibbes might be overlinked in the Later career section, having already been linked earlier (not a warstoper for me, though);
    • Thanks for your contribution to the encyclopedia! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think you're right about Gibbes, wilco. Many tks for review and kind words... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images

  • Image licensing all fine under pre-1955 Australia rule
  • Be consistent in whether you provide links in Herington shortened citations
  • Be consistent on "Retrieved" vs "Retrieved on". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Nikki, will tidy those up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Excellent all the way around. Can't really quibble with anything here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Agreed. Couldn't find anything to complain about either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: per WP:MOS#Captions, I've corrected punctuation on one image caption, pls check throughout. I also see some citations have trailing puncutation, others don't.
    • My understanding is that short, sharp phrases in captions don't employ full stops, so I think you've caught the only likely instance, likewise the only two citations following spaces (because they were quotebox attributions and there was no punctuation). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't strictly adhere to WP:MOSNUM on spelling out digits, but it's consistent, so the author may have a reason for this (?); just be prepared to defend the reason from the folks at WP:ERRORS should the article go on the mainpage.
    • I tend to spell out one- or two-word quantities, ages, etc, in military articles because there are so many numbered units like wings, squadrons and so on using digits. As to the folks at WP:ERRORS, phasers on stun! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "He was also the Victorian Schoolboys 100 yards athletics champion ..." missing some hyphenation, and should "yards" be plural?
    • Re-checked source and exact expression is "Victorian Schoolboys' 100 yards championship", so I've added the plural possessive to "Schoolboys" but left "yards" plural. I don't mind hyphenating "100 yards" if that helps... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused, the lead mentions both P-40 Tomahawks and Kittyhawks, and later in the article refers to P-40 Kittyhawks, with no link anywhere to Kittyhawk. What's the distinction, could we get some links or clarification? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blame Curtiss and the Commonwealth air forces! The P-40 family was given the generic name Warhawk by the Americans but the Commonwealth only ever used the names Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, assigned to models P-40D and P-40E respectively -- hopefully have clarified that now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [53].

Titchwell Marsh[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After more than 30 bird FAs, I've been branching out a bit. This isn't as far out of my comfort zone as my last nom, but it has some milhist, archaeology and economics as well as the birds. Prospective reviewers please note that I will be away 13–17 December, but I'll deal with any comments on my returnJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for copy edit, all looks good. It's so helpful for another pair of eyes to pick up infelicities. I think the only Milhist comment other than the tagging was to expand that part of the lead, which I did in the light of Carcaroth's comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My pleasure, glad you like it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a visible misformatted "<!—need fixing -->" in the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, left this to remind me to add the protection designations, then forgot to remove it, done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know much more about capitalization of birds on WP than I do. Why is Bitterns capitalized (that's not a name, even an informal name, of any species, is it?) when, for instance, "geese" isn't? - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's arguable either way: "Wren" is often used as a synonym for Winter Wren, since it's the only species of its family that occurs in Europe. However, I think bittern is less clear-cut, and I've lower cased where not described as Eurasian Bittern Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A huge influx of Pallas's Sandgrouse into Britain in 1853 led to several records from Titchwell, including breeding attempts. The last bird seen was on the saltmarsh, the rest were on the dunes or in marram grass. All the birds were shot.": I don't know what "records" means here. Also, it seems a little implausible that every grouse ever seen was killed (despite what hunters may have claimed). - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Records" is actually pretty standard in ornithological journals, since we only know about these vagrants from what was recorded by naturalists and others. I've changed to "arrivals at Titchwell", which probably reads better anyway. I actually think that it's quite likely that they were all shot; this was a great trophy in an era when even naturalists routinely shot rare birds for their collections. However, even the people writing the source papers can't have been certain all were killed, so I've amended to "many". Thanks for comments, Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • "arrivals ... including breeding attempts.": Could we maybe say "including mated pairs"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, although I'm not totally convinced that this is better. "Breeding attempts" tends to be used because not all species form pairs (eg pheasants, ducks), but sandgrouse do pair, so your suggestion is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is of international importance": I don't know what this means.
  • international importance for its breeding and wintering birds. This is followed by the various national and international protection designations, so I hope that's clear enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar enough with articles like this one to know whether it's appropriate to be giving how it costs to use the car park. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Birds subsection, you generally need either a "the" in front of a species name or a plural if you're talking about more than one bird.
  • done, except with the vagrants, where it's clear from the context that we are talking about individual birds of each species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "species arrive from further north": Sorry, further than what? I may have missed it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1998/9": I don't know what time period that is.
  • Nor me, changed to 1998. The table heading covered several reserves, which were surveyed in different years. Titchwell was 1998 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would be to remove the two inflation figures from the last section, since we're talking about 1999, and most readers will have a rough sense of the present value. If you leave them, "at current prices" is a WP:DATED problem; see how I fixed that where it occurred above.
  • There are two sentences I'm still not getting, otherwise everything looks good. Would you write "many goose", or "Lone animals sometimes wander through my yard, including mouse, dog, cat, and squirrel."?: "Large numbers of ducks winter on the reserve, including many Wigeon, Teal, Mallards and Gadwall, and smaller counts of Goldeneyes and Northern Pintails.", and "Other highlights in recent years include Baird's Sandpiper, Broad-billed Sandpiper, Thrush Nightingale and Arctic Redpoll, all in 2004,[14] a Stilt Sandpiper in 2005,[13] and Black-winged Pratincole and Black-headed Wagtail in 2009." - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually quite common to refer to ducks in this way, but my usage was not consistent, so all changed to proper plurals now. I've changed "highlights" to "rarities" and added indefinite articles to the vagrant species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect, thanks. I'm not a linguist, but I'm guessing what's going on with "duck" is the same thing that happened in the language to deer, swine, cattle and sheep ... so we have to distinguish between an oddity in the language that results in using an unexpected plural or singular form, and an oddity of a plural form that sounds singular. We seem to be dealing with the second oddity here, which makes it easy for a copyeditor to decide on an answer ... we just look it up. There's still more support for a plural of "ducks" in the standard references, although "duck" does appear, for instance in M-W. Cambridge Dictionaries doesn't give "duck" as a plural, but Oxford Dictionaries does. Again, I'm not a linguist, so I'm going out on a limb here ... but by analogy, I would be more inclined to accept the "duck" plural when thinking of duck as something you eat or shoot rather than a species of bird; bird species don't seem to be adopting the singular-form plurals, in general. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the work you've put into this and the support. I suspect the unmarked plurals derive from hunting jargon — I shot three lion, two swan and six pigeon — and there's been some leakage into standard speech Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent point, and I've added "or shoot" above. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic info for Taylor & Holden, unless that's the one listed only under Taylor
  • FN 7: formatting
  • FN 14: check publisher name
  • What is RIBA?
  • FN 33: date?
  • FNs 53-55: date, publisher?
  • Murphy: ISBN formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing, all fixed. I had to remove the square brackets from the Vina ref because it confused the wiki markup Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support following comments from Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Updated with support: 07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image caption "Robins can become very tame near the car park" strikes me as less than encyclopedic and more in the vein of a tourist guide. Unlike the "'Birdwatching visitors help to support the local economy" image caption later on (which is sourced in the article text), there is no mention of robins in the article itself. It looks like gratuitous image decoration. Suggest replacing the robin image with something else (plenty of images in the Commons category and birds photographed there as well). Actually, I find it strange that only two bird images are included here, an avocet and a robin. Surely there is room for more bird images, and of birds actually mentioned in the text?
  • I've replaced the robin (which I confess we used in our Christmas cards last year) and added a third image. I try to make images relevant to their sections, so I'm not sure I can squeeze in any more without clutter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bit: "The 7.7 million day visitors and 5.5 million who made overnight stays in the area are estimated to have spent £158 million at current prices, and created the equivalent of 2,325 full-time jobs" left me wondering what the price was in 2005 (or whatever year the figures were obtained in). That needs to be given really, as well as the current prices, and arguably is more relevant.
  • Several parts of the article are based largely on repeating what you find on the RSPB website about this reserve. That is not bad per se, but means the article will need updating as things change at the reserve. Stuff like that in the Facilities section will change over time: "the adjacent cafe serves hot and cold snacks" is particularly useless. If you are intending to visit this nature reserve, the location, timings, facilities and accessibility information are all something that you would check on the RSPB website, rather then go by what is said here, which begs the question: what point is there in putting this information here? FWIW, the bit about food is mentioned three times in the article: lead ('hot food servery'), and 'servery for hot food and drinks' and 'adjacent cafe serves hot and cold snacks'. There is also the potential for confusion: is the cafe serving hot and cold snacks the same as the servery for hot food and drinks?
  • In my last FA, St Nicholas, Blakeney, Sandy specifically asked me to add stuff about the congregation and services, which in principle is similar to the facilities issues you raise in that it can readily change. I've trimmed a bit, but I'm reluctant to take out everything. Let me know if there is anything left you really object to Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rule of thumb is if you wouldn't say that the Louvre provides hot and cold food, why would you say that here? Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "remains of military constructions from both world wars" an adequate summary of the information on this in the article?
    • Acknowledging my military history bias, I agree on this point; another sentence would be appropriate, given the extensive material in In 1972 ... feel free to add something, or I'll give it a shot when I copyedit this. (I'm waiting for the initial reactions and responses before I copyedit ... and btw, I see that there's not much to do :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To balance the above criticism, the 'Economic effects', 'The RSPB era', 'Archaeology' and 'To 1972' sections were excellent. It was just the bits that read like they were sourced from the RSPB website (unsurprising, as they were) and read like a tourist guide and 'advice to visitors' that I found offputting. Maybe that is just me, but if others feel the same way I hope some suggestions can be made to reduce that effect somewhat. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, I'm back now, and I'll try to fix these fairly soon. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. I'm particularly happy to see more of the actual birds in there. Will enter my support above. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for the review and support, I'll keep a watching brief on the RSPB facilities to see if it needs further adjustment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments reading through again with an extra-critical eye.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Titchwell is archaeologically significant, - a tad ambiguous - if it is the village, I'd maybe make it "Nearby Titchwell is archaeologically significant," to show it is the village, or add "marsh" if it means the marsh...?
In the To 1972 section, the first two paras come across as a tad choppy. Any info to be added might make it flow a little more smoothly. I'd combine the paras but it is a big temporal jump.....
  • I've added a reffed bit explaining that it was farmland for most of the intervening period Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, happy with prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It always frustrates me when British birders refer to British birds ("the Oystercatcher", "the Avocet", "the Swallow", etc.), as if theirs are the only ones on the planet. Don't assume that your readers will know that you mean Eurasian Oystercatcher and Pied Avocet. Tell them! There are other oystercatchers, avocets and swallows, and your readers are from all over the world. They may not realize that the ones you're talking about aren't the ones they're used to from home — their oystercatcher, avocet or swallow.
  • All the names were linked to the correct species, and I did actually use Pied Avocet in the text. I've expanded the name to the international form on the first occurrence for those species like Eurasian Oystercatcher and a couple of the ducks where I hadn't already done this. Is that sufficient? Having make it absolutely clear which avocet we are talking about at the first occurrence, I think it's reasonable to refer to it just as "avocet" thereafter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check captions for complete sentences without punctuation. MeegsC | Talk 16:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still need an image review here. Ucucha (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images look fine, from a copyright perspective. I've renamed one. The map, which is a potential concern, is clearly not just a trace, so I'm not worried. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for review and the rename, should have thought to do that myself. The map was a composite based on two RSPB versions and some updated info, so i didn't expect it to be problematic. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sandy. I seem to have developed a blind spot on the usually unproblematic caption full stops issue, you're the second person to raise this. I think I've got it right now, if not you had better tell me where it's still wrong! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super critical query – several references end with a full stop, but not all. I guess our templates add a full stop automatically while the refs without templates it's up to the editor. Would expect consistency in a FA. (By the way, made a few "technical" edits, feel free to revert any) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for edits, very helpful. I've been through the refs twice, think I've caught all those needing full stops. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, TRM-- that was about the time I ran out of steam, so glad that's dealt with. I'll be continuing my read through this am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Looks like you may need the odd FL "technical guys" to do the odd review over here (mainly to catch periods and double spaces!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In recent years" in the lead falls afoul of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language-- can the time frame be clarified? "The reserve's location is important for migrating birds and it has regularly attracted rarities": it is intended to refer to the reserve, but technically, refers to location in this sentence construct. Could you rephrase to make the "it" point the right place?

I see the geobox is nominated for deletion. Infoxes are neither required nor discouraged at FAC-- we stay out of that-- so promotion of this article should not be interpreted as an endorsement one way or another about the deletion discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "in recent years". Changed to "The reserve has regularly attracted rarities, as its location is important for migrating birds." - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank, I've changed to and Little Egrets are common. which makes more sense if I can't say that they haven't always been. It's obviously impossible to reference even to the year when this colonising species changed from "rare" to "uncommon" to "common". Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [54].

German battleship Tirpitz[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last battleship built by Germany, Tirpitz saw relatively little action during her career, which consisted primarily of serving as a fleet in being in Norway during WWII. This article passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (see here) and a GA review in March (see here). I think the article is at or close to FA criteria, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the article displays Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to make a review. Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check spelling of the name of Zetterling's co-author, you've got a couple of variations
  • Missing source info for Breyer
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers, and if so how these are formatted/linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The chapter title and author for Conway's All The World's Battleships is incorrect - there isn't really a single distinct chapter for "Germany 1906–22" - but merely the parts of the book covering those ships were written by Campbell. The Tirpitz stuff would presumably fall under the contributions of Erwin Sieche, who is credited for "Germany 1922–46", although again there isn't really a distinct chapter on that time period, although the actual section on "Bismarck class Battleships" could be classed as a chapter. The correct page number for the keel laying of Tirpitz is p. 44, not 43.
  • There is no mention of the RAF heavy bomber attacks on the night of 27/28 April 1942 (43 bombers, five lost) and 28/29 April (34 bombers). These attacks are responsible for the Handley Page Halifax that resides in the RAF Museum Hendon, which was shot down and later salvaged fromn a Norwegian Fjord.
  • More details of the Fleet Air Arm torpedo bomber attack on 9 March 1942 - we have German losses but not FAA aircraft losses.
  • For the attack by the Soviet submarine K-21, it may be worth stating that the soviets claimed that it scored hits on Tirpitz, even if this claim is not supported elsewhere.
    • Should all be addressed now. Thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Imperial German Navy instead of Kaiserliche Marine seems inconsistent to me with Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, which I think both should be italicized. I'm not 100% sure about this since the latter two are what is common in English, not their English translations.
    • I don't mind one way or the other on English or German, but I don't think Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe should be italicized; both are pretty common in English, especially Luftwaffe.
      • I'm sure Dank has an opinion. Kirk (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I pinged him to take a look at this if and when he gets to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waterline length, 3 three-blade propellers, range, number of floatplanes and catapult type not cited.
    • Cites added.
  • I suggest adding 'as built' to the armament and add a summary of the 1942 changes in the infobox.
    • Added.
  • Link/expand the KzS in KzS Hans Meyer, or leave it out and replace 'Commander' with 'Captain'.
    • Kapitän zur See is linked earlier in the article.
      • To the average reader its an odd looking abbreviation because its the German abbreviation form; based on Scharnhorst I put a (KzS) after the first Kapitän zur See instance, maybe someone else has an opinion.
  • Consider summarizing the total casualties and putting your discussion of the sources in a note.
  • The explanation of Wehrmachtbericht in the prose doesn't really match the lead of its article - maybe you should mention 'radio' in there somewhere?
    • Clarified it was a radio broadcast
  • Optionally, consider adding upper deck armor to infobox and I think the Service History would look better if it was 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 instead of 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2. Kirk (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds fine to me. Thanks for reviewing the article, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I thought I would mention the speed in the infobox is cited with the same citation as the trial speed; I looked at Bismarck and you had the trial speed in the infobox. Kirk (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting off with some of the issues raised above. Concerning Imperial German Navy vs. Kaiserliche Marine vs. Kaiserliche Marine ... weirdly, I just ran Google's ngram for these this morning, not knowing you had asked the question! "German Imperial Navy" comes in at roughly the same frequency as Kaiserliche Marine. The number of hits on a phrase drops of course in general with each word you add to the phrase since it's looking for exact matches ... roughly speaking, this means if you need to add an adjective like "German" to disambiguate and make sure all your hits are on the right navy, the frequency you get will underrepresent the "real" answer, in some sense. Put all this together, and Imperial German Navy blows Kaiserliche Marine out of the water, in English sources at least.
  • Concerning italics for German proper nouns: there's no one rule. The general idea is not to italicize the more common German proper nouns that show up in English sources (Luftwaffe). Use italics for proper nouns whenever not using them would probably lead to a mispronunciation (such as pronouncing Kaiserliche Marine as if it went "Huah!") or a WTF moment (Reichsgesetzblatt for instance ... see MisterBee1966's articles for lots of examples). Generally (and here my copyediting style differs from MisterBee's), avoid German words that haven't "crossed over", that don't show up in at least some English-language general references. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to make one comment. I use the German terms not because I dislike the English equivalent, I use them because in many cases I am unsure of their correct English equivalent. A linguistic correct translation does not necessarily imply a semantic correct translation. I personally prefer correct semantic representation over ease of reading in English. I try to strike a balance between the two and sometimes the balance tips in one direction and sometimes in the other. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Kriegsmarine, I actually don't know what the English translation would be ... what I get from a gsearch is phrases like "the German Navy under the Nazis", which isn't a (single) proper noun. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "FuMO": ?
    • No issues as usual, Dan. I've added a note on FuMO. Thanks for taking the time to work on this over the holidays :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the night of 27–28 April, thirty-one Halifaxes and twelve Lancasters;": Something's missing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 06:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add |adj=on to conversions where you don't abbreviate the bomb weight.
    • Added.
  • Add a period after Adolf Hitler.
    • Fixed.
  • No info on boilers in main body, nor a cite in infobox.
    • Added to the body.
  • What was the function of all these radars, which also need to be linked?
    • Do we have articles on the radars? As far as I know, all we have is Seetakt radar - Würzburg radar appears to only cover land-based systems.
      • I'll settle for redlinks and an explanation of their functions like gunnery, search or whatever. One of these days I'll boost my articles created count by starting articles on most of these radars as I've been collecting the info as I find it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does L/52, etc. mean? My usual formulation is x-caliber y-size gun with a link to the proper definition of caliber.
    • L = Länge/52 caliber. FYI the other FA German ship articles aren't very consistent about including this detail or any explanation or links, but it seems important. Kirk (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sturm knows what it means - he was asking for a note explaining it.
        • If you are going with a notes, I would define SK too, but this is the first one I've seen. Isn't the link enough?
        • I think there should be a more a consistent method of displaying the armament in the infobox - if you look at other FA Battleships, some contain links, some don't; some contain the additional details like the model/caliper length, others just have the number/caliper, etc. See Yamato, Iowa, Friedrich der Grosse Hood, etc. And plenty of your other articles could have a note explaining SK L/x if you think its helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Caliber is very confusing to the uninitiated as it means either the bore diameter of the gun or length of the barrel. I've clarified the difference in the gun articles that I've written and tried to do it the ship articles using the formulation given above. It's a bit easier for British articles because they don't put gun length in their gun designations. Not as easy for German or American guns where the articles have it in the titles. I do believe that it should be explained in all ship articles if people mention it. I'm perfectly happy if people just call it a 38 cm gun with a link, but it they call in a 5"/38 then they'd best explain what the /38 or L/52 or whatever means.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a year to combat operations on 10 January
    • Added.
  • Link torpedo boat, fuel oil, target ship, list
    • Linked - list was already linked in the Operation Source section.
  • I thought we used a slash for nights, forex 27/28 March?
    • I typically use an ndash for it
  • Oil or coal-fuelled?
    • Added
  • Combine these two sentences: Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes at the ship, both of which missed.[34] The Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship, however.
    • Done.
  • This is awkward: near misses, which holed the side shell with splinters. Perhaps a better phrasing would be something like "splinters from the near misses holed the ship's side" or some such.
    • See how it reads now.
  • If you have access, this is a better source for the carrier-based attacks: Brown, J. D. (2009). Carrier Operations in World War II. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-108-2.
    • I can get it through ILL, but I won't be on campus until January so it'd have to wait until then. Is there anything significant missing?
      • More detail on the attacking aircraft and the size of the bombs that they dropped. You might be able to extract most of those details from the HMS Furious (47) article as it was a primary participant in the attacks. I'm not at home and can't pull that info for you myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added in those details for the Tungsten and Goodwood III attacks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't hyphenate near miss. Capitalize 3rd Group of the 5th Fighter Wing
    • Fixed.
  • Spell out state names. Add country to Hildebrand, Sweetman, Torkildsen, Williamson--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.

Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

  • Generally speaking I am not satisfied with how little we learn about the crew and its organization. I note that you think it belongs in the class article. It should be noted that about 800 200 of her surviving crew were later assigned to the heavy cruiser Lützow. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reference for the bit on the crew transfer? I didn't come across it when I wrote the article on Deutschland/Lützow. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • see Prager, Hans Georg (2001). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit (in German). Hamburg, Germany: Koehler. ISBN 3-7822-0798-X.
on page 287 it reads (my translation). In January 1945 about 200 survivors are to replace the old cadets on Lützow. On page 292 Prager states that an overhead enemy aerial recon aircraft causes the former Tirpitz crew members to panic. I guess the experience on Tirpitz left some bad memories. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Tirpitz-2.jpg: publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's August 13, 1942, which I've added to the image summary. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support changes look fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Comments' from Ealdgyth:[reply]

  • General:
    • Can we get English translations for the various German names of things (not ships or the company that built the Tirpitz) but such as "Kapitän zur See" or "Kriegsmarine" and other similar things? I realize that there is not exact equivalent, but a rough idea of a translation would be helpful, rather than forcing the reader to click through to another article.
      • Added. Let me know if there's anything I missed.
  • Lead:
    • Don't like the switch to present tense here "While stationed in Norway, Tirpitz could also be used to intercept Allied convoys to the Soviet Union, and two such missions were attempted in 1942." can we rephrase?
      • How does it look now?
    • "...the only time the ship used her main battery in anger." the easter egg link is annoying - any way to rephrase this? Perhaps "...the only time the ship used her main battery in combat." and just avoid the link altogether?
  • Construction:
    • "Tirpitz was ordered as Ersatz Schleswig-Holstein as a replacement..." when was the name changed?
      • At the commissioning - all German warships were ordered as either "Ersatz xxxx" to replace a worn out vessel or a single letter as an increase in the size of the fleet. See for example here.
    • "Tirpitz displaced 42,900 t (42,200 long tons)..." why the abbreviation in the main part but no abbreviation in the parenthetical? Can we get the full unit in the main part?
      • Long tons don't have an abbreviation (don't ask me why), but I've changed the template to spell out the first unit.
  • Deployment:
    • "RAF" isn't explained earlier in the article - non-military folks aren't going to necessarily recognize the acronym
      • Added initials to the first reference to the RAF.
    • "Admiral John Tovey, the commander in chief of the Home Fleet, was..." suggest "Admiral John Tovey, the commander in chief of the British Home Fleet, was... " just to make it clear to the non-specialist
      • Fixed as you suggested.
  • Operations:
    • Why suddenly do we have a ship prefix for "Escorting the convoy were the battleships Duke of York and USS Washington and the carrier..." when we've never used them before this? Looks very odd to the non-military reader and isn't consistent with the rest of the article.
      • I wanted to make clear that it was an American ship (all the rest are British) without a clumsy construction like "the British battleship Duke of York and the American battleship Washington and the carrier..."
    • As a non-military reader, is there a reason for the non-italicization of the submarine in "..the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes..."? Confusing to me...
      • It should be italicized, good catch.
  • Operations Pravane:
    • Now you link RAF - "...transferred to the RAF's No. 5 Group."... really need to link it on first occurance way up above...
      • That's an overlinking - it's linked the first time in the Construction section.
  • Linkage - you have repeat links to Lancaster heavy bombers (in Operations Paravane section) as well as to Luftwaffe in the last paragraph of Operation Catechism.
    • Should be all fixed.
  • Overall, very interesting and kept my attention. Just a couple of niggles above, which should be easily fixed, and I'll be glad to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reviewing it, Ealdgyth - you've made a lot of good suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks ready to promote. Kirk (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Links" instead of "External links" (WP:LAYOUT-- I suspect y'all do these things to see if I'm reading :) Also, most citations do not end in a period, the last three do. Why are the "Operation" names in italics? " ... laid down at the Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven in November 1936 and launched two and a half years later. Work was completed in February 1941, when she was commissioned ... " I had to read on to see that the hull was launched before she was completely outfitted. This may be common for you shipfolks, but we lay people don't know that, so the lead confused me ... could that be clarified by adding hull somewhere in the lead, or something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know - an editor added that the other day and I didn't catch it. But I like your answer better. I started using italics for the operation names for the German ones, and then carried over to the British operations without thinking much about it. There's no need for them though, so I removed them, as well as the periods in the last three citations. I added a bit to the lead to clarify that it was the hull that was launched. Is there anything else you see that needs fixing? Parsecboy (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [55].

HMS New Zealand (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria. It had a MILHIST ACR a few months ago and I've revised it a little since then. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • To match HMAS Australia, I added namesake, builder to infobox.
    • Good catch.
  • Could you add/cite honours (HELIGOLAND, DOGGER BANK,JUTLAND), id/pennant, and motto, if it had one.
    • I don't have any RS data on that stuff.
      • Honours and id/pennant should be in a source that describes the ship, I'd double check yours and/or maybe another editor can help. Kirk (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sort of thing is usually presented in a book dedicated to the ship, which aren't all that common. My sources generally cover all the ships of a type in a given navy and lack that sort of detail. They usually focus on the technical side of things with only brief summaries of operational histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked around in the usual places and didn't find anything; I'm ok with no pennant or motto, but I'm not giving upon the battle honours - it has to be somewhere!
            • David Thomas' Battles and honours of the Royal Navy (Leo Cooper, 1998, ISBN 085052623X) apparently comtains lists of all honours plus ships awarded them; this might be a useful approach if a specific history fails. Shimgray | talk | 14:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I knew that there was a specialized reference or two that covered these, but no copy is convenient to me right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordered date is a little unclear - I can't tell if its 22 March 1909 or not. Kirk (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes two of us; I've deleted the order data from the infobox as too vague. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There certainly is no rhyme or reason to the level of detail, or lack there of, for capital ships in these supposed authoritative sources... Kirk (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I expect that the usual purging of archival sources accounts for the spottiness of certain types of details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'lucky ship' portion of the lead is spread out in the body except I didn't find the phrase 'lucky ship'; you'd think there would be a wiki link for that term but its not evident as far as I can tell. In any case, I think you should add the phrase 'lucky ship' to one of the cited sentences about the Maori connection or leave it out of the lead. Kirk (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct in that the exact phrase isn't cited, but I think that's it's implicit in the Grant Howard quote and the other references to the Maori artifacts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - another interesting ship article. Kirk (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check alphabetization of References
    • Good catch.
  • Be consistent in how page ranges are notated
    • Another good catch.
  • be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
    • Done.
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not
    • There's always one that sneaks through, dammit.
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Based on intelligence reports it decided on 17 November and allocated": ?. Also, see WP:Checklist#intention. I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Oxford Dictionaries gives "east-south-east" as the correct hyphenation; you've got a bunch of different styles in this article. Other styles may be okay if you can find them in a British dictionary, but they should be consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, but the best I can tell, "east-south-east" is the most common hyphenation in BritEng, although it's inconsistent, and the AmEng style (east southeast or east-southeast) seems to appear more and more often in newer sources. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm making the changes now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never can remember what the rules, if any, are about hyphenating directions. I tend only to do so if there are three all together like west-southwest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Running through one more time, it's looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ngram suggests that Imperial German Navy beats German Imperial Navy ... does that sound right to you? - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the literature has always read Imperial X Navy. Somebody must have changed on me without me noticing. I'll change it back now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attached to 1st Battlecruiser Squadron": consistency needed on "the" (1st). [Nevermind, there was just one of those and I got it.] Also, "1st Cruiser Squadron covered by the reinforced 1st Battlecruiser Squadron and, more distantly, the 1st Battle Squadron": putting all 3 in one sentence is a bit hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The times used in this section are in UTC, which is one hour behind CET, which is often used in German works.": I'm confused here. Per Time in the United Kingdom, 1916 was the first year of British DST, and "For 1916, DST extended from 21 May to 1 October, with transitions at 02:00 standard time." That article doesn't say what the offset was; Stephen Ambrose says the offset was 2 hours in WWII, and Germany (and France) didn't use DST in WWII, so the Brits were actually 1 hour ahead of the Germans. Do you know the DST situation for WWI? - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it was one hour - see here. Ambrose is correct that there was a two-hour offset in WWII, but it's not a two-hour increment in April - the country actually stayed on BST year round, and moved an extra hour in the summer, to what was called "Double Summer Time"; see British Summer Time. Germany seems to have used some form of daylight savings, though, per Daylight saving time in Germany, both in WWII and in WWI. If I read things correctly, UK time in summer 1916 should thus be UTC+1, and German time UTC+2. Shimgray | talk | 18:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To keep things interesting, here's Ambrose, D-Day, p. 19: "French time was one hour earlier. Throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, clocks were set at Berlin time, and the Germans did not use daylight savings time, while the British set their clocks two hours ahead." - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tarrant, who uses mostly German sources, is an hour ahead of Campbell, Massie and the others that rely on British sources. My sources don't mention any DST issues that I remember.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That must be right, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide whether you want Grand Fleet to be singular or plural: "This allowed the Grand Fleet to cross Scheer's T, and they badly damaged his leading ships" vs. "the Grand Fleet steered north in the erroneous belief that it had entered a minefield." - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Got it. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I'm still confused by "the 1st Cruiser Squadron covered by the reinforced 1st Battlecruiser Squadron and, more distantly, the 1st Battle Squadron of battleships", because the first link says that the 1st Cruiser Squadron was renamed "1st Battlecruiser Squadron" before this took place. - Dank (push to talk) 05:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the last sentence of the 1st CS article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Had the 1st Battle Squadron been renamed the "Grand Fleet" by this time, or is that page wrong? - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Home Fleet was renamed Grand Fleet, although how I can see how you read it that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, now I see. No objection. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm, this article was nominated on November 30th; per FAC instructions, nominators are supposed to have only one FAC up at a time. When you nominated this on November 30th, Arizona had no support and one opppose,[56] and it was not promoted until December 6. Since I've just now seen this, I won't remove this FAC, but please do not nominate two articles at once again without getting leave from a delegate. I could be wrong, but I thought we already had this conversation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I could be wrong, but isn't it still allowed to have one nom and one co-nom up at the same time? Arizona was a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha ... thanks for the reminder! My bad, my apologies! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to deal with holiday chores and a 2-week WP backlog at the same time, I'd go batty :) Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Indefatigable_class_battlecruiser_diagrams_Brasseys_1923.jpg: if the author is not identified, how do you know he/she died more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Usual nice effort, 'pon which I've performed my usual prose edits, so pls check I haven't changed any meaning inadvertently. In addition:
    • The Indefatigable class was not a significant improvement on the preceding Invincible class; the main difference was the enlargement of the design to give the ships' two wing turrets a wider arc of fire. -- "Enlargement of the design" reads a bit oddly to me; were they using bigger blueprints? Better to say "dimensions" or some such, methinks...
      • I've seen this has been actioned, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...the battlecruisers, led by Beatty aboard his flagship, Lion, began to head south at full speed; the rising tide meant that German capital ships would be able to clear the bar at the mouth of the Jade estuary -- Not sure I get the full significance of this sentence, from two perspectives. First off, where's south in relation to the combat zone -- rather than give the compass direction Beatty headed, why not state where he was going re. say the light forces you've just mentioned? Second, if the German ships could clear the bar, so what -- did that mean they could escape or they could engage?
    • If SMS Ariadne was "directly to [Beatty's] front", why did he have to "turn[ed] to pursue"? Wouldn't he just go full speed ahead?
    • As a general comment on the Battle of Heligoland Bight subsection, I can't see much about New Zealand anyway...
      • Not looking for a lot, even just a sentence about what she did, other than her captain wearing the tiki, would help... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beatty ordered New Zealand to rejoin the squadron and turned west for Scarborough -- Can I confirm this is what you mean, that Beatty turned west for Scarborough after ordering NZ to rejoin the squadron? Just want to make sure you didn't mean "turn" instead of "turned"...
      • This is the quote from Massie: Pursuit of Roon was abandoned, New Zealand was ordered to rejoin the battle cruiser squadron, and Beatty turned all of his ships directly toward Scarborough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Zealand fired 147 shells at Blücher before the German ship capsized and sank at 12:07 after being torpedoed -- Do we know who did the torpedoing?
  • Referencing, structure, detail and -- apart from Nikki's query above -- supporting materials all appear fine.
    • I note you've actioned Nikki's point above, so happy with all this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nobody beats me to it I'll try and perform a spotcheck of online sources at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm away from my library right now, so I'll deal with these questions in a couple of days when I get back home.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - initially reviewed earlier versions of this article did not recognise adequately the importance of the piu-piu and tiki to the unique 'regimental tradition' of this ship. Now it's been work in very well, including the last battle 'he's got them on' as a sidebox. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Close to support, but some niggles: Consider all of the below struck, supporting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Why the easter egg link to Early naval vessels of New Zealand#Gift of battlecruiser?
    • I'm not the expert on links, but I don't see how this is an WP:EGG problem. That's the section that explains the "gift to Britain". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Lead: "She had been intended for the China Station, but was released by the New Zealand government at the request of the Admiralty for service in British waters." if she was a gift, why did the New Zealand government have to give permission for her to serve in British waters? An explanation here would help flesh out the lede, which is a bit skimpy.
    • The language in the lead implies that the gift came with an agreement on how or where the ship was to be used, though I don't know that that's the case. - Dank (push to talk)
      • See the last sentence of the first para in the acquisition and construction section and the 2nd para of the Service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note: I believe that the MOS wants double quotes instead of single quotes for things like "...identified as 'A' and 'X' respectively." Yep .. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.
    • Ealdgyth, I hope you'll pardon me for replies which may seem snippy ... they're not intended that way, but the issue was just raised again today at WT:FAC that prose is deficient at FAC these days ... assuming that this issue will be sitting on the table a few days, I'm going to have to respond when people imply that there are serious prose problems that I don't think are present. On this point, MOS also says, "There may be some conventional codified exceptions", and I've only seen single quotes around single letters at Milhist. I'll check around in style guides today. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Wartime modifications: "By 1918, New Zealand carried a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." the only way I had of knowing these were planes was through linking through to them. Suggest "By 1918, New Zealand carried two aircraft - a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." to make this clearer. Mention of the usage of two aircraft might also help flesh out the lede a bit.
    • "The only way" ... well, that plus the fact that they're on "flying-off ramps" on an aircraft carrier, but I have no objection to "two aircraft, a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter,". - Dank (push to talk)
      • Dank - the ship's a battlecruiser. So ... the "flying-off ramps" could have been some weird projectile system also ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, too many ship articles. Sure, the "two aircraft" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done.
  • Acquisition: Why the sudden translation "...with the Imperial German Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine)." It's the English wikipedia, and while a translation might be useful on the Imperial German Navy article, here it just looks odd.
    • The German phrase is (and always has been) included because it predominates in some sources ... in fact, the WWII equivalent, the Kriegsmarine, doesn't seem to have a common English translation, so we just go with the German. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...under the command of Admiral Beatty." when everyone else is given a first name? Also, you link Admiral here, but no where else do you link the rank before a name?
    • Thanks, I missed that this was the first mention of him, fixed. Per my disclaimer, I don't have an opinion on the second issue. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Actually Admiral wasn't linked separately, but was accidentally included in the link for Beatty.
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...led by Beatty aboard his flagship, Lion, began to head..." but later "....brand-new light cruiser HMS Arethusa had been crippled earlier..."?
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: I know we stated at the lede that the ship never had casualties in battle - but it would probably be best to explicitly state that she took no hits or casualties in each engagement description.
    • I don't agree. The piu-piu, etc. are explicitly credited several times regarding that and the single hit that she received during Jutland is noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raid on Scarborough: Shouldn't it be "HMS Lynx", "HMS Shark", and "SMS Roon" to fit with the convention you've used throughout?
  • Raid: Who is "Admiral Warrender"?
    • He's linked.
  • Raid: Again, aren't these missing an HMS or SMS? "...The light cruiser Southampton spotted the light cruiser Stralsund and..."?
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: Missing SMS? "...armoured cruiser Blücher's maximum..."
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...Beatty's flagship Lion, which..." already been linked that that far previously.
    • Indeed.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "New Zealand was relieved by HMAS Australia as flagship..." already linked in teh body and already has an HMAS...
    • Good catch.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...but after a scouting Zeppelin located a British...already linked earlier in body of the article.
    • Yes. This is what I get for copy-pasting from other articles.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...relieving HMS Indefatigable as flagship." - Indefatigable has already been linked in the body and already has HMS.
    • Fixed.
  • Battle of Jutland: Repeat link on "High Seas Fleet" in first paragraph.
    • Done.
  • Battle of Jutland: Need an HMS in front of Princess Royal, Tiger, Inflexible, and Castor
  • Battle of Jutland: Need SMS in front of Van der Tann, Moltke, Prinzregent Luitpold, Seydlitz, and Schleswig-Holstein
  • Post-Jutland: already have linked minesweeper earlier in the article, so the link in the second paragraph is redundant
    • Done.
Most of these are niggles, but the usage of HMS/SMS and such need to be consistent throughout the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first few (at least) criticisms about HMS/SMS above miss the point, which is that HMS and SMS can serve both as a heads-up that we're talking about a ship, and give the nationality of the ship ... but in cases where both of those things have already been established, they're unnecessary, and arguably redundant. I checked the first few of those you mentioned and was happy with inclusion or exclusion of the prefix, but I haven't checked all of them ... Sturm, could you do the honors? - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of consistency - it looks very odd to the casual non-military reader to occasionally have it and occasionally not. I THOUGHT I detected a pattern of having HMS or SMS on first usage, but it appears that I was wrong. This of course, leaves aside the fact that the abbreviations are never once explained in the article. This is why I get cranky reviewing MilHist articles - you guys often times do things that seem utterly incomprehensible to the non-miitary person. I get screamed at in MY noms to explain explain explain - would I not have to if I had some big wikiproject behind me so that they could just say "This is the way we do things"�? Sorry if I seem cranky, but I answered Sandy's call to have some reviews done - especially of topics that don't attract outside editors - and then I get a "we just do things this way, it's not worth trying to make things comprehensible to the non-specialist" vibe. I'm not really picking on you, Dank, but it seems every time I've reviewed milhist articles, I get the same issue... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to disengage now, the delegates can sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized it so that each ship gets its prefix on first appearance. Also linked HMS and SMS on first appearance. I don't really mind having to explain things to laymen; it's just hard to remember what needs to be explained and to what level. I don't think that I've linked HMS in any of my British ship FAs before, but that's why it's good to have non-specialist reviewers. I just think that there are more people familiar with MilHist things than there are with medieval clerical terminology, so I don't get complaints about jargon as often as you do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth (you're all over FAC today!). Generally, on ship articles, I'm a layperson as well, but I've no problem sorting out the ship name on subsequent occurrences-- mostly because they're italicized anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [57].

Boeing 767[edit]

Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly in the past two years, attaining GA (along with the related Boeing 757 article) and currently A-Class status. Suggestions from two Peer Reviews and the Guild of Copy-Editors have been implemented. This article was the first to undergo copy-editing at the guild's Potential Featured Articles page, during which the recommendation was made to proceed to FAC. I look forward to everyone's constructive input, and aim to advance this article to FA status. Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 22 and similar: page number(s)?
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
  • Don't italicize publishers
  • FN 132: formatting. If this was retrieved, from what URL did it come?
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for newspapers, and if so how these are formatted
  • Be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate states
  • Use a consistent notation for editions
  • Be consistent in how you punctuate initials
  • Check formatting of multi-author works for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted. Page numbers added to all PDFs; Spanish source ID'd; no italics on non-journals; FN 132 reformatted as non-URL thanks to User:Fnlayson; newspaper locations removed; states written out; the two edition refs have been aligned; author initials have been aligned; multi-author refs checked. Thanks for the source review! SynergyStar (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is well-written, ready for FA. ANDROS1337TALK 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support , one caveat I know nothing about the subject, but it read well, and I didn't pick up any serious infelicities. Could you clarify Civil Aviation Authority certification? The linked article goes to a list of national organisations. Does this mean each one separately has to certify, or is there a simpler procedure? I think it needs clarification because the linked article doesn't help. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and comments. I checked the citation, and it identifies the agency as the Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom). With help from User:Fnlayson, that link has been corrected and labeled. The sources state that approval came from these two agencies; generally speaking, most nations simply follow US/EU aviation regulatory bodies. In Europe, CAA certification has since switched to the European Aviation Safety Agency. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not Milhist, but I copyedited this for WP:Aviation's A-class process. I've got a question about this on this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just throw out the thorny bit first so that you guys can get working on a response. As you may recall, the FAC for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II failed mainly because Sandy, John and I weren't happy with the prose, and there were concerns about the See also section ... and the See also section here has the same issue. FAC reviewers may prefer that you create a section at the end of the article that explains in prose how the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A and Boeing 757, E-767, KC-46 and KC-767 are "related", and in what senses the Airbus A300, A310 and A330-200 are of "comparable role, configuration and era". There are several ways to look at this issue; pick whichever works for you:
    • There's an argument that the local (WP:Aviation) consensus is so strong in favor of the format of this See also section that it overrules the usual consensus at FAC ... but FAC reviewers are unlikely IMO to take that on faith ... you're going to have to argue the point.
    • Kudos for paying attention to the potential core content policy violation by referencing all the entries that needed it. (That argument goes: See also sections don't usually have references, because they don't need them ... you can generally figure out the reason for the link and find the supporting reference simply by clicking on the link. That's not necessarily the case with technical articles, where you might have to digest the whole article on the other side of the link in order to figure out exactly how it relates.)
    • The GAN criteria include WP:EMBED. Short version: lists make sense when there really isn't that much to say, otherwise prose is better. Here, there are all kinds of things to say: in what ways are the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A and Boeing 757, E-767, KC-46 and KC-767 "related" in development? Did they precede, follow, share parts, share design work, or what? So, the Airbus A300, A310 and A330-200 are of "comparable role, configuration and era". Those are completely different criteria ... which is it? Not only is it not said here, but worse, I might have to read a large chunk of two very technical articles before I'll be able to figure it out for myself.
    • The prose standards at FAC generally require that you make an effort not to raise questions without answering them, which you're doing here.
    • One of the less popular standards at FAC is that See also sections should be shorter in FAs than for other articles, on the theory that if the article really is comprehensive, you can usually find places in the article to work the links into the prose in a natural way. This See also section probably doesn't meet this standard.
    • We FAC reviewers have sometimes expressed ourselves poorly and come across as unforgiving on technical articles of all sorts, including WP:Aviation articles. My sense is that our actual consensus is reasonably consistent and fair: articles which are a hard slog for the general reader have a higher readability burden to meet, just because of the nature of the material. So the usual bar for prose is raised ... not a lot, but a little ... meaning that, if you got the sense that reviewers were being tougher on prose and See also sections for WP:Aviation than for, say, popular culture, you're probably right. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments; I have no problem with shortening or eliminating the "See also" section. I actually attempted to remove it several weeks ago, and raised similar points regarding it on the article talk page. A proposal has been made to truncate it to just the links that are not in the rest of the article. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connections and so forth for links in the See also are provided earlier in the article, mainly the Variants section. There is no valid reason to repeat this info in the See also section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. To address the stated concerns, plus editors' resistance to removing the section (citing the "editorial judgment" clause in WP:SEEALSO), the list has been trimmed, and headings retitled to more explicitly identify the criteria for inclusion ("Military derivatives" instead of "Related development"; "Direct competitors" instead of "Comparable role, configuration and era"). The new headings in this brief list correspond directly with the citations. SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied with the changes SynergyStar made to the See also section; those headings are specific enough, I think, to overcome the objections I mentioned. I'm going to take a break here and go work on some other articles while I wait for more reviews to come in. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work, everyone. It looks like you've got this one covered, but I'll keep watching just in case. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help thus far! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This article is in very good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class. My comments and suggestions are:
    • Please define what a 'wide-body jetliner' is at the start of the 'Background' section
    • Why did Boeing and Aeritalia decide to cooperate on designing this aircraft?
    • "By mid-1978, the new jetliner had received the 767 designation" - is the exact date the aircraft gained this designation known? If not, why not?
    • "By the early 1990s, the wide-body twinjet had become its manufacturer's best-selling aircraft" - this is a bit ambiguous. One reading of the sentence is that the 767 was top selling aircraft in Boeing's history, which of course isn't correct.
    • Why doesn't the 'Development' section mention the abortive (and corrupt) KC-767 lease plan of the early 2000s given that it also notes the eventual sale of these aircraft to the USAF this year
    • The article presents a positive picture of the 767's design and production history. While I believe that this is correct (lots of stories about the 787 program note that it's badly damaged Boeing's previously excellent reputation for introducing new aircraft into service and building them in large numbers), has Boeing experienced any problems with building these aircraft? (eg, design flaws, strikes, etc).
    • "A single large economy class galley is installed near the aft doors, allowing for faster meal service and ground loading" - 'faster' than what?
    • You could probably add some material on the problems some airlines have experienced from keeping their 767s in service for longer than they intended due to delays to the 787 program - for instance, Qantas has suffered from significant 767 serviceability problems, and this has damaged the airline's reputation for reliability.
    • "In 2008, ANA sent one of its 767-300s to ST Aerospace Services in Paya Lebar, Singapore, to launch the 767 PTF (Passenger To Freighter) program" - what does this mean? Did ANA transfer the aircraft to ST Aerospace Services, or was it re-fitted at Singapore by this company for ANA's later use? And what does the (Passenger To Freighter) program involve?
    • "Versions of the 767 serve prominently in a number of military and government applications" - what's meant by 'serve predominantly'? 767 military sales were pretty limited until this year, and all of the type serve in low-publicity support roles.
    • Is the November 1, 2011 emergency landing at Warsaw really important enough to include? Was this the first time a 767 had made this kind of emergency landing?
    • What makes www.zap16.com a reliable source or worth including as an external link? Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Details have been added for wide-body jetliner, Aeritalia, the KC-767 lease scandal, rear galley, and ANA BCF. "Annual best-selling" has been added to the sales sentence, "prominently" removed from the military section, and zap16.com removed (my second time doing so). The Birtles book mentions a design flaw, engine pylon cracks; a paragraph has been added on that, plus refs on aging 767 issues due to the 787 delays. Not sure if the LOT 767 emergency is notable, it was added recently by new editors, but references on its possible unique nature have been added. Thanks for the comments, and thanks to Fnlayson for the help with the date of the 767 designation and other updates. SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments; it's encouraging to hear that the updates are satisfactory. Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review, completion of the source spotchecks, and further contributors. Several past copy-editors and A-class reviewers have been on holiday. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments Support

I peer reviewed an earlier version of this article and was asked to comment on this FAC. While the article looks good, I have some mostly ninor concerns, as follows:

  • Prose could be tightened - remove "in length" from ...and would be capable of operating routes up to 3,850 nautical miles (7,130 km) in length.[20] and remove "width of the" from The width of the 767's fuselage was set midway between the 707 and the 747 at 15.5 feet (4.7 m) wide.[5] (or just remove the "wide" at the end).
  • I do not understand what this mean Building on techniques developed for the 747, the Everett factory received wing spar assembly machines to eliminate time-consuming manual work.[6] what are spar assembly machines??
  • I would link all airlines on first use- for example The list of early operators grew to include Air Canada, ANA, American Airlines, and TWA.[31]
  • In this caption I would identify whichh airplane in the photo is which The 767-300 and 767-300ER account for almost two-thirds of all 767s sold.
  • Per the MOS, the explanation for the abbreviation ER should be after first use ("ER" for Extended Range), not all the way down in variants
  • In Orders and deliveries this could be tightened Data through December 15, 2011. Updated on December 15, 2011.[156][1][80][157][158][159] (no need to give the same date twice)
  • In the Incidents and accidents section, would it help to give the number of accidents and incidents involving fatalities (X fatal crashes, including Y fatal hijackings)
  • File:B767FAMILYv1.0.png is pretty low resolution and hard to read - because of this the caption should identify which model is which. I also wonder if this is truly a free image file...?
    • I somehow missed the higher resolution version earlier - image seems OK.

Hope this helps, I will be glad to support once these minor concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the wording for about half of the comments above. Since extended-range is mentioned with the first mentions of ER, adding "'ER' for "Extended Range" seems redundant and unneeded. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Thanks Ruhrfisch for your comments, building on the FAC-focused peer review. Adding to Fnlayson's work, I have added spar machine details; linked airlines on 1st use; ID'd the caption; moved up written-out abbreviations, and added crash/hijack numbers. For the comparison diagram, I expanded the caption (that .png was created/added by a French wikipedian last month; he claims it to be self-drawn from numerical data and looking at pictures; I'm unsure whether it should be removed). Thanks again for the comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to support. Nicely done - I mage review follows Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - all the images appear to be free and have the proper licenses. Some images which are retouched Flickr images are not as clear as they could be on their original source, but nothing too bad. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, image review, and comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a spotcheck of the sources on this article. Ucucha (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on finding reviewers willing or able to do spotchecks? The article makes extensive use of free-access online references, including David Velupillai's 1981 Flight International article; relevant page scans/images/links can be provided for multiple book references as well. Thanks for any guidance. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To update, requests have been posted for a source spotcheck at WT:FAC, WT:AIR, and WT:MILHIST. Hopefully somebody out there can help out and check some refs? SynergyStar (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reposted your request to the list at the bottom of WT:FAC, lest it get lost in the shuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing spotcheck ... Sasata (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sasata (once again ... we've got to stop meeting this way :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sasata, if you could be so kind as to ping my talk page when done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck results:

  • I checked all of the citations from Vellupillai 1981 (the most commonly cited source) and was able to verify all of the cited statements; no issues with close paraphrasing.
  • I also verified several statements from the "Incidents and accidents" section, no problems there either. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sasata: General note to nominators, Synergy, on future FACs, please link to this one and indicate you've been put through the wringer already :) I'll continue reviewing this after lunch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sasata for conducting the spotcheck, and thanks to SandyGeorgia for reposting the request at FAC! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • I can't decipher a single thing from this image. I can't see it in the article at all, and even when clicking on it, the text is illegible-- I'm unclear what purpose it is serving in the article (see WP:MOS#Images and WP:IMAGES. Also, it is sandwiched together with a chart in the "Specifications" section, which would make it busy even if we could read it.
  • I'm happy to see progress in the "See also" issue (that we now have citations for the claims made in See also), but that is still not the way See also should be used in a Featured article. Anything worth writing about in a Featured article (in order for it to be considered comprehensive) should be worked into the text, not included in See also, and see also isn't the place for sorta kinda writing text, that isn't really expanded. Why can't that information be written into a section, to avoid breaching MOS on See alsos? I'm not going to hold up promotion over this (since it's a MOS issue and there isn't consensus to not promote), but neither should it be considered a precedent for future FACs. It's bad practice, calls into question whether the article meets 1b comprehensive, and is against MOS; it is still unclear why the Aviation Project insists on this.
  • Why "Design effort" instead of just "Design"?
  • The text about the shoebomber seems to veer off topic-- very little of that text has anything to do with the aircraft it happened to occur on (compared to, for example, the mechanical failure instance mentioned just below it).
  • I didn't find any instances where jargon impeded my reading-- nice!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. The .PNG diagram has been removed (it was recently added, as discussed above with Ruhrfisch). The shoebomber text has been condensed to one sentence (the type of plane it took place on is rather incidental). The "Design effort" name avoids conflict with the subsequent "Design" section, but can be changed if suggested. Regarding "See also"—revisiting that discussion below in reply to Nimbus. Glad to see that the jargon removal efforts have had their intended effect! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - File:B767FAMILYv1.0.png is very poor as Sandy says, it does not enlarge on clicking, also not categorised in the B767 Commons category. It's lucky that there are no more variants of this aircraft as there would be no room for it anyway (I have commented before on non-project standard specification sections in airliner articles, it has still not been resolved at project level), compare the amount of figures with de Havilland Comet#Specifications (Comet 4). I also note the abandonment of Template:Aircontent and the very unusual citing of entries in the 'See also' section. There is merit in the way the 'See also' section is consistently used in aircraft articles which I can explain on my talk page but basically it is related to 'comparison' articles being discouraged and deleted (quite rightly). The external image template should not be used as it is here (see Template:External media#where to use), they should just be linked normally in the EL section. All in the interest of article improvement and project consistency though some might think otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. .PNG dealt with per above, and the external media template has been replaced with external links. The specs table allows for data on multiple variants to be displayed side-by-side. However, if there is consensus to replace it with a simplified list, it can be done. Either way, the references are in place. Regarding "See also", the aircontent template was adjusted due to Dank's verifiability concerns (above). The "See also" debate appears to be larger than this one article, however, with multiple WP:AIRCRAFT members in favor of its retention, and FAC delegates and reviewers expressing concerns. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Ucucha 11:38, 1 January 2012 [58].

Blonde on Blonde[edit]

Nominator(s): Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Allreet (talk), Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it is of FA quality. We are looking forward to the review process and to hearing any feedback reviewers may have. Thank you. Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Allreet (talk), Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick Comments Fantastic album, but it needs some MOS editings. For example it fails WP:NUMBERSIGN. Also a little bit curious is the "easter-egg" linking of "US Top Twenty" to "Billboard Hot 100". They might charted there, but the name of the chart is different. Can you explain what "faddism" means, maybe link it to Wiktionary or explain it in brackets. "Side Four" doesn't need to be written in capitals. --♫GoP♫TCN 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great Orange Pumpkin, thank you for your comments. I have changed all of the #s to No., removed the capitals from Side Four, and removed the "easter-egg" wiki-link that you mentioned. I will see what I can do about "faddism" in the next day or two. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Faddism" has been wiki-linked to fad to explain term. Mick gold (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok nice.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note 3: page(s)?
  • Can you provide catalogue or album numbers for the album notes cited?
  • No citations to Buckley 2003 or Janovitz
  • Check for naming consistency - for example, "Faber and Faber" vs "Faber & Faber"
  • What is MBL?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. MBL is Marine Biological Laboratory, a research center for biology and ecology in Massachussetts. MBL hosts academic lectures known as the Falmouth Forum Series. It was at this Forum that noted literary critic Christopher Ricks gave a lecture on the accusation of misogyny in the work of Bob Dylan, John Donne and T.S.Eliot. A point from Ricks's talk regarding "Just Like A Woman" is footnoted to the Famouth Forum Series, MBL.
Of the reliable sources you query, I thought the Pop Matters review read more like a self-indulgent blog than a professional review, so I removed it. The point made by about.com is made by 2 other reputable books, so it is unnecessary, and has been removed. The Michael Gray blog is a ref because Michael Gray is among the leading authorities on Dylan and author of The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. Al Kooper, who played keyboards on every track on Blonde on Blonde, posted an attack on Gray's website, stating that Gray's account of the recording dates of Blonde on Blonde in his Encyclopedia was inaccurate. It seems important to acknowledge this disagreement about recording dates, through a reference to Kooper's attack. Mick gold (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I have now added a page for Note 3. In the actual document all four pages seem to be mistakenly labeled 19 (?? Or does the 19 refer to the document number?). In any case, it's the third page, so I labeled it page 3. I have removed Buckley 2003 and Janovitz from the References section, and made the mentions of "Faber and Faber" consistent. I still have to look into adding catalog or album numbers for the cited album notes. Thank you for pointing these things out. Moisejp (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added publisher id numbers for the four albums whose notes we cite. Moisejp (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I've only read the intro, but already, a few prose issues jump out at me.

    • This may be personal taste, but avoid awkward "future-past tense" expressions (that's my weird way of describing them) such as "only one track that would make it onto the final album", " a song that would later evolve into 'Temporary Like Achilles'", "Dylan would not attempt the song again, but one of the outtakes from the January 21 session would ultimately appear 25 years later on". I think you should shoot straight for the past tense: "only one track made it onto the final album", "a song that evolved into 'Temporary Like Achilles'", "Dylan did not attempt the song again" etc etc etc.
    • "Successfully completed" is redundant. "Complete" is an absolute term, and it can't be "unsuccessfully completed".
    • Review your use of "that vs which", and which one requires a comma in front of it, based on its part of speech.
    • You have a number of noun+ing expressions.
    • Is the Billboard's Pop Albums chart the same as the Billboard 200? If yes, can you just say so? Billboard has many genre charts, and using Pop Album chart may give the impression that you're referring to one of these charts.
    • I'm not sure "Top Twenty" is supposed to be capitalized. Ditto for "Just Like A Woman".
    • If you're going to use a quotation, you have to cite it...even in the intro
    • What exactly is a "a New York literary sensibility"?

Will review the body in a bit. I've read bits and pieces, and it appears well-written. Orane (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skimmed a bit more. Singles do not chart on the Billboard 200. Orane (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orane/Journalist, thanks for your comments.
I've tried to fix the dodgy future tenses you pinpointed. Ditto "successfully completed". Ditto citing quotation in lead.
Bob Dylan: Lyrics 1962 - 2001 has "Just Like a Woman", so do critical works Wicked Messenger, Marqusee, and Revolution In The Air, Heylin. So I've tried to make this consistent.
What is a New York literary sensibility? Good question! This point is made most fully by Marqusee, who is quoted in Legacy section: Dylan "took inherited idioms and boosted them into a modernist stratosphere." Wicked Messenger, p.208. Marqusee writes of Dylan combining the musical language of Nashville and the blues with modernist themes, such as the "radical destabilization of the singer's consciousness". So I've changed lead to: "Combining the expertise of Nashville session musicians with a modernist literary sensibility" I hope this is clearer. Mick gold (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response. Not to sound too hasty, but just wondering about my other concerns. Also, in the singles section, you're using contractions, which is usually discouraged in formal writing. Instead of "didn't chart", how about "—" or "N/A" or something similar? Orane (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orane, we will try to look at your other concerns within the next day. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orane, regarding your other concerns. I have changed "Top Twenty" to "top twenty". GrahamColm has changed a number of whichs to that, and one case of "with (noun) -ing" (thank you, GrahamColm). I will scan through to see if I can find any others, but please let us know if you notice any more that I miss. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Great Orange Pumpkin dealt with the Billboard 200 issue. [59] In my scanning, which will be later today, I will see if I notice any other cases of that. Moisejp (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The album peaked at No. 9 on Billboard's Pop Albums chart in the USA, eventually going double-platinum, while it reached No. 3 in the UK". I was referring to this sentence in the intro. Is the Billboard Pop Albums chart the Billboard 200? Also, as a suggestion how about rewriting the sentence "The album peaked at No. 9 on Billboard's 200 Chart in the USA and eventually went double-platinum, and reached No. 3 in the UK." Other than that, you have my support. Orane (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed that sentence to almost exactly the way you proposed. I also went through the article to see if I could spot any more bad cases of "which" or "with noun -ing", but didn't find any. Thanks again for pointing those things out. Moisejp (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good job Moisejp. My concerns have been addressed. Article is amazing. Orane (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
    • "a song recorded during the Highway 61 sessions that was rejected." – why was it rejected? would still now why :/
    • What is "half-ideas"?
    • I think "box-set" without the hyphen
    • As per WP:DECADE, "1985's" is incorrect
    • "sitting in on drums" – is that some kind of typo?
    • "A Studio" or "A studio"?
    • Ref 39 doesn't work correctly.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Great Orange Pumpkin. We don't know why it was rejected. We know it was recorded during the Highway 61 sessions, but not included on that album. This has been re-written.
      • Half-idea, box-set, 1985's, sitting in, all re-written.
      • Studio is capitalized when it is a proper name. Thus: "Blonde on Blonde was Bob Dylan’s seventh studio album. Recording commenced at Studio A, Columbia Recording Studios, New York City. Frustrated by the lack of progress in the studio, the musicians re-located to Columbia Music Row Studios, Nashville, Tennessee". Mick gold (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • GreatOrangePumpkin, hi. About Ref 39, it is now fixed but you may or may not be happy with my solution. If you have a better solution, let me know. I believe it was you who italicized Billboard throughout the article, which is great. But in the ref links (39, 105 and 122—and now also 106, which I have added Billboard to for consistency) italics seem not to work. In the |ref=CITEREF}} part of the References, I tried to add italics and the links weren't working. (I also added italics to Blonde on Blonde to the ref links, reasoning that if Billboard should be italicized, so should Blonde on Blonde.) But when I removed all the italics, everything worked fine again. Well, my reasoning has always been that in the actual text, of course, italics are necessary. But ref links seem to me to be kind of a special category which is almost just an arbitrary name that we're calling this link, and so for me, not having the italics in them seems acceptable. If you don't agree, fair enough, but if not, do you have another solution? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: When I say "arbitrary name" of course I don't mean the ones that are an author's name and a year, I meant the ones for web pages without an author's name. But even then, I use the word "arbitrary" very loosely because I actually do like to consistently use the title of the web page as both the title= in the References section entries and the ref link name in the Footnotes section. I guess I used the word "arbitrary" to suggest that it could be more flexible, i.e. just as record review titles in magazines often don't italicize the album name, the ref link name is not an actual piece of text in a body of regular writing, but could be considered more like "meta-data" or something. Anyway, again, you may completely disagree with me, and if so I'm all ears for other solutions. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I made a few edits to the article rather than list my minor concerns here. Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a remarkably well done article, I have a few nitpicks and one fairly major objection:
  • I feel like it would make more sense for "Mixing and album title" to be a subsection of "Recording sessions", and for "Release" to be its own section.
  • The "Songs" section is superb; excellent work.
  • "Blonde on Blonde's cover photo is printed sideways to unfold to form a color 12-by-26-inch portrait of Dylan." -- I feel like this could be reworded, right now it's a bit unclear.
  • I really feel that "Critical reception and legacy" needs more about the album's reception at the time of its release. What's there is great but the absence of almost anything other than retrospective acclaim hurts the article's comprehensiveness. This is the only glaring omission. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandt Luke Zorn, Thanks for your comments, particularly your praise of the "Songs" section.
  • Your suggestion to make "Mixing and album title" another section of "Recording sessions" makes sense and I've done this.
  • To make "Release" its own section would create a very short section - 147 words. I'll wait until we hear whether other editors agree with your suggestion.
  • This is understandable, but it doesn't seem like a logical subheader of "Album cover and packaging"... perhaps it could be merged with "Critical reception and legacy"? Again, if there were some contemporary reviews that would all flow much better imo.
  • I've re-titled the section "Album cover and release". "Album cover and packaging" sounds like a tautology. For some reason, I still think these two topics, the format of the double album cover and the controversial release date, sit happily together. If others disagree, we can change it. Mick gold (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description of the gatefold sleeve has been re-written, to try to make it clearer.
  • Much better, this is what I thought was the case but there's definitely greater clarity now. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your query about the response to BoB at time of release is interesting, but I can't supply it yet. In all the research for this article, in Heylin, Gray, Scaduto, Sounes, Gill and other well-known Dylan studies, I have not come across a contemporary review. Strangely, even Sean Wilentz in his very detailed account of the making of BoB, does not mention one contemporary review. Perhaps my co-editors can help—Moisejp, Allreet and I.M.S.? I'll email some Dylan scholars I'm in touch with, including Gray and Heylin, to see if they can supply something. It would be interesting to find out. Mick gold (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Mick gold: Shelton mentions a few contemporary reviews. I know your edition is different from mine, but it's right near the end of the Blonde on Blonde section, a page before "Hard Traveling in to Future Shock". There's not too much we can use there, but it could be a start. Moisejp (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Gray has sent me a review that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 3, 1966, which I have added. From Shelton’s book, I’ve taken extracts from reviews by Richard Goldstein and Jon Landau. (Thanks Moisejp!) Craig McGregor’s 1972 anthology of Dylan criticism reprints an interesting essay on Blonde on Blonde which Paul Nelson wrote as the introduction to the songbook in 1966. I haven’t found any negative reviews from 1966. I hope these contemporary comments add depth to the critical reception section, and provide a platform for Dylan’s 1978 recollection of the album’s achievement. Mick gold (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Mick gold! BTW, the Los Angeles Times review have a title and/or a page number? It'd be all the more ideal with those, but if not the reviewers will hopefully not mind under the circumstances. Also, did the Goldstein review say anything that suggested it was "favorable"? Moisejp (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a title or page number for the LA Times. Michael Gray just sent me the text and the date, I'll ask Gray. I wrote that BoB received "generally favorable reviews". The Johnson and Landau reviews quoted are clearly favorable. The Goldstein review argues against the album being viewed as mysterious or forbidding, and calls it (according to Shelton) "Dylan's least esoteric work". I thought "generally favorable" was a fair summary of those three reviews. Mick gold (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good about Goldstein. Thanks a lot for contacting Gray. I hope it's no hassle! Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further correspondence with Dylan scholars has brought me a review of BoB which Paul Williams published in July 1966 in Crawdaddy!, the journal he edited. Our article had a quote from a Jon Landau piece published in Crawdaddy! (which Shelton quoted in his book.) But I’ve learnt that the Landau piece was published later, certainly after 1968. Therefore I’m cutting the Landau quote and adding a Williams quote, an interesting comment by one of the most influential rock critics of the mid 1960s. I found the Goldstein quote the least satisfactory contemporary review, so I’ve cut it. Mick gold (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The prose is good. I just have a few concerns:

  • Possibly trivial info: "According to Wilentz, after the take, McCoy shouted excitedly, 'Robbie, the world'll marry you on that one.'" --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removed. Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stray punctuations marks. For example: The session began to "get giddy" around midnight, when Dylan roughed out "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" on the piano." --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording to "the session's atmosphere began to get giddy around midnight" (no quotation marks). Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with Moisejp's re-write. Just to explain: Wilentz wrote that "around midnight the mood on the session began to get giddy" on p.123 as per cite at end of sentence. I thought it was a nice turn of phrase, but worried that "get giddy" may be considered too colloquial for a WP article, so I put it in quotes to indicate the phrase was Wilentz's. If it works without "quotes", that's fine for me. Mick gold (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the same feeling toward the use of giddy, but as long as its a quotation. Anyway, looking at the sentence, I think there's a missing punctuation: The session atmosphere began to get giddy around midnight, when Dylan roughed out "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" on the piano." There supposed to be an opening quotation mark. --Efe (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the closing quotation marks before piano that didn't have any opening ones. So, about "get giddy", is the consensus then that they should or shouldn't be in quotation marks? Moisejp (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better. Seems informal IMO if left without the quotation marks. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have reinstated these. Moisejp (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on leaving the quotation marks in. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:V, all directions quotations must have direct inline citation: "Johnston recalled commenting, 'That sounds like the damn Salvation Army band'." or "'it's not hard rock, The only thing in it that's hard is Robbie.'" --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, quotes cited. Mick gold (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, linked. Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper attribution: "the fourteenth take was deemed the best recording" by who? --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, re-written Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper dating: "On February 14, as Dylan was starting to record in Nashville," (although I think it can be found on the upper sections). --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Efe, I wasn't sure what you meant with this comment. Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-wrote this in an attempt to clarify date. Mick gold (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for internal consistencies: John Lennon's as opposed to John Lennon's (though I prefer the latter. [60] --Efe (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apostrophes should not be in italics unless part of the italicized title / term. --Efe (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly informal terms such as "licks" in "harmonica licks", --Efe (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "licks". Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response Mick. Kindly review the entire article. Those are just examples. Thanks again. --Efe (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, thank you very much for your comments. I will try to address the remaining ones in the next day or so, as well as looking through the article one more time for other instances, as you suggest. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, as I wrote right above, I will look through the article one more time soon to see if I can catch any other cases of issues you mention. BTW, I noticed that in the lead you changed "1965–66" to "1965 to 66". Are you sure that that's best? It looks a little bit unusual to me, but if you have seen it recommended in MOS, I guess it's OK. In MOS I found the example "the 1939–45 war", which may support what we had before. Or, if you really don't like the en dash there, how would "1965 to 1966" be? Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see GrahamColm has changed that to "in 1965 and 1966". That works best of all for me. Thanks, GrahamColm. Moisejp (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix GC. That's the problem actually comes from. From the reader's perspective, it reads like it was recorded in that period. I'm also worried about the glaring use of em dashes. --Efe (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still spotted inconsistencies:
  • "On February 15, the session began at six in the evening, but Dylan simply sat in the studio working on his lyrics, while the musicians played cards, napped, and chatted. Finally, at 4 a.m., " --Efe (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "six in the evening" to "6 p.m." Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw two or more successful in one paragraph. --Efe (talk)
In the next day I will do that read-through I've been promising, and I will look out for any excessive use of "successful". Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut two instances of "successful". Moisejp (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • POVish terms of interpretation: In acrimonious comments on Michael Gray's website. Just let the readers decide. --Efe (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "acrimonious". Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After several musical revisions and false starts, the 'fourteenth take was the version selected for the album." abd "It was not until the 18th take that a full version was recorded. The next take, the 19th," Should be either. --Efe (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now spelled out "eighteenth" and "nineteenth". Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released as a single in April 1966, "Rainy Day Women" reached No. 2 on the Billboard singles chart, and No. 7 in the UK." and "became the fifth single released from Blonde on Blonde, making it to No. 81 on Billboard Hot 100" The first one is general. The second one is specific. Aside from that, can you possibly identify what chart specifically was used in the UK (in stances where you use Billboard Hot 100, or simply Billboard with reference to the singles chart)? Just to achieve parallelism. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will contact our source for the UK chart positions [61] to see if they can give me the official name of the album and single charts. Moisejp (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, I found two more cases where an apostrophe s was improperly in a wiki-link and one case where an apostrophe was improperly in italics. I have changed these. I'm waiting for a reply from The Official Charts website about the name of the UK chart lists. Moisejp (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, I haven't heard back from the people at the Officials Charts website yet. Although I agree that ideally it'd be nice to have a parallel structure with official names for both the US and UK charts, I don't know where to get the info about the UK chart's official name. Would you settle for what we have now? Moisejp (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think its fine, but its better if that would be fixed at some later date. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the article undergone an image review and a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the latter Nikkimaria's specialty? --Efe (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nikkimaria generally checks for things like reliability of sources, formatting, missing info, but does not always check for accurate representation of sources or copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the FUR for the album cover in anticipation of an image review. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we're still waiting for both. Ucucha (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


On the whole, amazing! An article that does justice to a major album, and remains readable and controlled. Some quick comments on the content:

  • The lead refers to rankings on the 500 Greatest Songs list, but this doesn't appear again in the article - it probably needs mentioning in the legacy section (where the Rolling Stone list is mentioned) or in the sections on the two relevant songs.
Thanks for your comments, Shimgray. Before changing this, I'm now slightly confused as I've found a new Rolling Stone "500 Greatest Songs Of All Time" list (from 2011 I think) which lists JLAW at #232 [62], and VoJ at #413 [63]. I'll consult Moisejp et al before editing this. Mick gold (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best thing to do is in the lead simply say that the two songs were ranked in the Top 500 without specific numbers (that could be an idea anyway), and then down below spell out that there have been two versions of this list and give numbers from both lists? It'd be a bit awkward but it would be thorough. Or another idea is to just assume that the 2011 list is the most official and up-to-date and use it. Moisejp (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, maybe the second idea is better. If you have evidence that the "2011" list is indeed the most recent one—but logically it should be, since the other one we use is from an archived version of the website—maybe we should just use that. It is annoying, though, that Rolling Stone would change its numbers after such a relatively short time. Maybe they wanted to include the best of the most recent songs that have come out. Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the 2011 version is the most recent. Let's go with that one. Can you make the ref/cite work, Moisejp? you're more adept at that. Mick gold (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I may be pretty busy in the next day or two but I'll try to find some time to do that and to help address some more of Shimgray's issues. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not exactly what we decided, but what do you think? I think it works well. I kind of feel funny about dropping any mention of the 2004 list, because that is when the list became famous. But if anyone feels strongly the 2004 list should be dropped, I could do so. Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edits, Moisejp. I think your solution of putting the 2010 Greatest Songs in brackets works well. Footnotes to 2010 work. Unfortunately, there's a problem with the link to 2004 poll. The RS link produces "404 Page Cannot Be Found". But archive link works [64]. One more idea: why not link to specific song JLAW [65] and VoJ [66]. I've tried to fix ref, to avoid Page 404 problem, but please alter if you can see a better way to link ref. Mick gold (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the links. I went back to the 201-300 and 401-500 lists because the song's individual pages don't actually show the rankings. Moisejp (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "ninth greatest album" is attributed to VH1 and Rolling Stone, but the legacy section only refers to a Rolling Stone list. Given the various results (#2, #16, #9, & presumably others not mentioned), perhaps it might be best to simply say something like "Often ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time..." in the lead?
I've tried to follow your suggestion in the lead. Mick gold (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to extend (or shift) the Rainy Day Woman clip by a couple of seconds? It currently fades out on "Everybody must ...", which seems odd, as it's probably the most recognisable phrase.
The "Rainy Day Women" sound clip is the maximum length possible, which is 10% of the song's length. I remember when I was editing it I was really struggling to get as much as possible in without going over the allowed length and adjusting the start and end point by fractions of seconds to get the most of the verse in. That said, if we extended the ending we'd have to cut from the beginning and I think it'd sound strange not to include all of the "They'll stone you when you're trying to be so good" line. I'd either have to cut the whole line or leave it all in as it is now. And without that line, then the next line, "They'll stone you just like they said they would" would be less satisfying to hear. For me, the sound clip's present state is the best possible solution under the circumstances. It's true we don't hear the very very end of the "Everybody must get stoned" line, but the line is mentioned in the text, and I think people can imagine the ending. If you or other people really feel strongly it should be changed, I could, but unless someone has a brilliant other solution, my personal preference would be to keep it as it is. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I hadn't realised the limits were quite so firm. Fair enough... Shimgray | talk | 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pledging My Time has a citation to the 1986 ed. of Shelton; it might be tidier to refer to the current edition, which is used in all other cases.
The 2011 edition of Shelton isn't a straight re-print of the 1986 edition. Some new material has been added, and some material has been cut. One of the things cut was a detailed discography, so the 1986 edition is the only place I've seen that point. Mick gold (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The song draws on Tampa Red's..." is uncited - is this covered by the footnotes in the following sentence?
Done - added source for the mention of "It Hurts Me Too", switching it to Elmore James' version as that is the one that Wilentz compares to "PMT" in his book. Sadly I had to remove the part on "Sitting On Top Of The World", as I couldn't find a source for it. Google books showed a mention of it and "Pledging My Time" in Michael Gray's encyclopedia, but I couldn't see the whole thing and I don't have access to a physical copy. Mick gold or Moisejp, can you help? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Michael Gray's comments on PMT which connect the song to Robert Johnson's "Come on in My Kitchen", Skip James, and the Mississippi Sheiks' "Sitting on Top of the World". Mick gold (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the Visions of Johanna file up a paragraph as the box was floating a bit strangely otherwise. Unfortunately, this looks quite cramped - I'm not sure there's a good solution here. (Unless you want to add more quotes from the article! There's certainly scope for them - Motion's praise, perhaps.)
  • I Want You seems to be missing a sentence at the beginning - we go straight into a critical quote without any description of the song itself.
I see what you mean, so I've moved a more general sentence to the top of the article. Mick gold (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I preferred the Kooper sentence to the Gill, but your call... Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Eyed Lady - would it be worth mentioning (from the article) that it was recorded in four takes? It's a minor detail, but given the length, it seems quite interesting.
Not sure what you mean. According to Olof Bjorner's website [67], there were four takes, but the fourth and final take was the one released. Mick gold (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, that's what I mean - it only needed three attempts before the final take. It seems surprising for something of that length, written only a few hours before! Shimgray | talk | 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release date -you might want to add something about the LA Times review here, since it predates the first review date quoted. In addition, I presume these are the US release dates - do we know when it was released outside the US, or is this particular morass best avoided?
Both LA Times and Crawdaddy! reviews are from July 1966, so they are given as contemporary reactions to album. Not sure what more to say. I have no data on overseas release dates, but question of US release date is already complicated enough! Mick gold (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough :-) Shimgray | talk | 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed some ASIN codes from the references, which were in the publisherid field - these are only valid in Amazon's database, and aren't really much use for tracing the item. Unfortunately, while I own the CDs in question, they're in a box a few hundred miles away and so I can't check for the actual codes - there should hopefully be a serial on the item, or failing that you could use the barcode EAN from the back.
Mick gold, I.M.S. or Allreet, do any of you have copy of these CDs handy? I don't have mine with me right now. Moisejp (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added numbers from my CDs. Mick gold (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, Mick. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it... Shimgray | talk | 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I've struck some clearly resolved points - I'm afraid I'm going to be called away for a day or two, but I'll have a run through again on Sunday evening. Shimgray | talk | 00:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any outstanding issues left from reviewers so far that we still have to address? Moisejp (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I've mentioned above has been addressed, I think. Shimgray | talk | 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - So far the article looks great, I would like to know about the original album photographs; the cover, and the black and whites that are inside the double album. Who, where, and why? As I remember the album was re-released with different pictures, why was it changed?...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Modernist. We do talk about that some already. Basically, the picture of Claudia Cardinale was removed and replaced with another pic because Dylan didn't have permission to use it. I believe that was the extent of any picture changing. We also mention that one of the nine photos was of Jerry Schatzberg. Are you saying you'd like info about more of the photos? Who else was in them and where they were shot? Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Moisejp. We already quote Schatzberg's account of how he came to take the blurred cover photo. All inside B&W photos taken by Schatzberg and selected for sleeve by Dylan, according to Schatzberg's account. We state that the photo of Cardinale was withdrawn because they did not have authorization for its use on album cover. This was only change. As stated, Dylan included a self-portrait by Schatzberg as an acknowledgement of his work. Gill's description of the contribution the photos made to the atmosphere of the album is best critical comment I could find. I've tweaked prose to try to make it all clearer. What more would you like to know? Mick gold (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks, it's all good, I have the original album and I never realized why that photo came out, and I am curious if there are any other issues with them, thanks for the clarification...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems well written, seems to meet NPOV, seems to be well referenced, so therefore I support this article's bid to become a featured article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment now there is no link pointing to "The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" (in the third ref column)--♫GoP♫TCN 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand. There are currently 4 footnotes to "RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time": #126 (JLAW, 2004, #230), #127 (VoJ, 2004, #404), #128 (JLAW, 2010, #232), #129 (VoJ, 2010, #413). These 4 refs link through to web sites which seem to work. I removed ref to "The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" (after Tim Riley) which seems to be redundant. Mick gold (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GreatOrangePumpkin, I was also confused by what you meant. All the links seem to be working fine. But if there's something we missed, please let us know. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mick gold already corrected it ;). I think the reference was just redundant because it was not cited anywhere in the article (as pointed out by Mick gold above).--♫GoP♫TCN 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with one comment: I do wish there were some kind of source cited for the Track Listing and Personnel sections. —Ed!(talk) 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mick gold, do you have a good source for the Personnel section? About the Track Listing, I wouldn't think we would need a citation for it. I just looked at four random FA album articles: Achtung Baby, Loveless (album), One Hot Minute, and Rumours, and none of them had a citation for Track Listing. If you absolutely wanted one, it would be easy to provide, but... Moisejp (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The booklet notes to The Original Mono Recordings (Marcus, 2010) do a good job of listing musicians' credits for each track, but they omit two credits: Wayne Butler on trombone on "Rainy Day Women", and Rick Danko on bass on "One Of Us Must Know". So the combination of Marcus (2010) and the entirety of Sean Wilentz's chapter on Blonde on Blonde (Wilentz, 2009) give the full credits between them. I wasn't sure where to add these 2 refs. I put them next to the section heading "Personnel" and they looked odd, so I put them next to Bob Dylan's credit at the head of the Personnel list. They can be moved if anyone has a better solution. Mick gold (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Mick. I added the sentence "The personnel involved in making Blonde on Blonde is as follows:" and put the two refs there. I'm not sure if that's the perfect solution, either, but I am also open to any better suggestions. Moisejp (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Moisejp. I've added Bill Lee to the Personnel. I think Note #1, which explains that both Lee and Danko have been credited as the New York bass player, should also refer to these names in the Personnel section, but I don't know how to make the Note refer to two different places. Mick gold (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that either. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck: clear not pleased with the use of the one book I could consult, please respond regarding standards of quotation and broad synthesis. I'm a labour historian, not a music critic. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editors of this obviously have a great offline collection of monographs regarding Dylan. Disappointingly most of the books used in this were not available online in any form that allowed spotchecking (I do not believe that "snippet" view allows for verification, and therefore do not spot check by snippet in Google). Noting that neither Wilentz 2009, nor any Heylin sources, are available to me.
Here are a few online sources available in preview form on Google Books. All, of course, are incomplete, but sometimes you can find what you're looking for using Search or by page number. There may be others, but this is what I found that offered more than snippet view in a quick search. A pdf of Michael Gray's Bob Dylan Encyclopedia is also available as a download (use "pdf" as keyword). Also note that Bob Shelton's No Direction Home has been updated so the page numbering differs from the original edition below.
Behind the Shades by Clinton Heylin
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions, 1960-1994 by Clinton Heylin
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Dylan in America by Sean Wilentz
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wicked messenger: Bob Dylan and the 1960s by Mike Marqusee
Already consulted. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No direction home: the life and music of Bob Dylan by Robert Shelton
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan by Howard Sounes
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Allreet (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 40 a stats/charts source was used correctly without plagiarism, though it was used as a negative proof in two instances, I find that this use is acceptable given the source's comprehensiveness and the simplicity of the negative proof. As such, I have not spot checked other stats/charts sources and believe them to be correctly used.
    • Björner 2000, a web compendium was used correctly without plagiarism. As such I am not checking further such sources believing them to be correctly used.
    • Black 2005, a newspaper source with primary elements, was used correctly without plagiarism (though I prefer a different style of handling quotes within other texts, the use is acceptable), as such I'm not checking further such sources as I believe them to be correctly used.
    • Kooper 2006, a blog by an EXPERT, and slightly primary, is appropriately used, and as such I believe all such sources to be appropriately used.
    • Album notes are cited, which are unavailable to me, but given the quality of citations above, I am not concerned.
    • BOOK: Marqusee 2005, p. 222 is used perfectly.
    • BOOK: Marqusee 2005, p. 138 is not used correctly, Wiki: "Oliver Trager and Mike Marqusee have described this trilogy as perhaps Dylan's greatest achievement.[122]" Marqusee does not describe this as the greatest achievement, nor use similarly superlative language indicating acme. Text: "a body of work that remains unique in popular music." Perhaps Marqusee's evaluation needs finessing? "described this trilogy as "unique in popular music" and as perhaps..." or, as below, it could be due to an inappropriately broad citation of pages?
    • BOOK: Marqusee 2005, p. 208 is used problematically, the quote lacks an elision indicator […] where a parenthetical phrase is elided, in addition I'm not able to find the claim "Dylan had succeeded in reconciling traditional blues material with avant-garde, literary techniques". This seems to be a problem where only the quote is indicated in the footnote, but the encyclopaedically synthetic evaluation of Marqusee's judgement isn't properly cited to the page range this is drawn from?
    • Please respond to my concerns regarding Marqusee 2005 and its implications for your uses of books I was not able to consult during spot checking. This could be resolved by an explanation of the approach used to citation, quotation, and citing broad analytical syntheses? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo, thank you very much for doing the source checking and for pointing out our apparent error in quoting Marqusee. I would like to hold back right now from responding to the wider questions you bring up until I can confer with Mick gold, who is more familiar with some of our sources, including Marqusee, than I am. In the meantime, to help you with your overall evaluation of our citations, can I offer to type out any relevant passages from books I have? I have Heylin (1995), Heylin (2009), Shelton (1986), Sounes (2001), and Cott (2006). If there are any citations from these books that you would like to compare with the actual text the authors wrote, just let me know, and I'll be happy to type them out for you. Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally if you could transcribe (for the purposes of copyright protection, and avoidance of plagiarism only) Heylin 2009, pp. 285–286 as it covers 5 uses in one go, and is two pages. This would be an effective use of your time and mine, as it would provide an equivalent use case to Marqusee 2005 and help balance the spot checks there. You could also scan them, put them on a temporary location, and email me the address via the user email system (if that pleases you). The other sources you name have dispersed uses and it would be asking too much for too many page impressions. If there is a major plagiarism/supports-the-content issue we may need the further elements for spot-checking; but, I'm sure that someone simply didn't include a large enough page range ie: "pp. 286 for the quote, 280–290." when supporting the statements in Marqusee. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to type out those two pages tomorrow if possible. Actually, the pagination in my edition is different from the one we use in the article. Mick gold, I imagine page 285 starts with the title "One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)" and then "Published Lyrics", etc.? Where does the end of 286 end? Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last complete sentence on 286 ends with "b***job. The rest, on 287, is about the song's performance during Rolling Thunder and other tours. Allreet (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, thanks for your detailed comments. Re Marqusee p.139, I don't have the Trager book, so I've changed the sentence to accurately reflect Marqusee: "Mike Marqusee has described Dylan's output between late 1964 and the summer of 1966, when he recorded these three albums, as "a body of work that remains unique in popular music." (Marqusee. p.139) Mick gold (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added this comment from Shelton: Shelton wrote, Blonde on Blonde was a "hallmark collection that completes [Dylan's] first major rock cycle, which began with Back Home."(Shelton p.224) - to justify the plural "critics" in the sentence: "Several critics have described Blonde on Blonde as a satisfying conclusion to the mid-1960s trilogy of albums that Dylan had initiated with Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited." Mick gold (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Whoops. I then realized this quote from Shelton was already in this section of BoB article. So I've replaced it with a quote from Janet Maslin on Dylan's mid-1960s rock trilogy. Quote from Patrick Humphries' Dylan book also added, to consolidate sense that some critics have seen the mid-1960s trilogy of rock albums as a high point of Dylan's career. Mick gold (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Marqusee p.208, the text was an imperfect paraphrase of Marqusee's critical points. I've changed it to read:

For Mike Marqusee, Dylan had succeeded in combining traditional blues material with modernist literary techniques: "[Dylan] took inherited idioms and boosted them into a modernist stratosphere. 'Pledging My Time' and 'Obviously 5 Believers' adhered to blues patterns that were venerable when Dylan first encountered them in the mid-fifties (both begin with the ritual Delta invocation of "early in the mornin"). Yet like 'Visions of Johanna' or 'Memphis Blues Again', these songs are beyond category. They are allusive, repetitive, jaggedly abstract compositions that defy reduction." (Marqusee. p.208)

I believe the first sentence now accurately reflect the quote from Marqusee's text. I also restored the phrase about the "ritual Delta invocation" which had been omitted from the quote. Please let me know if this answers your query re Marqusee, p.208. Mick gold (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, you ask for "an explanation of the approach used to citation, quotation, and citing broad analytical syntheses". I can't say anything beyond my intention was always to cite accurately from critical works, and, where necessary, to paraphrase accurately. I'm grateful you've pointed out problems with our use of Marqusee, and I would be happy to join with other editors in resolving any other issues concerning our citing of biographical and critical works. Mick gold (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed and changed another ref that was incorrect. Dylan's comment to Shelton about his failure to record a successful album with the Hawks: "Oh, I was really down. I mean, in ten recording sessions, man, we didn't get one song...It was the band. But you see, I didn't know that. I didn't want to think that." This was cited to Heylin, 2009, p.286. But Heylin only quotes part of Dylan's statement. The full quote is in Shelton's book, 2011 edition, p.248. Mick gold (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I have started typing up the two pages in question and am happy to continue to do so, but can I ask, does your geographic location also prevent you from seeing the Look Inside feature of Amazon? I believe (but could be wrong) it's not affected by geographic location. I am able to see page 285 on Amazon.com [68] and page 286 on Amazon.co.uk [69]. If you can't see these, just let me know and I'll continue typing up the pages. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just now I tried again and it let me see both pages on Amazon.co.uk. In the Search Inside This Book box, type in "Nineteen years" and it should come up. Moisejp (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if all pages are available, but Sean Wilentz's Bob Dylan in America also has the Look Inside feature through both Amazon.com [70] and Amazon.co.uk [71]. Hopefully at least some of the pages you want to check will be available. Moisejp (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I thought that this blocked me, but it seems like they want me to be logged in. Thank you for doing this research, I will see if I'm able to make use of it when I'm somewhere I can use my Amazon account. Maybe you can hold off on transcribing in the hopes that Amazon will let me view results when logged in! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using Wilentz 2009 at footnote 30d: "picked up a trumpet"? this isn't the standard verb, in fact, Wilentz uses an unusual verb here. Strangely wikipedia's editors use the same verb.
So then I checked Wilentz 2007 p117 and it is loose enough paraphrase
The bits of fn 25 and 27 I could confirm are also clear.
Fix your pickup trumpet, learn looser paraphrasing in future, recombinant writing is better than sentence order & verb change paraphrase, which is better than same order same verb with different adjectives. I hope we see more album FAs, but work on your editorial voices! The couple of problems identified seem to be related to problems with note taking or first stage writing, writing too closely to source material, and in particular writing out anecdotes from the sources. Now I agree when discussing the inner process of a musician/"poet" these anecdotes are useful—all the rock historians I read tell their story through such anecdotes and so they're essential to the narrative. But do watch out for not only retelling the anecdote, but retelling it using the language of the rock historian. The generous use of direct quotes (as contained in the secondary source) is an excellent habit to avoid overly closely following the source's own text, you're following quotes arising from the text. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through BoB text again, scrutinising every ref which I can access, and amending anything that looked sloppy. Mick gold (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence with "Pick up" trumpet re-written, and we will endeavor to learn looser phrasing, thanks Fifelfoo. Mick gold (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Fifelfoo! Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it standard for the FUR for non-free images to say that it is "believed" who the copyright holder is? The FUR seems unclear to me, is it the graphic artist, or Columbia records? Seems like this should be answered definitely in the FUR. AstroCog (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrocog, thanks for your comment. It would appear that it is standard. I just checked several other FUR for FA albums, and they all had the same phrasing. If you look at Edit for the FUR template box, it appears that that phrasing is part of the template, and the editor just has to plug in the record label name. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • The first paragraph in the lead ends with "the album was completed in ... " and the second starts with "The album completed ... ", which seems a tad repetitive.
  • In the "Background" section Highway 61 Revisited isn't linked for its first appearance in the main body.
Thanks Kitchen Roll. Lead re-written to eliminate repetition of 'completed' which you spotted. H61R wiki linked in main body. Mick gold (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Second recording sessions in Nashville" section shouldn't sixteenth notes be reffered to as "(semi quavers)" as well for UK readers?
This article is written in US English. Sixteenth notes is the musical term employed by Wilentz who is cited; this term wiki-links to sixteenth notes article which mentions in lead that "semi quaver" is UK English. Mick gold (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, as it's been linked.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Pledging My Time" subsection "snare rolls" sounds like rock critic talk. Would it not be clearer for it to be reffered to as "snare drum rolls"?
Changed. Thanks, Kitchen Roll. Moisejp (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reliable source that credits Robertson as playing slide guitar on "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat"? This could help the reader distinguish between Dylan and Robertson's playing on the song. eg "Robertson handles the solos with a "searing" performance on slide guitar"
To my knowledge, no critic who has written about LSPBH has credited Robertson with slide guitar, so I'm reluctant to set a precedent. Gill notes that Dylan's lead guitar leads the song off on the center-right stereo channel, whereas Robertson's "searing" guitar solos come in on the left stereo channel. So I've added this to help clarify who plays what. Mick gold (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that adresses the point.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of "lead" twice in the "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat" section seems slightly repetitive and wordy, maybe just cutting "on lead" would do.
Hmm, personally for clarity I would keep both cases of "lead": the point isn't that he is just opening the song playing some back-up guitar, but that at the beginning he is playing the lead guitar part, although Robertson is doing some "leading" by playing solos. But if anyone disagrees, I would be flexible on this point. Moisejp (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence seems clearer after Mick Gold reworded it.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic article. Well done  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review, as I couldn't see one. The music samples are probably justified, but I'm not really happy with the generic rationales; it'd be great if they tied into the text a little better. What is clearly contrary to the NFCC (10c, specifically) is the fact that two of them are used on "group" rationales. Each usage requires a separate, specific rationale, explaining what the media adds to that article in particular (again, preferably tying in with the text). J Milburn (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J. Milburn. I have tried to make the rationale much more specific to the particular songs, by showing how audio samples illustrate specific critical comments in the accompanying text. Please inform us if this answers your concerns. Mick gold (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, J Milburn, and thanks for taking care of that, Mick. J Milburn, for the "Visions of Johanna" and "Obviously Five Believers" files, later today I will split them into separate rationales for their use in the song articles and the album article. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a separate rationale for the "Visions of Johanna" article. In the case of "Obviously Five Believers", the song's article is a stub, and there isn't much to work with for writing a specific rationale. So I took the sound clip out of the article for now. If we ever beef up the article later, and there is more text to work with for the rationale, we can add the sound file back to the article later. J Milburn, is everything OK with the rationales now? Moisejp (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better- I like the use of the quotations in the rationales, explicitly tying them to the text. It's a shame that a lot of the analysis appears in the captions to the samples, rather than in the prose- the media should really be there to supplement/illustrate the prose, not "in its own right", as it were. Further, it may be worth adding why you have chosen those particular pieces, above and beyond the others- there is discussion of all the songs, but I'm sure we can all agree that having samples from many more would be excessive. Regardless, I'm confident that the use of the samples meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale of RDW12&35 does refer to Gill's point in the text. I've re-written rationale for VoJ so it relates to Gill's point in the text, rather than to Mellers' point in the caption. I've moved Shelton's description of O5B as "the best R&B song on the album" from caption into text, as it is a useful critical judgement, and our rationale for this song is again tied to the text. Mick gold (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Tucker, Ken (1993-08-27). "Wild Western". Entertainment Weekly (185/186): 7.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference torontostar_pilot was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "The Adventures of Brisco County Jr". TV Guide. 41 (38): 53. 1993-09-18.
  4. ^ Jarvis, Jeff (1993-10-30). "The Prime of Prime Time". TV Guide. 41 (44): 35–36.
  5. ^ Kaplan, James (1994-03-12). "Grown-Up TV That's Good For Kids". TV Guide. 42 (11): 19.
  6. ^ Goldberg, Robert (1993-10-25). "Cowboys Ride Again". The Wall Street Journal. p. A18.
  7. ^ Quill, Greg (1993-09-13). "The new TV season You are joking! Star TV critic Greg Quill bets that only 7 of 30 new shows will be around in January". The Toronto Star. p. H3.
  8. ^ Mitchell, Elvis (1993-12). "The Lone Eyebrow Rides Again". Spin. 9 (9): 42. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ Schwed, Mark; Holland, Ty (1994-04-02). "Save Our Shows!". TV Guide. 42 (14): 20–21.
  10. ^ Roush, Matt (1994-05-13). "Family Fun Void? 'Brisco,' 'MacGyver' to the Rescue". USA Today. Life, p. 3D.
  11. ^ Fretts, Bruce (1994-04-22). "The Week: Cult". Entertainment Weekly (219): 48.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2012&oldid=474059571"