Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting little article on the United States first "real" battleship. She just passed Milhist A-class review and this is the next step to making a featured topic about the battleship class. Yoenit (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No dabs, all external links OK. Esuzu(talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: All sources look good, subject to a couple of nitpicks:-
It isn't necessary to give the location of The New York Times'. Also, in the final citation, 47 (Landenberger), you add publisher information (The New York Times Company), which again isn't necessary for the NYT.
Page ranges shouold be shown pp. not p. (see ref 6)
Have fixed both. Yoenit (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - a couple of minor quibbles...
I have taken the liberty of rewording the first sentence. She was the first US Navy battleship - full stop. There is no need to say anything else in that sentence. :-)
With all due respect, this is simply not true. USS Texas (1892) was the first battleship, but it was under construction for over 7 years and utterly obsolete at the time of launch, hence it being renamed a "second-class battleship" before being commissioned and never given a BB number. Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Am still not sure that "battleship equivalent to a European one" is quite the way to put it though - they weren't really the equal of British ships.... The Land (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, the text actually says "comparable", not "equivalent" (bringing this up because it was a major point in the class article FAC). It is not intended to convey the meaning that Indiana could take on a Royal Sovereign one on one, merely they were in the same category (similar firepower, armor and speed), while Texas was clearly inferior in every aspect. I am open to any improvement however, so if you have an idea don't hesitate to say it. Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a comment below I changed the lead again and added a ref Yoenit (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead the sentence about not being able to take part in the chase for the cruisers assumes to much knowledge - should be reworded.
You are right, gonna fix it Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to expand the line before it, explaining that the battle was an attempt to break through the blockade and the Spanish cruisers where escaping. Is it better now? Yoenit (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, can we specify Harvey steel please.
Can you clarify this further? Should I specify for each armor part (belt, hull, ed.) that is Harvey armor? or should I just link it once? Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just link it once. My point here is that without information on the nature of the armour, someone glancing at a load of battleship infoboxes will end up confused because the thickness of armour, on its own, doesn't make a great deal of sense. (A bit like giving gun calibres on their own doesn't make sense).
Added it to the infobox, making also a distinction between sections that were Harvey armor and those that were not. Yoenit (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general I would prefer to see more about design, construction etc - the article feels very short without this info even if it is mainly in the class article...
Originally it included that information, but I received the following comment at the A-class review:
"You've placed too much emphasis on the technical/design in the section than what is appropriate for this article as opposed to the class article. After I comprehensively review this article in a few days, this may be a major sticking point in my eventual !vote... -MBK004 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)"
Either way is fine with me, but I think additional input from other reviewers would be nice here before action is taken. Yoenit (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well don't change it for now then! The Land (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
In the lead, I think it would be useful to give the dates of the Spanish–American War in brackets.
done.
The lead mentions that the Indiana was "comparable to European designs of the time". First of all this is unsourced, and secondly it is not elaborated on in the main body of the article. Why mention Europe at all? Was it a conscious decision to contend with European naval powers? This could be developed in the design and construction section where isolationism is briefly discussed.
good catch on the unsourced part. As stated above the comparison with is made to distinguish Indiana from it's predecessors USS Texas (1892) and USS Maine (ACR-1). These were also called battleships, but were definitely not comparable to what passed in Europe for a battleship, hence Indiana being designated "Battleship 1" and later "BB-1". Without any objective qualifiers to say what is a battleship and what not the only thing that can be done is compare it to European ships of the time. Gonna think about this for a bit, as The Land also brought it up. Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref for the lead and also slightly changed it, from "European designs" to "foreign battleships" Yoenit (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Construction of the Indiana class was authorized on 30 June 1890 and the contract for Indiana was awarded to William Cramp & Sons in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania": Indiana twice in the same sentence is slightly repetitious. I realise they refer to different things in this instance, but couldn't the sentence be rephrased?
Changed "Indiana class" to "ships" Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much did the Indiana cost? How did this compare to other ships etc.
I thought it was in the infobox, but there doesn't seem to be a field for it. I don't think I can do a comparison with other ships without violating WP:OR, but I can give numbers for the contract cost (3 mil) and total cost (6 mil). Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the problem mentioned in the early career section regarding the turrets symptomatic of the Indiana class? If so, did the experience aboard the Indiana lead to class-wide changes?
yes, bilge keels were installed on all three ships, not just Indiana. Added "on all three ships of the Indiana-class" at the end of the early career section. Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good article, but the above issues need addressing. Nev1 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's everything, I can't see a reason not to support the article. Good effort. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
In the "Design and construction" section, who (or what) was the policy board? Was it a US Navy board? Congressional board? Something else?
According to one source it was "a special policy board convened by the secretary of the Navy". Don't have Friedman here, but I will look up what he says, as he gives most of the information about the board. Yoenit (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a while, but finally had a look at Friedman. He just refers to it as "the policy board". Seeing how it was convened by the secretary of the navy however, I decided to call it a "US navy" board. Yoenit (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the line at the end of the article about the Indiana being used for aerial bombing targets is a bit weak. There was actually quite a bit of drama about the use of aircraft in an anti-shipping role, and the Indiana played a role in that. The Billy Mitchell article briefly discusses this, and I know there are better sources out there for it. I don't think the article needs a huge expansion to cover it, but there's more to it than just being used for target practice.
Why thank you! I had not heard of this before. Gonna check the newspaper archives for some more information and add some stuff about it. Yoenit (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have included a few sentences about what exactly happened during the test and a tiny bit of the Mitchell controversy. Funny how t isn't mentioned in any of my battleship books. Yoenit (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! My only comment would be a possible addition to the last sentence there to read "...and several more bombing tests were conducted other decommissioned battleships, culminating in the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland.[50]" (addition in italics). It might give interested readers (like me) somewhere to go next. Take it or leave it! Maybe the reason it isn't mentioned in any of your battleship books is because the battleship crowd still holds some animosity towards the naval aviation crowd... :p -SidewinderX (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would if the ship was sunk in a fair test. Mitchell obviously violated the conditions to to get his sinking battleship after failing earlier attempts. Also Ostfriedland was far obsolete by now and could not be compared to more modern battleships, who are obviously far superior to those bloody birdfarms.... just kidding, I will add it to the sentence. Yoenit (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reserve fleet is about the general concept, while United States Navy reserve fleets is mostly about the current status of the US reverse fleet. I considered the first to be more useful to a potential reader unaware of the concept, but if you want it changed that is fine with me. Yoenit (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I am hoping in a Freudian neurotic way that somehow by writing about this plant I will somehow be able to grow it (hahaha). I must advise that this article is a bit shorter than other banksia Featured Articles, but I have scoured and scoured and I can say that it is as comprehensive as can be, so have at it (closes eyes and crosses fingers). Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—there's a dab link to follicle, but no dead external links. Ucucha 21:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Mm40 (talk) after comments left on the talk page were resolved. Nice job. Mm40 (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Comments left on the article's talk page. They are mostly minor fixes, but I'm concerned by the lack of information on B. violacea's evolutionary history. Mm40 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my minor issues resolved. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is generally as a small shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) high with fine narrow leaves" missing a verb, no? "generally found"?
Now here's the thing. I took out a word here in response to comments on the talk page related to this FAC - technically it doesn't need a "found" or "encountered" yet I agree feels a little short or brief without it. Interesting problem..I can deal with it instead by using the verb "grows".Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it sounds funny if you strip it down to "It is as a shrub." The "as" seems to be superfluous. Anyway, no matter, problem solved. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unusually for Banksia species, the inflorescences are often violet in colour," Shouldn't that be "unusual"?
If I say it out loud, the adverb sounds more natural and adjectival form sounds funny. I am thinking the reason is that the adverb is pertaining to the verb 'are'.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"They are quite flattened and lack a ridge along the valve line." any link for valve line?
seems to me like the stranded final summary sentence of description could be moved into the lead
"…instead treating it under the entry for B. sphaerocarpa with the text "Fls violet = var violacea"." Is Fls = flowers? I'd think I'd prefer to have this in words (e.g. "…he considered B. violacea to be a variety of B. sphaerocarpa with violet flowers")
"This was an invalid publication, however," What publication was invalid, his 1954 book, or his suggested synonymy (I know the answer, just trying to clarify what might potentially be confusing for others)
"B. ser. Abietinae was found to be very nearly monophyletic, and so retained." That clause after the comma sounds odd to me… how about "and so it was retained"?
"Flowers are an unusual colour, but occur within the bush where they are usually obscured by foliage." Obscured by its own foliage, I'm assuming? Is this unusual (seems it would make it harder for pollinators to find)? Should this be mentioned in the description?
added "grow within" to show that it means its own foliage. Many of the abietinae group (actually many banksias) have flowers within foliage - better for small pollinators to feed while hidden in foliage - not seen a ref for this though. Will now added to descriptionCasliber (talk·contribs) 20:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the last image extends into the references area and push the columns to the left. Could be fixed by making the image smaller, adding a {{clear}} template (but whitespace, yuck), or, optimally, expanding the text.
The cladograms make good spots to place images, so moved.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is the Gardner 1927 source non-English?
Many botanical articles are mixed Latin and English - theoretically, the description of any new species has to be in Latin.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a well written, informative, well-sourced article. I'm curious, though, why there is one citation in the lede; wouldn't you typically source all or none of it (I prefer the former)? Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was an isolated sentence in the body of the text that fit better in the lede actually, and was a summation of other material. I left the ref tag on it out of laziness more than anything else. I often don't have refs in the lede (as the material is elsewhere in the article and reffed there) unless it is a controversial point which may be challenged. For continuity I am happy to remove it or keepCasliber (talk·contribs) 04:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the fourth nomination; please see the previous three, as well as the archived peer reviews.
The reason the third nomination failed was because several paragraphs relied on Media Matters for America articles as sources; for instance, one MMfA-cited passage dealt with James Edwards and his involvement with Stormfront. These passages have since been culled from the article due to the fact that MMfA is not considered a reliable source for FA's. I believe that, with the MMFA controversy out of the way, this article is all ready to go now. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, two of the sources have gone dead since the last time I checked them. Not only that, but neither of them is available in the Wayback Machine. Fortunately, they were only used as minor sources, so removing them (as I've done already) didn't affect the article too drastically. Still, it's a bummer. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback (on the article's talk page) recommended that I re-add the Newsweek citation as an offline source, since it still exists despite no longer being linkable, so I took his advice. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Newsweek article has simply moved to a new URL, rather than dropping off the web entirely. Good news! Stonemason89 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You know, you can use the Wayback Machine for dead links. Tezero (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, neither of the sources in question was available in the Wayback Machine; sometimes the Wayback Machine doesn't work, either because of commands in the robots.txt file or because the page wasn't online long enough for an archive to be taken, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I thought you were talking about external links for some reason. Tezero (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues
Reliability: the question of the neutrality of sources has been discussed in detail at earlier FACs. The article uses sources (e.g. Media Matters, The Anti-Defamation League, VDARE, KHQN) that are not of themselves "neutral". However, in my view these sources have been used in this article essentially for the confirmation of dates, radio schedules and to support factual statements. This use does not affect the neutrality of the article. I accept that other editors may wish to comment on this aspect.
Formatting: a few tiresome issues:-
Why are refs 13, 24 and 47 marked ("in English")?
Fixed; all the sources are in English, so you're right; there's no reason to specify explicitly that these particular ones are. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-print sources should not be italicised. See 38 and 44, check for others.
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The lead contains a direct quote without the inline citation per WP:CITE. That's the only issue I can see with a quick glance.陣内Jinnai 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Support - After giving it a more thorough read there are only 2 items I found.
Several items have multiple repeats wikilinks, especially cities like Memphis. I stands out as the article doesn't do the same for other items.
Generally, I try to have only one wikilink per topic per section; hence, topics like Memphis (which are referred to in multiple sections of the article) may end up having multiple links, but there will be no more than one link to Memphis, Tennessee in a section. This seems to work well, but if you still think that's too many wikilinks, I could try cutting back to one per topic in the whole article, though I'd probably want to get a third opinion before making drastic changes like that. But thanks for pointing out the issue of multiple wikilinks; while scrolling through the article checking for them, I noticed that Indigenous peoples of the Americas was wikilinked twice in quick succession, so I removed the second wikilink. I didn't notice any other problems with wikilinks, besides that one (which I fixed). Stonemason89 (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it could be repeated if its in the lead. I tend to think outside of a repeat in the lead, infoboxes, navboxes and refs should not be done in articles unless your linking to a specific section with that same article.陣内Jinnai 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing then; I'll cut back on the excess wikilinks and see what you think. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I'm pretty sure I got all of them. Thanks again for your feedback! Stonemason89 (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any commentary on Pat Buchanan's State of Emergency piece when he talked about it on the show? I ask because there is a lot of info on the former.陣内Jinnai 17:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; I know you've worked hard on this article, and I'm cool with the sources now as ever, but there's one big concern I have with this article: Organization. Here are my sub-concerns of this issue:
Many sub-paragraphs. A paragraph is defined as having at least three sentences, and I see several "proto-graphs", as I shall call them. I will say, the way "Statement of principles" is organized looks legit, because most of it's a big quote and if you remove that, you have three sentences. Here are the proto-graphs that I notice:
The last two proto-graphs in "Primary host".
The first and penultimate proto-graphs in "Guests".
The second proto-graph in "Controversy and criticism".
The last proto-graph in "City Park demonstration".
The first proto-graph in "Radio stations that air the show".
All five fixed. Thanks for the feedback! Stonemason89 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Primary host" a subsection of "Staff" if there is no other content in the "Staff" section? Either add more stuff in "Staff", or remove that header and make "Primary host" independent.
If you can fix these issues, I will give you my full support. Tezero (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will have only very limited Internet access for the next few days; however, I will be able to fix all these issues by this Wednesday (16 June 2010). Sorry for the brief delay; I'm in the process of moving into a new house right now and it can't be helped, but I promise to address your concerns by the 16th. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you. I trust that you can get it done; I just think it's important. Tezero (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; all my concerns seem to have been alleviated. Tezero (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on prose and comprehensiveness issues. See my talk page comments. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Change to Support after some copy edits and talk page discussion. And reading this article over the past two days made me go watch this [4] for an hour. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to these issues, please see my reply to Moni3's comments. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That such a radio programme exists is almost incomprehensible to me, but I think this article does a fair job of describing it nevertheless. MalleusFatuorum 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"According to its statement of principles, "The Political Cesspool Radio Program stands for The Dispossessed Majority. We represent a philosophy that is pro-White and are against political centralization."" - you might want to break that quote up a little, for instance - 'According to its statement of principles the programme stands for "The Dispossessed Majority", represents "a philsophy that is pro-White", and is against "political centralization"'.
"It was initially broadcast on AM 1600 WMQM, a Memphis-based radio station, on Tuesdays and Thursdays." - was it broadcast on tue and thur, or was the station broadcasting only on tue and thur?
The show was broadcast on Tue. and Thur. The comma between the words "station" and "on" makes it clear that we are talking about the show, not the station. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Edwards and Farley then took in friends" - wouldn't it just be easier to say "Edwards and Farley invited friends..."?
There are rather a lot of "In 200x, ..." almost to the point of repetition.
Removed quite a few of them, where possible. Replaced with more natural phrasing like "one month later", etc., when possible. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"James Edwards, a lifelong resident of Memphis, Tennessee, is the founder and primary host of The Political Cesspool." - isn't he one of the founders, and not the founder?
Changed to "co-founder".
"a philosophy that asserts whites should be a nation unto themselves and live separately from other races" in that sentence this statement reads awkwardly. It might be better as a footnote, or a simple article link.
I will change it to a footnote.
I have changed it to a footnote. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Nation has written that Edwards" - or "The Nation wrote that..."
The latter is better. Changed it. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Other staff of The Political Cesspool include co-hosts Bill Rolen, Keith Alexander,[8] Winston Smith, and Eddie Miller, and producer Art Frith. Rolen is a board member of the Council of Conservative Citizens.[12] Most of the show's staff claim descent from Confederate soldiers.[7][12]" - we've already established some of those hosts. You should rephrase to accommodate this.
Changed to remove redundancies; the reference to Rolen's COfCC leadership was moved to come right after the initial mention of Rolen. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Jermoe Corsi paragraph you mention his first appearance on the programme after his cancellation. I'd change this around so that its in chronological order.
"Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka appeared on the show to promote his presidential campaign in 2004" - this might be a US/UK thing. I suspect you mean "he appeared, and promoted his campaign", not that "he appeared to promote his campaign" (as if there were some uncertainty). Needs rewording. Ditto the following sentences. Also, far too much repetition of "on the show" - this isn't just this section, its throughout the article - 21 times to be exact!Parrotof Doom 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed excess use of "on the show" and other cliches, where possible; tried to make the prose read more naturally. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More
)
"On May 8, 2006, Minuteman Project leader Jim Gilchrist spoke on the program." - I made a slight copyedit to this paragraph so you may not immediately recognise it, but the entire paragraph has a fair bit of repetition within. Try rewording the second part to something like "However, Rolen disagreed with Gilchrist's claim that illegal imm...". Also, the last sentence is a bit choppy - try something like "Gilchrist's colleague" (if that's true) - just to make it flow a little easier
"Gilchrist's colleague" - I hate to ask it, but are they colleagues, or just members of the same movement?
"Paleoconservative activist and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has appeared twice as of May 2009" - why not June 2010? There's a template that maintains a recent date, can't remember what it is.
The reason we say twice as of May 2009 is because that's when the source was written; so far I can't find any reliable sources that would prove he hasn't made a third (or fourth) appearance since then. If we used a self-updating template, then the statement will become false as soon as Buchanan makes his third appearance (which might not necessarily happen, but is likely). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Have you searched the usual places to verify, like blog search, google news, etc? Parrotof Doom 07:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In June 2008 he promoted his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, an appearance which was initiated and arranged by Buchanan's publicist." - the book is not an appearance.
"Buchanan defended Charles Lindbergh against charges of antisemitism, saying his reputation" - a quick reminder as to why someone might charge him as such would be useful. Also, "saying" should be "stating" or similar.
The quote itself provides the reminder; as Buchanan mentioned, Lindbergh gave a speech in which he said that "the Jewish community has been beating the drums for war". That is an anti-Semitic comment, but Buchanan believes that it may well have been a true statement, and so in Buchanan's view, Lindbergh was not anti-Semitic. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fine. Could we just say what Lindbergh is, in the context of this interview? His article calls him "American aviator, author, inventor, explorer, and social activist." - which of these was he "being" when giving that speech?
"Previously, in September 2006, Buchanan had" - this should be before the June 2008 interview, as with a previous point I raised.
"he show has also hosted guests from outside the US" - how about foreign guests, or international guests, or similar?
"During his post-election appearance, Griffin attributed the BNP's electoral successes" - how is this relevant to the radio show?
Well, it's what Griffin said when he was appearing on the show, so it provides an example of what the show's guests talk about when they are being interviewed. If you don't think it's necessary, feel free to take it out. I'll leave it in for now and let you and/or Sandy make the final decision. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its necessary to include the entire quote, especially as the other contributors in that paragraph don't get the same coverage, so I've trimmed it. It would be interesting to know if he's appeared since the recent UK election, when his party was demolished.
Is "staffers" preferable to "staff" in US English? Over here it'd be the latter.
"Staff" is better, although I believe "staffers" may have been used in the original source. I'll change it to "staff" nonetheless. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's one "staffers" remaining in the lead.
"at a Sarah Palin rally," - not everyone knows who Palin is, try something like "at a rally for/organised by/featuring Republican Governor(?) Sarah Palin".
"that the rise in popularity of white nationalism and supremacy" - aren't nationalism and supremacy more or less the same thing?
That's POV-dependent; there are some people who view them as the same thing, but there are also a lot of people who don't. Neither side is necessarily right or wrong. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Many such groups have been attempting to gain new..." - this is odd. The paragraph up to this point is basically a running commentary on what other people have to say about this radio station. This sentence and the next don't really belong here IMO. Parrotof Doom 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added this passage (co-written by Moni3) in response to Moni3's feedback on the article's talk page. You might want to consult with Moni3 to determine whether these sentences are really necessary (Moni3 seemed to think they were) and, if so, how they should be worded, where they should go, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better placed in a paragraph of its own, along with more information on how the station has defended itself against any criticism it has received. That might be something to look at in the future, if finding such information is difficult right now. Parrotof Doom 07:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Italics seem OK, but I don't know what a microstation is-- jargon check, definition, or link needed, and NBSP work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NBSP is a non-breaking space that usually goes between a word and a number. That way, "15 sausages" doesn't get split by your browser. 19 kg Less confusing for the reader. Parrotof Doom 11:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prostitution de-linked. As far as I know, the term "microstation" is not used anywhere in the article. The phrase "micro1650am", which is used in the article is the name of an individual radio station in New York; the reason why the initial letter is not capitalized is because the station's owner (who actually edited this article at one point) prefers to spell the name of his station with all lowercase. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nbsp's added. I was unaware of nbsp prior to this point; thanks Sandy and Parrot for letting me know what it is and how to add it. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, another user had suggested that I list the title of this show in italics (or bold italics, in the lead); I believe this was during the article's good article review last October. I'll go ahead and de-italicize it, though, at Sandy's suggestion. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because since it became accepted as a GA it has been considerably expanded, mainly with material from a more-recently published book describing the excavation findings. Following this it has had a copy edit and a peer review. I hope it is now of sufficient quality to be accepted as a FA. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from White Shadows
No dab links
All external links are good
Can you think of something better than an Alt text for an image that says "Refer to caption"?
The book: Starkey, H. F. (1990), Old Runcorn, Halton: Halton Borough Council, needs an ISBN
There is no ISBN in the book and I cannot find one on an internet search. So I have added a ASIN (whatever that is).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As it's a commercial reference number I have deleted it.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence: "The area open to the public consists of a museum, the standing archaeological remains, an area of garden and woodland, and the walled garden of the former house." Needs a citation.
Done (although I would have thought this self-evident from the proceeding text).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling. I see words like Meter (American) and Organise (British) all through the text of the article.
Please give more examples. So far as I know I have used British English throughout - if not it is a typo. For example the only "meter" shown by a search is part of "cemetery".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media The image File:Norton_Priory_model.jpg is a derived copy of a 3d artwork / model, and does not appear appropriately labled, tag with {{FoP-UK}} if appropriate, otherwise remove. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template is appropriate and has been added.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: All sources look OK. One minor format issue: Ref 175 retrieval date should be in the standard format for the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for spotting it; and I thought I'd fixed the lot!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Well written and comprehensive coverage of an extremely important archaeological site. Soph (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Espresso Addict
This is a solid, well-referenced, comprehensive article on a major archaeological site. Most of my comments are fairly minor.
Some overlinking of nonspecialist terms could probably be pruned, given how many specialist words need linking.
Some non-technical terms unlinked.
There's a lot of care to state who considers what throughout, which can make it a bit hard to read. As there seems little controversy, perhaps many of these could be rephrased?
I tend to agree. The names were introduced because at an early review, I was asked "who considered? ...who thought?", so I spent a lot of time adding authors' names. I have kept these at first occurrence (and occasionally later), but rephrased the others; it should IMO be clear from the citation who considered what and who thought what.
The amount of direct quotations could be reduced throughout, especially where not using historical sources.
Some removed; others retained to prevent charges of NOR and the use of peacock words.
There is some repetition between History, Excavations & Present day sections, which should be reduced where possible.
I have tried to remove the repetitions which do not impair the flow of the "stories".
Some sections could probably be trimmed, eg as indicated below.
One or more plans of the abbey/priory would be very helpful in understanding the site.
I have not been able to find any copyright-free plans.
It might be helpful to put in letters from the plans where relevant to structures mentioned in the text.
Done.
History/Priory
stub articles for William fitz Nigel, & possibly William fitz William, would be valuable. It might be helpful to link "Barons of Halton" at the first independent mention (ie not attached to a name) to the list of barons.
First mention of "Baron of Halton" linked. Clicking on the two Williams (both blue-linked) takes you to their section of the list, which is a sort of stub. I am not convinced that separate stub-articles are merited for either, considering that we know so little else about them.
a stub article for Norton, which makes clear that it was a separate village but is now part of Runcorn urban area, would be useful.
Stub written and linked.
what was the relationship of William de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey to the Barons of Halton?
I have not found one, but the earl made a grant to the priory for Alice's soul; text amplified to explain this.
I think this needs clarifying, as Alice is not clearly among the "members of the family [of the Barons of Halton] known to be buried there".
Expanded. I've found some more info about Alice, which I should have found earlier, but was looking in the wrong sources.
is 26 the total number of members of community or the number of canons?
The text says "It is estimated that the original community, probably no more than 12 canons and the prior, had increased to around 26 ...", so I conclude this would be 25 canons plus the prior.
"making it one of the largest houses in the Augustinian order" can you briefly give some sense of how large other houses were, both Augustinian and other types?
I do not have this information.
History/Abbey
explain that St Christopher is depicted carrying Christ across a river?
Done.
"Although the influence of the Barons of Halton was by then diminished" -- on the priory or in the country?
Clarified.
para. 2, not sure why so many quotations in this paragraph -- reword some?
One reworded. The others IMO add colour to the story and, as they are direct quotes from the sources, are in quotation marks to avoid a charge of copyright violation.
para. 3, "Although the records of the priory and abbey have not survived, the excavations of the 1970s and since, and the study of documents, have produced evidence of how the monastic lands were managed." rather clumsy -- can it be simplified?
Done.
para. 3, interesting to examine how this differs from other similar houses & Cheshire in general. eg Hewitt (Cheshire under the Three Edwards, p. 36) states that "Whereas in some counties the monastic granges had very large flocks [of sheep], we are not aware of there being any sheep on the manors of the religious houses of Norton, Birkenhead or even Chester till, in the last decade of the fourteenth century, some sheep were stolen from the abbot of Chester;" Several sources state that grain, particularly wheat didn't grow well in Cheshire.
To carry out a proper comparison between Norton and other monastic foundations in Cheshire (and maybe elsewhere) is beyond the scope of this article and would require another separate article. For example, there is evidence of sheep, and even of wool production, at Norton after the end of the 14th century; a field conveyed to Sir Richard Brooke in 1545 was called the Shepe House and at this time there was a fulling mill in the manor of Norton (Greene p.51).
clarify what roles Sir Piers Dutton & Sir William Brereton have in the abbey's dissolution. How did Norton's dissolution compare with other Cheshire monasteries?
Roles of Dutton and Brereton clarified. I do not have source material to compare Norton's dissolution with any other monastery.
Can you rephrase "However following delaying tactics" ?
Done.
History/Country house
para. 1, which Randle Holme? Any more detail on the date of the sketch? If not then "little changed during the next 100 years" probably needs rephrasing.
It is impossible to say. As you probably know, there were four generations whose head was called "Randle Holme" and who flourished in the 17th century. The only date given for the sketch is the 17th century. Although the source mentions 100 years, it is not clear on which evidence this is based, so I have reworded the paragraph, as suggested.
para. 2, full name for Brooke, otherwise still appears to refer to first Sir Richard. The family appears to be spelled "Brook" in Dore's The Civil Wars in Cheshire.
First name (Henry) added. As you know, variations in the spellings of names occur frequently. Ormerod uses both spellings in the same article; in the text it is mainly "Brook"; in the pedigree table it is "Brooke" throughout. Modern historians consistently use Brooke, and this is the spelling used by the current generation of the family.
para. 3, "Clearance of the other medieval buildings" & "these medieval buildings" -- which buildings?
Clarified.
para. 4, "He held out against it until the canal was opened in 1773 from Manchester to Runcorn, except for 1 mile (2 km) across his estate, which meant that goods had to be unloaded and carted around the estate. Eventually Sir Richard capitulated and the canal was completed throughout its length in March 1776." needs clarifying -- the "until" in the first sentence seems wrong?
Paragraph reworded.
para. 5, "the external flight of stairs" -- are these the west front double flight?
Clarified.
para. 6, not sure so many details of the canals/railways on the estate are needed?
There is little other information about the history of the estate during this period. The estate was significantly disturbed by these developments and IMO it is valid to include them.
last para., detail seems to belong in the following section about the excavations?
Sorry, I don't agree; this is part of the history of the site - and it includes nothing about the findings of the excavations.
The current text is under History/Country house, which is inaccurate. Perhaps a separate section under History called "Excavations and museum" is the way to go?
Done.
ditto, "Specialists were employed and local volunteers were recruited. Teams of supervised prisoners were used to perform some of the heavier work." not sure all this detail is necessary?
Why not? I thought it was particularly interesting that prisoners were used (or is that common practice in excavations?).
On reflection, I think the level of detail would be appropriate if the excavations had their own sub-section, as I suggest above.
See above
Were Brown and Howard-Davis directly involved in the excavations?
It appears not. They seem to have been involved with the post-excavation assessment, the compilation of the database, and the analysis of the findings together with the compilation of specialists' reports. (Brown and Howard-Davis, p. xxi)
This might bear directly stating; I'd assumed they were.
I've added info under Excavations and museum.
ditto, "The excavation became the largest in area to be carried out by modern methods on any monastic site in Europe" -- clumsy wording.
And looking back at the source it's a copyvio. Not easy to express clearly and precisely what is claimed. I've rewritten it, but it's still clumsy - can any improvement be suggested without disturbing its accuracy?
I've had another go, but I'm not sure it's improved from the original.
Findings from excavations: Why is this section split differently from the History? Either split both at the same point, or (preferably) break the excavations into smaller sections.
I'm not convinced this is the best and most natural way to handle the material. IMO the History splits neatly into Priory/Abbey/Country house. This does not necessarily apply to the Findings. Brown and Howard-Davis make their first division at the fire of 1236, and then take their account directly through to the dissolution; they do not make a clear break at the elevation to abbey, and it would be difficult to divide their material into a separate section at this point. I prefer to stick with the experts and not try to "improve" on their format. Does it really matter to the reader?
With my publishing hat on, yes, I think heading & paragraph structure are key to a reader's understanding of text. I don't think you need to stick to the divisions in the source. Perhaps a split after paragraph 2 to separate "Original priory" from "Early modifications"? I'd also advocate splitting the current long para 2 into two, to deal with the church & other buildings separately.
Para split. I hope this is OK, as on a previous FAC I was criticised for having too-short paras and a too-long ToC.
Priory 1134–1236: 'Brown and Howard-Davis believe that "the canons' removal to the new site could have been a relatively protracted affair"' -- this sentence might need more set up or moving till after the statements on finding temporary buildings; it doesn't need direct quotation.
I've deleted the sentence; its adds little to the article. Without quotes someone will want to know how long is "a relatively protracted affair".
Priory and abbey 1236–1536: Para. 2 is very vague as to dates.
Tried to clarify this.
Country house
"The same authors point out that the primary focus of the excavations of the 1970s and 1980s concentrated on the medieval priory and abbey, and that findings relating to the later house on the site were of less interest to the excavators." This feels like it's leading to something, but isn't followed up.
Sentence deleted.
As this section is later in date than the rest, perhaps it might be better at the end?
I've moved this section to after Burials, and added a phase referring to the artifacts in the following sections.
Burials: at >1000 words this section feels overly long; in particular, the material on diseases, though interesting, felt disproportionate.
From local knowledge, I am aware that the skeletons were of particular interest, and they were studied in detail at Liverpool University. (Another factor is my own medical background.) I'm not sure if findings in other monastic sites have been studied in such detail, but IMO the detail in this section is not inappropriate at FA level.
I still think this could use pruning, particularly in the long paragraph starting "The bones show a variety of diseases and degenerative processes." Perhaps a separate article, with a shorter summary here?
Pruned.
Artifacts from the buildings: is any date information available for the tiles?
Dates added for both series of tiles.
Artifacts from daily life: the post-dissolution parts of this section appear overly long for their importance. I don't think it's necessary to catalogue everything that was found at the site, and suggest including details only for pre-dissolution finds, unless particularly interesting.
Brown and Howard-Davis make the point (sentence now deleted) that Greene concentrated only on the pre-dissolution material, and rather ignored the later material. For balance, should this not also be included?
I still think it's overlong for the interest value.
Pruned.
Present day/Museum: Slightly more detail on St Christopher statue would be interesting, including an image, if possible.
There's a "main article" link to a separate, much more detailed article on the statue, so I deliberately made this subsection short. Regarding an image, when I visited the museum I was given permission to photograph anything but the statue (a great pity). The statue is owned by National Museums Liverpool and for some reason they refuse to allow photography in the special exhibition area containing the statue. The copyright-free images I have found do not necessarily accurately reflect it. I believe I could (maybe should) go to NML and ask for some sort of copyright permission, but that would take time - too long I guess for the FA process.
I still think a bit more would help here. An image would be great if you could persuade the NML to release the rights, but in its absence this important relic is underdescribed.
Expanded.
Current activities: Much of this section feels a bit bland. How many people visit annually? What does the museum do that's different from others?
I cannot find sources to provide answers to these questions; but I have expanded the section slightly.
The rough visitor numbers would be particularly interesting, but I don't know of any source for such material.
I could of course ring them and ask, but that would be OR.
Response to Espresso Addict's Comments. I have replied to each comment, sometimes taking action as suggested; otherwise trying to justify why I have not.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further responses interleaved. Hope I have covered them all.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my main concerns have now been addressed. If new sources emerge to address the minor points remaining or a photograph of the St Christopher statue becomes available I think they would be valuable additions, but I believe the article is of Featured standard as it is. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've looked through this a few times as it's developed over the last few months, and I've got no doubt that it meets the FA criteria. MalleusFatuorum 16:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from HeartofaDog
There's a convention (which I can now only find referred to here, although it's longer established than that) that the names of saints, when referring to the saints themselves, are in the form "Saint X", and in the short form "St X" or "St. X" only when referring to things named after them, such as churches, monasteries and so on, which → Saint Christopher, Saint Bertelin and Saint Mary. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I read the first sentence/paragraph of this article, it gives me no clue as to what Norton Priory is. The first sentence says:
Norton Priory was established as an Augustinian foundation near Runcorn, Cheshire, England in the 12th century, and was raised to the status of an abbey in 1391.
That is valuable history, but what actually is it?
The first sentence should read:
Norton Priory is an historic site near Runcorn, (County, Country) comprising remains of an abbey complex of the (number to number) centuries, a country house of the (numero) century and whatever of the (numero) century. It is the ...(gimme one really important fact) and is (heritage listed?)
Now give me the details:
Norton Priory was established as an Augustinian foundation in the 12th century, and was raised to the status of an abbey in 1391.
Thanks, that's very helpful. I've amended the introduction along the lines you suggest. Is that now appropriate? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly meets FA standards, though I found the section on the statue too short, given its significance. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The article seems so long as it is, and I had hoped that the "main" link would allow easy access to those who were interested in more details.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this article has been through 3 previous FACs I believe every issue has been addressed to the best possibility ability. The main issues that kept this from being resolved were the alt text, which is no longer an FAC criteria, the number of cited sources after a statement (which has now been reduced to the minimum possible based on the citation style by stacking them), and copyediting. For the latter, I can say I've tried my best to clean it up and move the article to more active voice (one of the previous complaints was too much passive voice) and what remains is there for a reason. In the last FAC some editors wanted me to undo changes requested by editors in previous FAcs without a decent reason, so that is the only outstanding as I don't want to continue copyediting in circles.陣内Jinnai 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I did a copyedit on this article way back when, and since then, it has only improved further, with others assisting in getting the prose to the "brilliant" standard for FAs. The article improved greatly with each FA, and on this fourth one, it certainly looks ready. I have made a few minor tweaks, and I now believe it meets all of the FA requirements. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have an issue with one sentence, however; in particular, it is with the last sentence of the "plot" section's first paragraph: "This inability on the part of the main characters to express their affections provides a comedic theme throughout the series." Can this be cited anywhere? If not, then it goes beyond simple reiteration of the plot and into interpretation and personal preference on what makes the series comedic. If it cannot be cited, then remove it as OR. That being said, since my issue is with one sentence, my support still stands. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I can't find a RS supporting it, I removed the statement.陣内Jinnai 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With my concern taken care of, I would simply like to reiterate my support. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; there isn't much to say. The prose is readable, the sources are legit, and the article as a whole is informative. Perhaps it's not the most important to the VG project but it certainly has come a long way recently and for that I salute you. Tezero (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media Why are flags used rather than country names per MOS:FLAG, at the resolution shown I find it hard to distinguish between Australia and New Zealand Fasach Nua (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS-AM. I will also state for myself, who is visually impared, the flags are easier to distinquish sometimes than the small 2-letter abreviations, especially at a quick glance.
In addition, I find nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags that the usage in the infobox violates. The only thing it might is that it doesn't list the name next to the flag in the first instance. I can add this if requested, however i think this is a strong reason for WP:IAR as for anime and manga articles, since we did a claeanup of the infobox, there are only 6 flags that will be used: Japan, US, Canada, GB, Australia, New Zealand and the US/Canada and Australia/New Zealand will always be used together when they are.陣内Jinnai 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up some time ago adding the names in the fist instance anyway.陣内Jinnai 05:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired the broken link while updating some others. The funimation one I'm not sure about because it works fine for me with the current url and doesn't get redirected. Checklist says it redirects to someplace that doesn't have anything to do with the article so I'm not certain what's up with that.陣内Jinnai 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the latter link leads to a page that doesn't mention School Rumble at all. Ucucha 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do here because that is the official page for School Rumble and it does work for me. Maybe it is based on your IP?陣内Jinnai 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confirmed that the Funimation link works for me as well. G.A.Stalk 05:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ip filtering probably only NA ip have access to the website real content. That the same kind of stunt than Crunchyroll. --KrebMarkt 19:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean North America by NA, then I nope (ZA). G.A.Stalk 05:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I also believe that the article is now FA material. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support most of the problems presented in the previous FACs have been fixed, should be good enough to be an FA now. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is just about there now, but I'd like to see this sentence fixed though: "The 2nd Semester continued to fluctuate in sales selling well, but overall sales did not chart quite as well as the previous season with most ranking in the 50s to 70s range with all of them ranking only twice." MalleusFatuorum 19:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tried fixing it by breaking it into 2 sentences.陣内Jinnai 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Per MOS-AM and (which our other FA anime/manga/light novel articles follow) we don't mention the plot of related media if the original is virtually the same. For School Rumble, while there are differences they are more in presentation, such as longer chase scenes. Major plot points are the same.陣内Jinnai 17:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think article meets the criteria and is among the best aircraft engine articles on Wikipedia. The engine has a rather interesting history, and it is one of the most numerous engines in service today. It has passed both a peer review and an Aviation wikiproject A-class review. As the main contributor, I've tried to strike a suitable balance between technical content and usefulness to the average reader, however as someone who works in the industry I may not be the best judge of that. I will try and be particularly responsive to comments with respect to the technical detail in the article for that reason. Thanks! SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
It may be worth noting that unlike Douglas with the DC-8-70, Boeing didn't actually sell any CFM powered civil 707s, either new or as re-engined aircraft.
Ok, I've added a line and a ref to the 707 part about not selling any and Boeing suspending the program in 1980. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions use in the E-6 in the KC-137 section - should the CFM powered E-3 Sentries for France, UK and Saudi be mentioned here as well?
I have mentioned the E-3 now in that section. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have a vague recollection that the problem that caused the Kegworth crash was specific to the more powerful engine for the 737-400. It may be worth checking to see if this was the case.
I don't recall that, but if you find something let me know and I can incorporate it! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
htis (already cited) states it was the CFM 56-3C for the 737-400 that was grounded as does this, while this article from Flight gives some idea why the fault was missed.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified which subvariants were affected, and added a line about having to replace fan blades in 1800+ already-delievered engines. Does that seems to cover the details enough, or is there more you'd like to see? Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the comments are show stoppers. Otherwise a good, detailed article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! Let me know if there's anything else I need to do to address these concerns, or if you spot something else. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Yes its fine now. Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
""CFM56 Selected for KC-135 Re-engining". Aviation Week and Space Technology, 28 Jan 1980." Page number missing
In references where articles of Aviation Week & Space Technology are used, author name and publisher is missing. It would help if Issue no. , vol no. are added too.
Is a separate "Applications" list really necessary? The applications are already given in "Variants"
Also, add Applications in "CFM56-2 series" table, like the other ones.
Why "Specifications (CFM56-7B18)" for one machine needed?
I really liked the way the article explains jargon in "Notes". Can jargon like Thrust, Bypass Ratio, Pressure Ratio, Dry Weight be explained too? Also link them in first table.
Why isn't Thrust-to-weight ratio (recorded in Specifications section) recorded for all engines in respective tables?
All images have good licences. Very well illustrated article--RedtigerxyzTalk 11:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to Redtigerxyz
1) Done!
2) Done!
3) Many of the articles do not have an author name (I believe a lot of the news stories are jointly written and compiled by the staff). I have the author name for articles that list it. As for publisher, I didn't realize it was common practice to include a publisher for magazine articles... I think I mostly followed the examples here, but if the consensus is to add publisher, I can do that. As for issue and volume... I think, as a weekly publication, AW&ST does not have issue and volume numbers, but when I get home I can look at some of my physical copes to see if they're there.
To follow up, I have checked my physical AW&ST issues, and they do not have issue or volume dates. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4) The "Applications" section is a standard section for WP:Aircraft and WP:AETF. I like it because it allows readers to use the ToC to jump to the applications if that's all they're interested in.
Then covert it into prose (may be a para would be enough), maybe with an image. --RedtigerxyzTalk 05:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The standard practice for the Aero-engine task force is to leave that applications section as a list, as mentioned in this guideline. Most of those applications are explained in prose form in either the history or the variants section. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5) Done!
6) The specs section is another one of the standard project/task force sections. In that table there are a lot of the standard performance and configuration numbers that one can use to easily compare engines. It's been the consensus just to use one variant for that detailed table, and mention the other variants in the article. This engine has a lot of different variants, and the company's website does a nice job of listing them all, so that's why I included the less-detailed comparision tables in the specific variant section.
I am not an expert. Will buy this argument. --RedtigerxyzTalk 05:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7) I've wikilinked "Thrust", "Bypass Ratio", and "Pressure Ratio" in the first table, and then added a note for dry weight, including a wikilink to the automobile focused dry weight article.
For a non-expert, it is very difficult to understand these terms. So to save a non-expert some clicks on wiki-links, I suggest form a notes sections below "CFM56-2 series" table, explaining the table parameters as in "Notes" section. That would really help. --RedtigerxyzTalk 05:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to seem obtuse here, but is there something specifically about that table that you think needs more explanation, rather than the terms themselves? Those terms are used many times earlier in the article as well. Do you think they need to be explained earlier on, or does it seem more appropriate to explain them in the table? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For a non-expert, otherwise, they are just some jargon terms, a short explanation either in the table or at first occurrence of term like thrust, would be nice. --RedtigerxyzTalk 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A link should suffice for these terms; a definition would disrupt the flow of the prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of comparison, another aero-engine featured article, the Rolls-Royce Merlin article, does not explain terms like "horsepower", "supercharged", and "crankshaft" in the prose. These terms are wikilinked for those who don't already know them. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8) That was a choice. I didn't want to overload those tables with too much data (and there's a lot there already). As for T/W ratio specifically... many of the sub-variants of each type actually have the same weight, so the change in thrust is as useful as a measure as the change in T/W. (Although I know some of the subvariants vary in weight as well).
I am not an expert. Someone who is an expert needs to check. --RedtigerxyzTalk 05:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess my answer kind of missed your question. So the idea behind the tables was to highlight some of the differences between the subvariants in each class of variants. The main difference is the amount of thrust the engine produces. Some of the engines are different weights, and that's why I included weight as well. Bypass Ratio and Pressure ratio were included because those parameters are often the ones that are responsible for the change in thrust. For example, if the "-A1" subvariant produces 1000 pounds of thrust, and the "-A2" produces 1300 pounds of thrust, the reader can look over in the table and see that the "-A2" has a higher pressure ratio as a way of explaining why the thrust is higher. There are absolutely more specifications that could have been included on those tables, but at some point you're just adding numbers for numbers sake. I tried to pull some of the most valuable characteristics into the table, and only those. Does that explain my reasoning any better, or am I still missing the point? Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point, but I can not really comment if the most important facets are used for comparison, so I suggested some expert needs to check that, but as someone who works in the industry, you may the best judge of what needs to put or what can be ignored. Will trust you on this issue and assume the important facets are covered in the table comparison. --RedtigerxyzTalk 12:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've at least commented on all of your concerns. Take a look and let me know what you think! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CFM56-5 series para 1 needs a ref for facts not covered ahead like "The Airbus designator for aircraft equipped with CFM engines is "1"."
Hmm, that was something that I left in there from an earlier editor... It's consistant with Airbus#Airbus_aircraft_numbering_system, but the source in that article looks like the aerospace version of Yahoo! Answers, so I wouldn't call it a reliable source. If you agree that that's not a reliable source, I will just go ahead and remove that sentence from the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles can not be considered WP:RS, so using Airbus#Airbus_aircraft_numbering_system directly is out of question. Yahoo! Answers is not a Rs either. Search Airbus official site, it may have something. --RedtigerxyzTalk 11:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could find anything reliable on the web or in any of my other sources, so I just removed the comment. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 7, 8 are just suggestions. The article can be a FA without them too. The only reason I have not supported the article is because I have not found enough time to go through it entirely, but the parts I have read are good, so I have not opposed it also. --RedtigerxyzTalk 15:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fine job here. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues
There is a real concern about the number of citations to pages from CFM International's own website. While some of these give purely technical information others, such as 2, 27 and 34, are press releases of a somewhat self-congratulatory tone; likewise, 31 and 40 (among others) have a promotional feel. Broadly, the company should be treated as a primary source; while it may be a reliable source for factual information, claims that go beyond technical data, dates etc should be verified by independent third party sources.
I understand your concern about the citations to CFM's own pages, but I think those sources were used, in almost every case, for their numbers. Although most of the press releases do have promotional tones (that's a core function of a press release), they also have valuable content and specifications that aren't available elsewhere. And sometimes, when it is available elsewhere, it is a simple regurgitation of the press release. As for the specific mentions...
2 was used a source for how many engines had been delivered. The other item it was listed for had a technical error in it (re-used ref name). That has now been fixed ("adding" another ref to the list, I will try and account for that in my following comments).
27 (now #28) was used as a reference for what the goals of the Tech Insertion package was, and what componenets were changed. I don't believe this type of information is any less reliable because it comes from the company itself.
31 (now #32) was used as a reference for the reduction in number of fan blades. Again, a number thing.
34 (now #35) was used as a reference for the dates in which the double annular combustor first started development and first entered service. I don't believe that the fact this is a press release makes those dates any less reliable.
40 (now #41) was used as a reference for the number of in-flight shut downs per flight hour, and in the text of the wikipedia article, it is written as "CFM International states..." so as not to sound like an independent claim.
I hope that addresses at least the concerns you had with the mentioned sources... if there are other's that you'd like me to explain, please list them and I can do so. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This seems reasonable, but I will leave it to knowledegeable editors to decide if there is an issue here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor format issues
Refs 1 and 15: both of these are to conference papers, but the formats are slightly different (e.g. dates for the first, not for the second). Formats should be consistent.
In this case, this was an online article for Aviation Week, so to be consistant with your above request, I left it without italics. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 33: Italics
Likewise, this is an online article, not a print article. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I was involved in the A-class review for this article and it might have been felt that I was uncharitable not to change my comments to a support, I felt that it needed more work at that stage. I tend towards the stricter side of reviewing standard (and expect the same treatment from reviewers looking at any article I might have nominated), aiming for a very high quality article which is what we nearly have here. I have gone through myself just now, reviewing and copy editing which was useful. As these are comments it is up to the nominator whether to act on them, I do think that this article is almost at FA level.
CFM International gets abbreviated to CFMI and then goes back to CFM International about halfway through.
I guess my thought process, although probably not 100% consistant, was to use the full name the first time it appeared in a paragraph/section, and then to use the abbreviation if it was used again after that. My day to day work lives in a world of acronyms, so I guess I try to not overdo it on my own! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking in the 'Variants' section, almost every instance of aircraft type in the tables is wikilinked to the same article.
I can't remember where I read this (it's not in WP:Table), but I was under the impression that tables should be able to "stand on their own" in some sense, although I'm not sure it that should apply to each row. I will say my personal preference is to leave them wikilinked in the table... having them as links fits in with my view of tables as sources of data. If these consensus is to de-link them, however, I will do so! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to WP:REPEATLINK and the last bullet in the Repeated links section for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of that guideline is for sortable tables where lines may end up a fair distance apart and need to be linked in each instance, the tables here are not sortable (yet!). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about making the tables sortable before... but that could potentially be useful (sort by bypass ratio, thrust, pressure ratio). I'm not a table guru, but would it be easy to make them sortable? -SidewinderX (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have gone ahead and made the tables sortable by all the columns expect model and applications (i.e., all the number columns are sortable). I like having them sortable now, and does this suitable address the overlinking concern in the variants section? -SidewinderX (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth checking the Airbus aircraft type links as there are lots of redirects (maybe these articles have been renamed recently?).
I believe you ran through them and made some corrections... would you still like me to run through them? -SidewinderX (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some editor's POV or conjecture, not biased but phrases like In what was likely the most important early purchase.. sounds like opinion unless it is supported by the cited reference, I don't have it to check.
I see what you mean here. I personally like the prose aspect that it brings to the article (after all, this is in the history section), but do you think something like "In what was an important early purchase" would be a better fit for the article? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would leave it out completely as it could be considered a phrase to avoid unless the author of the reference stated that it was an important purchase. What I tried to achieve in the Merlin and R engine articles was to present the bare facts and let the reader decide, without knowingly making any assumptions. I know that it is not easy to make the text interesting (even gripping!). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have re-read the prose there and realized that removing that phrase doesn't do any harm, so I have gone ahead and removed it. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An impression I got was that the text could be usefully shortened/clarified by removing extra words, lots of 'as well as', 'some' and 'alsos' and other words that could be 'padding it out' unintentionally. There are some technical explanations of gas turbine components that are covered by a wikilink near to them, it's a judgement call whether these are needed. I could do this myself if it is felt that it is necessary although I am working for the next three days. Less is more is what I am trying to say!!
Just spotted that cite number 3 is available as a PDF from the Flight International archive: - 1414.html if the link is included then everyone can check the facts, have not added this to the ref tag as I know that ref formatting is in progress. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My link is not working (a problem that happens with the dash and spaces on Flight) if you cut and paste the code you should get the article, getting a bit weary, sorry! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean ref #4. Yeah, the whole thing in on the website, but I couldn't figure out a good way to link it... it's a 30 page story about the CFM56, and the way the Flight does their archives has each page as a separate pdf file. I couldn't figure out a good way to link the whole article online. I decided the best thing to do would be cite the whole thing as it originally was, a print story. If you have a suggestion on how to do it better, I'm all ears! -SidewinderX (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry crossed eyes, 3 is close to 4! Well, I usually link directly to the page that the fact is on, readers can navigate the article from the thumbnails on the side bar. This was how my tamed copy editor formatted a similar reference in the R article:[1]
^[Staff author] 2 October 1931. "The Rolls-Royce Racing Engines" Flight, p. 990. www.flightglobal.com. Retrieved: 14 November 2009.
Hmm... I just feel like that would add a lot of clutter to the references section (turning 1 source into 10 sources). On the other hand, it's clearly valuable to the reader to be able to find the source online... what if the ref was cited something like this, would this be a reasonable compromise?--
Norris, Guy (1999). The CFM56 Story. Flight International. 19 - 25 May 1999. Available online at flightglobal.com archive from: p. 1387 to p. 1419 of 1999 archive. Retrieved: 23 May 2010.
Another way is to treat the article as a book and simply cite the author, date and page numbers, this was done in the Merlin article, the Flight articles are listed in a 'Bibliography' section. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've kinda combined the ideas that were floating out there. It's all in one ref, but I've added a weblink for any reader interested in reading it. I also realized that the proper name for the story was "CFM56: Engine of Change" and not "The CFM56 Story", so I have made that correction as well. How does that look to you? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) I don't understand this line: It soon became clear that Boeing and Airbus were not going to build all new aircraft, can you clarify it? Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more questions if I may (in the aim of improving the article, vice pickiness!)
How is the engine started? I assume it is air start from an auxiliary power unit? A curious reader might also wonder how you turn a jet engine off, not sure if that would class as excessive detail in this article.
It does start with an APU, but I don't have really have any sources to explain (and cite) the starting process very well. Furthermore, there's a wide range of APUs that it works with (at least three different ones on different 737s!), so I wouldn't really want to write much about it without a couple of good sources. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the other wrinkle is that I'm *pretty sure* you can start it with compressed air from a ground start cart. When you start getting into this you really start talking about aircraft operation and not just the jet engine... I'm looking for a decent source so I can add the line you suggested in there (I don't want to claim anything without a citation at this point), but I haven't found much so far. -SidewinderX (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This excellent (though rather old) Flight article: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%201100.html gives a clear technical description and indicates both air and electric starting for the Dash 2 variant at least, I don't think it has been used yet in the article. The drawings, particularly of the engine modules, could be used as external links as I think they have encyclopaedic value to help explain the technicalities. The reason that I am asking these questions is that my understanding of a Featured Article is that it should effectively carry two levels of detail, a basic overview for readers who know little about the subject and a more in depth level that exhausts virtually all the available sources for the curious, difficult to achieve sometimes. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great article find! I've added a couple little details to the article using that Flight article... thanks! I also added a cutaway to the external links section, but I used the one from Flight's website, not from within the article. I didn't get a good chance to read through the article, but I only saw a mention of provisions for an electric starter. If you there is more detail there (and a mention of air start), feel free to add a line to the design section intro! (I used ref name="cfm56age") for that article. -SidewinderX (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty there if ever it was needed. I deduced that it has an air starter as an 'Air-start supply pipe' is labelled as item 19 on page 1122, I am paid to spot very small things in my day job! I shall probably leave you in peace now, good luck. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a bit more time looking for a good source for how the engine starts, but there just isn't much out there, particularly in the way of reliable sources. Unless this is a major sticking point, I think I'd like to leave this until later (when a suitable source will reveal itself ;) )-SidewinderX (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it feature a thrust reversal system? If so, how does it work?
I have add a brief description of thrust reversers to the article. I didn't want to get too technical, so hopefully what I've added is useful. I did find that great photo on commons, so I think that helps. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'booster' a term limited to CFM International use? Just seems confusing to refer to booster/low-pressure compressor alternately. I've not come across the term in my own experience of inspecting low and high pressure compressors of Rolls-Royce turbojets and turbofans. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not limited to CFMI, but I'm usually more comfortable with low pressure compressor as well. However CFMI tends to use "booster" more often (for example), so that is what usually made it into to text.-SidewinderX (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:KC135-CFM56.jpg - Commons - Licensed as US PD-Gov but attributed to Boeing?
The applicable terms an conditions are available here. "Generally speaking, nothing on this site is copyright (Defense Department imagery and unclassified information is usually deemed to be in the public domain) but if in doubt you agree to examine the Rights datafield for appropriate information." There is no details in the copyright field of the meta data, so it should be in the public domain. It was likely taken by a Boeing photographer in Boeing's chase plane for the US Air Force, and the Air Force released it to the public domain. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
On another page there they state this: Information presented on DefenseImagery.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. So it's probably fine, just struck me as odd at first sight as PD Gov images are usually credited to government employees. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:CFM56 dsc04641.jpg - Editor's own image - Commons, missing standard description and source template.
File:Cfm56-3-turbofan.jpeg - Editor's own image - Commons, missing standard description and source template.
File:Astraeus.commons.b737-300.g-stra.arp.2.jpg - Editor's own image - Commons, missing standard description and source template. Missing metadata, probably an older upload by Adrian Pingstone, a prolific contributor of his own airliner images.
File:DSCF6247a.jpg - Editor's own image - Not on Commons (but could be transferred), missing standard description and source template.
The licensing of the KC-135 image needs to be confirmed. The infobox image is a rear view of the engine (which always looks slightly strange to me for engine articles!) there is a front view available but it faces to the right (away from the text). Alt text also present but this requirement appears to be in a state of flux. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a comment on the quality, noting that a better lead image is not currently available (and proving that we looked for one!). There has been some discussion recently at WT:FAC regarding image reviews, mainly that the licensing gets checked but the quality was not necessarily reviewed. I've done both here and would say that the Featured Article image criteria (3) has been met (although I stand to be corrected by more experienced image reviewers!!). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also 4Comments. I believe most of them have non-critical issues outstanding (e.g., would like a second opinion, or just had a suggestion that I couldn't easily incorporate.)
I don't know who entered the above unsigned summary, but this FAC needs more independent review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, that was me, forgot to sign! Ok, I welcome any other reviewers who are willing to take a look at the article! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
make that 5 supports. I did not know that there was so much to write about engines. A very good article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
After giving the article a brief glance, I'm going to oppose based on prose. I'm concerned about the tone of some statements in the article; "despite enduring a difficult and politically charged beginning, is now one of the most prolific engine types in the world with more than 20,000 built", is one of many statements that seems unnecessarily adulatory. Asking questions of the reader (" GE was now faced with a dilemma—should they build two 10-ton engines, one with "limited" technology with SNECMA and one with "advanced" technology on their own, or should they try to develop a single, advanced, engine?") is another no-no. There are comma splices in the lead ("Although the CFM56 is a reliable engine, several fan blade failures were experienced during its early service, one failure was noted as a cause of the Kegworth air disaster"), repetitious phrasing and clauses (one section ends with " GE decided to apply for an export license for the F101 core technology", and the next section begins with "In 1972, GE applied for an export license for its F101 core technology"), and groupings that do not qualify as paragraphs (you need at least three sentences). Subsections are disassociated from their parent sections and feel like lists more than integrated parts of the article.
Contrary to the image review above, I think that most of the images linked need much clearer claims of ownership and status, preferably by using {{Information}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David -- Thanks for reading through the article and leaving comments. If there are more specific areas than those you listed, I request that you list them as well so I may properly address them. As for your specific comments--
"despite enduring..." - The goal of that sentence is to illustrate that, after facing political and customer demand challenges that brought the program to within two weeks of being suspended, it became one of the most widely used gas turbine engines in the world. If there are specific words in there that bother you, let me know and I'll consider changes, but I don't think words like "endure", "difficult, and "politically charged" are non-neutral or unnecessary. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking questions of the reader... - This is my first FAC, and I haven't commited the MoS to memory yet, so if there is a specific violation there, point it out to me so I can learn for the future. If you're questioning the content of that sentence, that phrasing is adapted from the source, and I tried to keep the intent of source intact. If you would like to read the source (it's a newspaper article), drop a line on my talk page and I can e-mail or copy/paste the relevant sections from it. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comma splices... I have tweaked that line to use active tense and make more sense. Let me know if there is still a concern. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repitious phrasing... Could you be more specific about your concern with the specific example you pulled? Between those two sections is a level 3 heading, and I wrote the section below it with the assumption that a reader might have jumped directly there from the ToC. Additionally, those two sections have different focuses (the birth of the engine in the first section and export issues in the second), so I believe that the repition helps the reader transition from one thought to another. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be specific about which groupings you don't think qualify as paragraphs? I learned that the defining characteristic of a paragraph was that its content differed from what preceeded it, not the number of sentences. If there are sections that you think are too "list-like", please point them out to me so I can try and tie them together with prose. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images. Can you please be more specific about which photos you think need more status information? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for reading through the article. I will look forward to seeing your responses! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No part of an article should repeat itself aside from the lead. Repeating information between sections suggests that the content of those sections needs to be refined. As to paragraphs, in academic writing, paragraphs generally need at least three sentences: the topic, supporting, and concluding sentences. Shorter paragraphs almost always show that the idea is either not important enough to be discussed separately or that it is lacking more information. As to images: File:KC135-CFM56.jpg is improperly attributed to a US employee and is most likely a copyvio. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can clarify on the images. Where I stated missing standard description these are the images missing the {{Information}} template that David highlighted, I think that there are five or so. The KC-135 image was discussed and appears to be good but something 'hit me'as not being quite right. As I said I am not an image reviewer but I did my best. Awadewit is very versed in image reviews, I would ask her nicely if she could have a look at these. During one FAC I had problems dealing with an image uploader who would not assist with image licensing, the solution was to use either my own images or correctly licensed ones. The moral is that it is easy to get 'suckered in' to thinking that every image on Commons is correctly licensed, not so and something I learned the hard way. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as that image has now been questioned twice, I've gone ahead and replaced it with the photo that is clearly a USAF photo. Let me know if there are any issues with it! -SidewinderX (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the wording in the "applied for an export license" sentence... let me know if you're still concerned with it and I'll look at it again. As for the paragraphs... I'll work my way through the article and see what I can do, but if you could point out specific areas of concern it would be easier for me to address them. Thanks, -SidewinderX (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On prose: I think I described the text as 'clunky' in a much earlier version of this article (I can't find the diff, perhaps it was during the A-class review), I commented on it again above as still having extra words. It is possible (and appears from your questioning of David's comments) that you can not see any problems with the text. I repeat my offer that I am very willing to run through the article and modify the text and implement other improvements to better fit the Wikipedia guidelines. All passion has to be removed. I am no Shakespeare but I do understand fairly well what is required here, your personal style or preference might be undetectable afterwards but the article should be even closer to FA standard. It may be that it has to be 'archived' to be fixed to everyone's satisfaction (not mine), it's not the end of the world if this happens (see Boeing 777 FA history). I could spend a few hours on it tomorrow, aware that this has been reviewed for getting on for a month now. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to go through it, and you have some time, feel free! I guess I'm not expressing how I feel best in these comments here; it's not that I don't see any problems (I just went through part of the article after my early comments), it's just that I can better work on areas that specifically called out. I wrote most of this article, so obviously I had some reasoning behind my writing choices, but I don't mean to seem standoff-ish! Just having the specific areas pointed out make it easier for me work on them. -SidewinderX (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect a very special barnstar if the article is promoted this time round ;-)! I will work on it tomorrow as promised. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a fair while this morning working on the article in what I hope are improvements and I sincerely hope that I have not introduced any errors or changed any meanings, I only got down as far as the bottom of 'Development'. I have added a {{clarify}} tag to the line about Boeing and Airbus not building new aircraft that I mentioned above, I do not understand this at all. I also made Villaroche a redlink, we are given a wikilink for the GE location in the lead but not SNECMA. Featured articles can have red links as far as I am aware. Something that I only just noticed is the order of the upper sections. The 'Tech 56' section in development contains technical content that has not been covered yet or introduced, this is in the 'Design' section lower down.
I have attempted to clarify the "no new aircraft" section, if you think it still needs clarification, re-tag it and I'll expand more. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better in my view to rearrange the sections, adding a new first section of 'History' or 'Background' to contain the need for the engine, politics, and CFM International formation etc. I would follow this with 'Design' (explaining how it works) then 'Development' (focussing on technical aspects only). I admit that I wrote the guidelines for aircraft engine articles about 18 months ago where I suggested a combined heading of 'Design and development' but I took care to make sure that these were accepted by the task force by discussing them on the task force talk page. The text could be rearranged but first instances of wikilinks, abbreviations (spelt out in full) and any refname formatted cites would be in the wrong order. I have e-mailed a very good copy editor and asked him to run through the article as I am no expert on grammar and punctuation. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the article order. I think we can rename the Development level two as "History", rename the Early Development level 3 as "Development" (level 2). In general, I like the idea of development before design, get the history and whatnot out of the way first, but you're right in that the Tech56 kinda screws that up. On the solution side, I think I can rewrite that section in a historical/development context, while moving the technical details down to the design section. If that sounds like a good plan I can do that after you finish your copy edit. Just let me know. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever works best, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2b is the criteria concerning this. I know that we have discussed our different understanding of the word 'development' previously. In my line of work (Research and development) we research something (test it) and then develop it (make it better). The 'Development' section in aircraft articles will overlap with the history as technical improvements are also chronological milestones, the tricky part is clearly separating the two subjects (history and technical improvements) or combining them in a logical way. Thanks for addressing my 'clarify' tag, makes much more sense now. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried to pull some of the component-specific stuff out of the Tech56 section and move it down to the "design" section, does it read more smoothly now? -SidewinderX (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
break
Two editors (other than myself), have now completed fairly thorough copy edits of the article, hopefully addressing many of your concerns. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and point out anything you still think needs addressing. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. On looking at the article again... I'm going to sustain my oppose. In the lead, there's still improper usage of commas and semicolons; in the body, awkward phrasing, missing non-breaking spaces, et al. I'd like to help edit, but I don't have time on-wiki right now for much beyond vandal-fighting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David -- Thanks for taking another look. I'm sorry to read that you still see some problems with the article. I just ran through and tried to grab a few things in the lead, but your comments mention more than that. I'll try and run through it look for the missing non-breaking spaces... that's a problem I thought I had already licked! I know you said you're busy, but I would be easier for me to try and fix the issues if there are more specific areas you could point out. Thanks -SidewinderX (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just go through the article with a fine tooth comb. First look at all the commas and semicolons. Then look for all the non-breaking spaces. Finally read each sentence and see if it is awkward. Would a teenager not interested in engines understand it. After that, you're done! The article should be considered as pass after that. I have personally fixed one criticism of Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs being the comma usage in the lead. SidewinderX fixed the non-breaking spaces. Both of us has worked on the phrasing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prose still isn't there in my opinion, but I'm tired of being hassled over this, so I'll just strike and do more interesting things with my time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are a few minor rough edges, but overall I believe this meets the FA criteria. MalleusFatuorum 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBSP check needed, and I'm finding some undefined (unlinked) terms like lbf (and others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through again checking for non-breaking spaces, and fixed a few more. Let me know if there are any others you see.
I clarified lbf and kN in the lead (they were already wikilinked in spelled-out form, just not in short form).
I updated the captions per your edit note.
With respect to "why are note terms bolded"... The notes are definitions/examples of certain terms that aren't well defined on Wikipedia (at least in the sense the article uses them in). My motive was to use the notes as mini-articles/definitions, wherein the term being defined was the topic and therefore bolded. The point is to make clear what each note defines or describes, and bolding the terms does that well. I welcome a differing opinion if you have one, but it seems to me that the notes application falls in the cracks of the MoS.
I'd like to hear from others on the bolding issue, but shouldn't they be redlinked if they aren't defined on Wiki? Also, you didn't get the WP:MOS#Captions quite right-- only full sentences get full stops (sentence fragments don't). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked to hear from others. The bolding issue doesn't seem like an issue to promote or kill an article, in my opinion. The very most important criteria for a FA has been met, in my opinion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe someone has gone after me to check the captions issue, let me know if it needs another look. As for redlinks to the terms... it's an interesting idea. Some of the terms, like "Chevron", could feasibly have articles. As there is already a Chevron page (disamb page that doesn't have an aviation link on it), would it be worthwhile making a redlink to something like Chevron (aerospace)? Likewise, would it be worth making a link to Shroud (turbine) or something (there already is Shroud (disambiguation))? Mixed and unmixed exhaust flow *could* be linked to Bypass duct, but that stub has nothing in it about the terms actually being defined and I figured that would confuse the reader rather than help. Engine trim is really just a contextual term, not anything worthy of an article. Low pressure shaft is also just a definition, not an article topic. (Although a better Jet engine article would probably have it defined there). For what it's worth... -SidewinderX (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that using Notes to define terms that deserve Wiki articles is ... anti-Wiki :) The notes shouldn't be Notes at all, rather wikilinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, fair enough. I've added redlinks to chevron and shroud, as well as wikilinks for mixed/unmixed exhaust. I'll stand by my comments that engine trim and low pressure shaft just need definitions... I've never messed with Wikitonary, but maybe I could just copy my note into Wikitonary? I'm not sure what the citation requirement is for Wikitonary... As for dry weight... In the note I have a wikilink to Dry weight (automobile), but I think it would be confusing if I listed that link in the article... should I make that a redlink to Dry weight (aviation)? -SidewinderX (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, another reviewer was asking for a notes section to define terms rather than (or in addtion to wikilinks.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
With my other featured article nomination at a standstill (I'm a co-nominator, so I hope this is acceptable), I present an article of a lower caliber for consideration. Though relatively short, I feel—as do others, apparently—this entry represents a model for well-organized and -written content on older tropical cyclones. As far as I'm aware, all substantial information is sourced properly, and the article is more-or-less comprehensive. Thanks in advance, Juliancolton (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't find any problems worth mentioning. For me this article fulfils the FA criteria. Esuzu(talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -All I can say is that it is a very good article that appears to meet all criteria. No complaints Mr. R00tTalk 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks! I appreciate the support and review of the article. Juliancolton (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets FA criteria Dincher (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Dincher. Let me know next time you have one of those interesting geography articles up and I'll return the favor. Juliancolton (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This was the largest carnivore known from Madagascar, large enough to eat some of the giant extinct lemurs. We don't know much about it, except that it was quite big and that it is probably no longer there. I got some help from Visionholder, who also made the map, in finding information and Sasata gave a great GA review. We hope that its smaller, surviving cousin, the fossa, will follow this species into FAC soon. Ucucha 14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues: Minor matters only.
References: No. 5, Goodman et al 2001? Not listed, perhaps 2004 misdated?
Yes, 2004, corrected.
Literature cited
Page total given for the Turvey book but not others. This isn't particularly useful info so I suggest drop it.
Added also for The Natural History of Madagascar, in keeping with the style I use generally.
I also wonder whether the page ranges need to be given in this list of sources, since the relevant pages are included in the citations. If you want to keep them I suggest they are given a "pp." so that people know what these numbers are.
Those are formal long-form citations, so they include the page ranges.
OK, but please add "pp." so that it is clear what these numbers are. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessary, as we can expect readers to know some basic citation formatting, and if you are referring to the places I think you are referring to, even the regular citation templates do not use "pp." there. Ucucha 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and you should not assume that your readers will be familiar with citation formatting. Templates are imperfect creatures, and should not be referred to as though they had special merit. Why are you so reluctant to clarify something that could be done so simply? If you can't spare the time, I'll do it for you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure we're referring to the same thing—are you saying things like "BioScience 44(1):12–18" should be replaced with "BioScience 14(1) pp. 12–18"? The reason for my reluctance is that I have written many articles with a consistent citation style. I am hesitant to make changes so as not to lose this consistency. But I would make a change when I see the benefit, and I don't see it here. Formatting citations as they are in this article is perfectly standard—a similar style (without "pp." or similar) is used by all major citation styles and academic journals I know of for journal citations—and I doubt it's much more opaque than "pp." is. Ucucha 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My basic point is that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and its readership may be less familiar with the citation styles of scientific publications than you are. The fact that you are following a previous practice is neither here nor there. Unexplained numbers at the end of a citation may or may not signify page numbers to a less informed reader; my suggestion is that these numbers should be made explicit. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument, but can't agree. We assume a certain minimum knowledge in our readers. In this article, the term "Africa" is not linked, because such a link would be more disruptive to the vast majority of readers who know what Africa is than it would be helpful to the few who don't. I think it's the same with this point; you can't gloss over the fact that it is a very common practice not to use "pp." for journal references as easily as you do. Ucucha 15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, medical articles follow the same citation style used here (no page numbers on journals); there have been several discussions on that, but I can't recall where to find them, but I'm OK with this for journal articles that aren't gynormous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, all sources look good, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check! Ucucha 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The technical language is no doubt correct, but leaves the article rather puzzling for non-biologists. After reading it carefully, I'm still unclear a) how big it was - eg how long, and b) when it might have survived to. The lead should be expanded on, explaining what it's family (or whatever) is for non-specialists - "related to mongooses" or something; in an FA one should not have to follow links to find this sort of basic contextual material. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you're still unclear about its size and the date of its extinction, because both are unknown. All we have are body mass estimates, which are in there already. The lead already says the family--it's an euplerid--and says it's related to the fossa. I've edited a little to emphasize that Eupleridae is its family. Ucucha 13:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't help. Why should the reader have to follow a link to find out what the Eupleridae are? This is not the FA approach. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, it is; current featured articles like Banksia sessilis and Galerina marginata do just the same. I suppose I could add something like "[the family Eupleridae], which includes all indigenous Malagasy carnivorans", but that starts to go from providing necessary background to losing the focus on the main points. Ucucha 14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind "other featured articles"! Your own Noronhomys has a much more expansive lead. Trust me, there isn't much focus to lose here. The Fossa (animal), which is mentioned, is itself pretty obscure, and the lead needs to relate the species to some form of life the general reader might actual be familiar with. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I added a little. Mongooses aren't really that similar to C. spelea, but it's better than nothing, and I realized that the lead indeed did not make it clear to the layperson even that we're dealing with a mammalian carnivore. Ucucha 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly give talks to laypeople about wildlife (namely, lemurs), and I often answer the question, "What is a Fossa?" In all honestly, I would argue that even most laypeople don't know what a mongoose is. Every time I say that the Fossas are relatives of mongooses, the next question that follows is, "What is a mongoose?" I agree, Johnbod, that the articles need to be understandable to laypeople, but at some point, the reading level has to go up. The more you want to understand something, the more you have to learn. Unfortunately, increased comprehensiveness inexorably results in increased reading level. Anyway, I'll review the article again and see if I can try to explain some things better in more straight-forward terminology. Thank you for your honest feedback. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my hand at clearing some things up. If anyone dislikes any of my changes, feel free to revert. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the two have not always been accepted as distinct species. — Why "however", you've just said they are similar, not different
it occurs together with remains — don't need "together", "with" alone will do
However, living species of comparably-sized... — I'm not sure why "however" is needed here, lck of evidence isn't a contrast
recent geological past — can you give an indication of what time span this means?
Fixed the first three. The last point is a bit of a problem. With no radiocarbon dates established for this species, and the source explicitly stating "recent geological past", I don't think we have license to say anything beyond that. I get a feeling from the material that it would date like most subfossil lemurs: as far back as the subfossil records go (~26,000 years, I think) up until the last few hundred years. But I can't go on a hunch, only on what the sources say. What I might be able to do is suggest that they might fall in the same date range as the subfossil lemurs. Let me re-check my sources and see what else I can find. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... the best I can find is the following from Goodman et al. 2003: "The only extinct Carnivora known from Madagascar during the Holocene is Cryptoprocta spelea." In the Wiki article under question, two paragraphs up from the "recent geological past" passage it mentions that their remains are found in Holocene cave sites. Unless you can offer some suggestions, I think this is the best we can offer. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it probably went extinct (if indeed it is a separate species) during the last few thousand years, after human colonization of Madagascar, but there is nothing specific known, and the sources are correspondingly and rightly vague. Ucucha 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like to reopen this issue. "Recent geological past" to someone who studies the whole of Earth history can mean the entire Phanerozoic; to someone who studies the Phanerozoic, it can mean the Cenozoic, to someone who studies the Cenozoic, the Quaternary, and only to someone who studies exclusively the Quaternary would it mean specifically the Holocene. Since the source says existed during presumed Holocene and then went extinct in the recent geological past, the meaning of the latter phrase is unambiguous there, but it is ambiguous here (well, not if you read the whole section, but in its paragraph it is). Suggest changing to "Holocene" or "later in the Holocene". Awickert (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added "later in the Holocene" in parentheses after "recent geological past". I chose that method of implementation to demonstrate that the mention of the Holocence does not come from the cited source, but is inferred from all previous material. Feel free to revert of change if you disapprove. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I've just removed the phrase, as the article already says it is known from Holocene deposits and the "recent geological past" piece is so vague that it doesn't add anything. I do think the meaning of Recent as "Holocene" is fairly well-established. Ucucha 18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix, I now support (see below). As an aside though, big-R "Recent" is indeed used for "indistinguishable from now", but little-r "recent geological past" is ambiguous. Awickert (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have just one concern.
First described in 1902 and recognized as a separate species in 1935 - a separate species from fossa or mongooses?
Otherwise, it appears to be a focused, well-written article. The explanations throughout help with the jargon terms of the article; obviously a lot of research went into this. Well done. ceranthor 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and for catching that! I've attempted to re-word it for clarity. Ucucha may tweak it, but otherwise, we should be good there. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great, only issue I had was addressed already (above). I learned a ton reading it - I didn't know much at all about this group of animals. Thanks for the great article, Awickert (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review; have images been reviewed? Please ping me when clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images - 1 x own work of contributor, one map adaptation from appropriately sourced paper. i..e good to go. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The 1975 crisis, and the dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam by Governor-General Kerr, is, I'm told, one of those moments that everyone (at least in Australia) remembers where they were when it happened, and it will probably be the subject of controversy so long as the major players are still alive and probably for longer than that. The article has had a considerable peer review, with several editors weighing in. I think this should be a worthy companion at WP:FA to Gough Whitlam, which got there a couple of months ago. Oh, it's a Wiki Cup nomination, though I am getting my butt kicked now that all the cannon fodder's gone. Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I'll delete that one and look into the other two. Note that the Gough on steps article was added by another editor whom I warned that it would be taken out at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach Nua, looking into the other two, they were uploaded by the photographer, he has simply changed his name on Wiki. Takver is Tirin. So no OTRS is needed, as they were uploaded and released by photographer. Many thanks for your usual top of the line image check.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can set up a wp account, otrs gives something concrete, and I would like to be 100% sure we have proper licensing on these Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a note on the contributor's Commons talk page here. We'll see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, both those photos are original works of mine. I have visited those pages to ensure that this is asserted on the image pages both as my general photographer use name of Takver and my wikipedia username of Tirin. Both are released under the CC-attrib-SA-3 licence and the GNU FDL as stated on their pages.--Takver (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point is, that I'm really not that interested in the WikiCup, and have survived this far on my normal ten-times-a-year FA promotions. That won't get me by any more. I haven't even dipped into my book of Interstate Commerce Commissioner bios for DYKs. This is it for Australia for me, at least for now. I will likely be there again early next year and perhaps will look for another topic to research.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN for the Kerr biography appears to be 0-333-25212-8
The ISBN for the Michelle Grattan book appears to be 978-1741-10727-2?
Otherwise, all sources look good, no further issues Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is done. It's Kerr's autobio, he is a figure that is crying out for a good biographer, in my view. Won't happen until the main figures are all gone, I suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
The following sentence doesn't have a footnote: "Allegations have been made that Kerr acted on behalf of the United States government in procuring Whitlam's dismissal." And I'm not sure it is supported by the footnote to the following sentences. I'm thus a little concerned that the sentence overstates the "allegations" as it really is just one allegation by a convicted criminal. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was discussed by me in 2005 on the article talk page. Blum's book is now online via Google Books [11] in limited preview. He discusss all the allegations of CIA involvement with destabilising the Whitlam Government and provides secondary sources. I have added this book as a citation for the allegations of CIA involvement. --Takver (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a nuisance - The New York Times Nov 6 1975 ran a story titled "C.I.A. ISSUE ENTERS AUSTRALIAN CRISIS; Whitlam Says an Opposition Chief Had Agency Links and Accepted Funds C.I.A."[12] The Opposition Chief was Doug Anthony, Leader of the Country Party (since renamed National Party) who had close links to Richard Lee Stallings who helped establish CIA operations in Australia. There is no mention of CIA funding at all in the article and yet it was an issue made public by Whitlam with reputable reporting in the lead up to the dismissal. This specific ref wasn't available to me back in 2005. The article would be deficient without some reference to the public allegations at the time of CIA interference through funding of conservative parties. Australian Online newspaper archives don't appear to have 1975 records available yet. --Takver (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be home tonight, my trip is cut short, will answer concerns then.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Comments. The article could possibly benefit from another look through the prose. The text switches quite a lot between tenses as in I did this, doing that. I would prefer to have the whole thing in the past tense as much as possible. Should "in exercising the reserve power" be powers? Elsewhere, "reserve powers", with an "s", is used.
[reply]
Please check that the quote used in reference 6 "by all available mean" is correct. Ordinarily, I would expect this to be "all available means". Please also check the quote used in reference 36, as there seems to be some punctuation missing from "clean hands Fraser".
I'm a little confused by "Whitlam was delayed in leaving Parliament House, with the result that Fraser arrived at Yarralumla first..." as Whitlam arrived "before one o'clock". So, he wasn't late: Fraser was early.
Two of the Queen's biographers, Jennie Bond and William Shawcross, who are not similar in style or outlook, state that the crisis fuelled republicanism in Australia. You've mentioned the republican referendum from 20 years after the crisis, but is there anything else that can be said on this aspect? I wonder whether Bond and Shawcross have overplayed its importance, or whether it really did effect Australia's view of the monarchy.
Thanks. I will get to the accumulated comments (well, not that many) within 24 hours. My computer was being repaired and I spent four hours on the phone with Apple technical support. I've got a fair backlong, and I want to leave this to last so I can concentrate on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I carried out a full peer review on this article. I am not an expert on Australian constitutional politics and there may be nuances that I have failed to understand. In general terms, however, I was satisfied that after some final polishing this well-researched article would definitely meet the featured article criteria – with the bonus of being actually interesting. Some of that final polishing has taken place during this FAC, and perhaps there will be more tweaks, but I am not withholding support on that account. I also did an independent sources review - see above. A fine companion artricle to the already-promoted Gough Whitlam. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Brian. I have addressed all comments except for the question of the US, which I am still looking at. I have added a bit, sourced inline to Freudenberg, on republicanism; this is from what I can see a matter in dispute (after all, the true problem was not that there was a Queen, but that the representative could be fired by one of the combatants in a way the Queen cannot). This is not something I think the article should get into in depth. The tense changes are probably you noticing that I refer to Whitlam and Fraser in the present tense as they still live, whereas Kerr is always referred to in the past tense. With at least Fraser still writing, I think the present tense is appropriate. Regarding the appointment times, there was a certain amount of confusion about the times, which I've explained a bit more.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence on Whitlam's CIA allegations regarding Doug Anthony. I really don't think they are deserving of more. I've tried to avoid Whitlam's various allegations regarding everyone who supposedly conspired against him, from Lady Kerr on down to Barwick's distant familial relationship with Ellicott. I do not feel they add to the reader's understanding of the crisis. I think I've covered everything and await more comments, or I hope, supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: When the cinema lights came up at the end of a film in 1977, I noticed Kerr—that fat, "farting Falstaff", as Patrick White wrote—sitting in the row behind me with his wife. I hissed at them. My parents next to me weren't even aware of what was going on. Kerr's wife was palpably upset; he had learned to ignore the continual torrent of heckling from those affronted by his partisan actions.
"Whitlam intended to advise a half-Senate election"—I'd use "hold", since the GG by convention does what the PM says. The grammar doesn't quite work with "advise".
In coverage of the recent British election, I checked at WT:MOS about O versus o for "opposition". They said normally "o", as does my reading of the MoS. But it's no big deal.
(With plus) noun plus -ing can be clumsy, although not always: "The events of the dismissal led to only minor constitutional change, with the Senate retaining its power to block supply, and the Governor-General the power to dismiss the Government." But let's not bother changing it, because the whole sentence is misleading; what was this minor constitutional change in which the Senate "retained", etc. That suggests the Senate's power to block anything was ever at issue in terms of constitutional amendment. This has not been the case.
"Whitlam and Fraser have reconciled." ...their differences.
I've read only the lead; I'll try to return. Brave to take on such a complex, nuanced subject! Doing fairly well so far. Tony(talk) 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you Tony. I'll make those changes. My sources do indicate that Labor wanted a referendum on ending the Senate's power to block appropriations bill but never proceeded with it because they felt they could not get four states to go along, but that is perhaps overly complex for the lede. I'll play around with it. Stay tuned to this station.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "advise" to "call", which seems more accurate than "hold". I also split the sentence about constitutional change, and I think it answers your concern. It would be tedious to mention in the lede that the constitutional change relevant to the crisis (I do not think the limit on the age of judges was Australia's answer to Garfield Barwick) was the same-party requirement for senators filling casual vacancies.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per all above, can't say it any better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems a pretty good account, & meets FA standards. Occasionally the affair comes up in press commentary as a major test of the Westminster system generally, and in political science there must be much, much more of this - don't ask me who by. It would have been nice to have had some of this. Should QEII have intervened, or sent someone else to do so (Charles was briefly mooted in the UK press at the time, clearly a very bad idea)? Would republican sentiment on the Australian left be less if she had, and so on? That dimension is missing from a pretty straight bit of reportage. The penultimate, CIA, para, seems a bit stranded; might be better higher up the section. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave that some thought. Decided against it for two reasons. First, everyone has an opinion about what should have been done differently. Second, there's a fine line between this sort of thing and alternate history. I decided that it was best to give the reader the basics and let them go on and look at the speculation if they cared to look further. Thanks all for their supports. Five supports, all checks done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:NBSP check is needed throughout, the article mixes citation and cite templates, and in one case The Age is cited as a periodical, in other as a webcite-- needs to be consisten, websites need accessdates, periodicals are in italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
With the advent of hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean today, I present the article on Hurricane Carmen for consideration to become a featured article—my first nomination in several months. This entry covers a relatively destructive 1970s tropical cyclone whose most significant effect was the destruction of sugar crops in the United States. Despite sparing two major population centers and causing less damage than initially feared, the hurricane's severity justified the retirement of its name the following year. Credit goes to Cyclonebiskit (talk·contribs) for writing most of the info on Carmen's effects outside of the United States, and to Finetooth (talk·contribs), among others, for copyediting and reviewing the article. Juliancolton (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
Ref 34: Baton Rogue? Must go there...
Otherwise sourcing and referencing look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is great to see some work on more important hurricane articles. Not to discourage, but I think it's lacking a bit. IMO, it might be on the short side, and glaringly there is no aftermath section. Here are some things that stood out at me.
We discussed this a few weeks ago. I was unable to find any substantial aftermath info, except for some duplication of the sugar crop shortage. Juliancolton (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the hurricane began to rapidly deepen over warm waters of the Carribean Sea - you should link "rapidly deepen" so people know what it means.
Early on September 2, a double eyewall appeared on satellite imagery, indicating an extreme tropical cyclone - I think "extreme tropical cyclone" should be in quotes, since it's not an official term and otherwise might seem confusing.
It isn't supposed to be an "official term", but rather the wording I chose to describe the cyclone's state. Juliancolton (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not your wording either, since the source used the term as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Extreme" is hardly an original word, and "tropical cyclone" is the name of this type of storm. I could change it to "very strong", but "extreme" is simpler and less wordy. Juliancolton (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its northern jog spared Belize City from a direct hit. - was Belize City supposed to be hit?
I'm not sure, but I don't think being forecast to strike the city is a perquisite to it being spared. Juliancolton (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You go into some meteorological details in the met. history, but it doesn't paint a complete picture for me. What caused the steering currents to weaken? What allowed Carmen to restrengthen so significantly in the Gulf of Mexico? How big of a storm was it? What caused it to turn northward in the gulf?
Some individual replies:
[14] explains that the steering currents became weaker due to pressure falls over the GOM, but since I fail to see the correlation there, I won't risk incorporating mis-information.
The discussions don't seem to mention why it intensified.
[15] does not have size data available for this time period.
Same story for the northward turn. Juliancolton (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People purchasing emergency supplies crowded stores in New Orleans, where secretaries moved files to upper floors of the courthouse in Pointe à la Hache - this sentence stood out as being awkward how it tries to combine two completely different pieces of info.
Yeah, good point. I just removed the first clause, which, thinking it over, is non-information. Juliancolton (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations for Carmen were particularly thorough with Hurricane Camille in recent memory - perhaps specify that Camille was five years prior?
Following Carmen's passage, officials feared the worst for an area of 1,000 mi2 (2,590 km2) where communication was lost in Belize - just how bad was it? You mention the crop damage, but you don't say how bad it was overall in the country.
Are you asking for numbers? Otherwise, I'm not sure what else could be said. Juliancolton (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Winds approaching gale force affected several islands - that is right after mentioning Puerto Rico. Do the "several islands" refer to islands in the territory of Puerto Rico, or islands of the Greater Antilles?
The Lesser Antilles, as specified earlier in the section. Juliancolton (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to !vote, I would oppose. Good work on the article, but not good enough, IMO, for FA status. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you said a couple months ago you thought it was good enough for FA, so this is really surprising. But thanks for the review; I'll deal with these this afternoon. Juliancolton (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI've started a line-by-line prose review on the article's talk page here. Please respond to individual concerns there. I also have one non-prose issue I'd like to bring up: The lead should summarize every major section of the article. It currently does not have any content relating to the Preparations section. I am now satisfied with the prose of the article. The only two issues remaining in my review are requests for minute details which may not even be available in the source material. I'm sure that if either of these details becomes available, Julian would be quick to add them. As such, I am happy to lend my support to this article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll deal with those later. Preparations are generally not significant enough for inclusion in a short summary of a tropical cyclone, with the exception of extreme cases like Hurricane Rita. I can add a couple sentences about the evacuations if you think it would be an improvement. Juliancolton (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Preparations section makes up nearly 20% of the article, so I definitely think it should be represented in the lead. Even something as simple as "Neither Mexico nor the United States enforced any official evacuations." would work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I don't think it's necessary for preps to account for 20% of the lead... but they're represented at least. Cheers. Juliancolton (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I didn't mean to imply that it should account for 20% of the lead, I was just using that statistic to prove a point. I consider this matter resolved. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Improvements to the article are ongoing at its talk page. Just noting this to avoid the impression that this FAC is stagnant. Juliancolton (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I peer-reviewed this in May and thought it was close to FAC. I agree with Hurricanehink that the article is short relative to many hurricane articles, but that seems actionable only if significant RS data exists and has been neglected. Has it? In any case, I found a few more minor things on this read-through that I think need attention:
Meteorological history
"Under outflow conditions favorable to the storm's intensification, produced by an upper-level high pressure area, the system gradually strengthened as it moved through the Lesser Antilles." - I think the "produced" clause is intended to modify "conditions" rather than "intensification". If so, would this be better: "Under outflow conditions produced by an upper-level high pressure area and favorable to the storm's intensification, the system gradually strengthened as it moved through the Lesser Antilles"?
"... by 1800 UTC, it had strengthened... " - Should UTC be linked on first use to Coordinated Universal Time? Should UTC be spelled out on first use: UTC (Coordinated Universal Time)? I think readers know a.m. and p.m. but maybe not UTC.
Impact
"Following its usage, the World Meteorological Organization retired the name Carmen... " - The word "usage" stopped me because I immediately thought of "dictionary". Maybe "After the storm" would be better than "Following its usage".
United States
"Nonetheless, tidal flooding from the Gulf of Mexico and coastal bays, lakes and bayous was severe." - Can tidal flooding come from a lake? Would "estuaries" be a better word since it makes clear that these "lakes" (like Ponchartrain) are connected to the sea?
I think "coastal" already indicates that, but I can change it if needed. Juliancolton (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about "coastal"; it should suffice. Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Losses to Grand Island State Park totaled $114,600, although the majority was due to lost usage." - Does that mean entrance fees? Otherwise, it's hard to see how not using the park would cause a loss.
"The oil and gas industry was also affected, and its estimated $24.7 million in losses were primarily a result of damaged equipment and offshore facilities." - Maybe "resulted mainly from damage to equipment and offshore facilities" to avoid any hint that the offshore facilities caused the damage.
"Down time in production from the storm ranged from 24 to 48 hours, leading to 1.4 million barrels of lost oil." - Was the oil actually lost, or does this mean "The storm diminished oil production by 1.4 million barrels when it shut down operations for 24 to 48 hours at various locations"?
Done most of these. I've addressed the lack of an aftermath section below, but since multiple users have raised this concern, I'll try one more time to dig up some info. Thanks for the detailed review. Juliancolton (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Following its usage, the World Meteorological Organization retired the name Carmen from the rotating list of hurricane names.[25] However, due to a change in the naming scheme in 1979, it was not replaced by any particular name." - This is OR IMO, as the WMO did not dictate the naming lists at that time - The Us Weather Beauru did. Otherwise it looks goodJason Rees (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Hurricanehink (talk·contribs) is apparently on self-admitted wikibreak, so his above oppose is no longer actionable; I believe I have, however, addressed many of his concerns in any case. Juliancolton (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still find it surprising there is no aftermath section, not even any disaster declarations, no homeless people in the US in need of shelter, no return to normalcy. It's not a strong oppose by any means. If I had to pick support or oppose, I'd just pick oppose. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for revisiting. As I believe I said even before this FAC was initiated, I looked for aftermath info and came up with nothing substantial. (Don't take my word for it.) The only thing I can find is that a governor of one of the affected states said a disaster declaration would be "useful", but nothing that indicates he actually issued one. Juliancolton (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the link provided by Julian and eventually found that FEMA made a Carmen disaster declaration (FEMA-DR-448) on September 23, 1974. This can be verified by more than one source, but nothing that I found gave enough detail to create a separate Aftermath section. A long PDF document published by the City of Slidell in 2008 here includes the FEMA number and date and one sentence about Carmen on page 5 of section 3. That sentence says, "Category 4 hurricane made landfall ten miles west of Grand Isle with winds up to 80 mph winds and 6-foot storm surge in southeastern Louisiana." I think the disaster declaration should be mentioned, perhaps right after "Other crops damaged by Carmen included soybeans, rice, and cotton." Supported by the Slidell source, it would also be possible to add a more precise location for the landfall in the U.S. Do these two suggestions seem reasonable? Hurricanehink, do you think this would do it, or is something else missing? Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found that before, but unfortunately I have no idea where the disaster declaration was issued, so I find it essentially useless. I'm thinking, if an aftermath section is absolutely necessary, I can steal some of the sugar crop info from the impact section and embellish it a bit with economic statistics. Thoughts? Juliancolton (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick partial search of hurricane FAs finds four with no Aftermath section: Hurricane Erika (1997), Hurricane Daniel (2006), Hurricane Vince (2005), and 1910 Cuba hurricane. I don't see why it would help to add an Aftermath section just for the sake of having one. I'm switching to support, but (as often happens when I take another look), I have another quibble. Shouldn't the author names in the Reference section all be last name first? Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Atmoz—These comments only apply to the Meteorological history section as that's the only section I feel comfortable reviewing.
Accept with minor revisions:
"Under outflow conditions produced by an upper-level high pressure area and favorable to the storm's intensification, the system gradually strengthened as it moved through the Lesser Antilles." - Odd wording. The system strengthened because of the conditions. The current sentence focuses on the conditions and not the intensification, which I think is backwards.
OK, good point. Reorganized the sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the first paragraph, an eyewall briefly appeared. Then suddenly in the second it has a double eyewall. Surely somewhere in between it had a single eye. When did the eye reform?
Agreed, but I can't find any other mention of the eye/ERC in the NHC discussions. Juliancolton (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...nudged slightly northward... nudged is odd here. What nudged it? Also, I think the source says that the storm was moving west by north ("slightly north of due west"), but from the article I would assume it would be moving directly north at this stage.
"...slowed to a drift..." How slow is that? I understand that's what the source says, but the source is also a forecast. Does drift refer to beta drift?[16] If so, it was still moving as several meters per second forward to the NW.
A "drift" is a slow, leisurely movement in standard English, which is what I intended. Most readers are not aware of any specific alternative meaning of the word in meteorology, so I don't believe its use presents a problem here. Juliancolton (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...its northern jog..." Did it get sweaty?
"Jog" is standard wording in TC terminology, as far as I'm aware. Juliancolton (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The storm's center passed a few miles north of Chetumal, which was likely under its eyewall." Are we really using a table of latitudes and longitudes to describe where the eyewall likely was?
"The cyclone drifted inland..." Drift again. Now (not sure in 1974) drift has a very specific meaning to those studying TCs. I don't think it applies here.
"...where it nearly stalled" Since TCs can be thought of as heat engines, this makes me smile. I think better wording can be found. Perhaps something like "slowed to a standstill"?
I'll change it if you think it's necessary, but it seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. Juliancolton (talk)
"After moving ashore, it quickly lost force..." Force has a specific meaning which doesn't make sense here.
Overall, it's good. The few comments are generally about wording and not factual errors. I understand that colorful language makes the article more interesting to read. But I think that we can use wording that is still interesting but also more accurately describes the science. -Atmoz (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. Just a further comment on "The storm's center passed a few miles north of Chetumal, which was likely under its eyewall." This is referenced to HURDAT which provides lat/long pairs for (I'm assuming) the lowest central pressure and/or eye of the storm. It has nothing about the eyewall, which can vary dramatically in size. So I don't think, from that source, you can say anything about the eyewall. You can determine where the eye was, but that's about it. And we, as logical human beings, can say that the eyewall was likely over xxx_location, but in this case I don't think the source doesn't backs that up. -Atmoz (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I completely agree, and I'm not sure why I put that there... hmm, done in any case. Juliancolton (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Overall it looks really good. I have a few questions, but they are quite minor and do not affect my support:
I made a couple of copyedit tweaks. Feel free to revert.
Lead, "Carmen originated in a tropical disturbance". Should this be "as a"?
Lead, "from the recycling list of tropical cyclone names." I know what it means, but it still sounds odd - a "recycling list"...
Preparations, "were eager to evacuate". To me this sounds like they were just looking for an opportunity to leave, which I doubt was the case. Perhaps just "..., quickly evacuated their..."?
United States, "the storm inundated". It flooded this much land? Or just covered/rained on?
I do not see the lack of an aftermath section as harmful to the article's comprehensiveness. Everything that I can think of that would be in an aftermath section is quite adequately covered in the Impact section. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done with everything you suggested. Thanks for the support and regards, Juliancolton (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been through two other FAC's, and been significantly improved each time. Hopefully third time's the charm. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 11:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links or dead external links (still). Ucucha 11:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am glad to see how much more extensive this article has become over the course of the various FAC pursuits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues
Ref. 26: Two citations are apparently to a signboard outside the church (unless I mistake the meaning). These relate to the reopening in 1981, and the height of the terrace between the two towers. Isn't there a reliable print source for this information?
As discussed here, a sign made by the owner of a site is a reliable print source. That said, I have other sources for the year the church reopened, but not the month. Nothing else on the height of the terrace. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, several Wikipedians have concurred that such a signboard is acceptable as a reliable source. I'm not objecting to this, particularly as the information given is simple and factual. But this could be a "first" at FAC, thereby establishing a precedent, so I think the matter ought to be open for discussion here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC) (Note: I have opened a discussion at the FAC talk page) Brianboulton (talk)[reply]
Retrieval dates: the months January, March and April should be written in full, not abbreviated.
Otherwise, sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TonyTheTiger
"St. Michael's Cathedral (Chinese: 圣彌格爾主教座堂) is a Roman Catholic cathedral, seat of the Diocese of Qingdao, Shandong, China." seems ungrammatical.
It is still ungrammatical to me because I think seat is attempting to modify St. Michael's Cathedral but is located as an appositive of Roman Catholic cathedral. It either needs to be relocated in the sentence or the comma should be changed to "and the".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been reworked. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "legal extraterritoriality"? Does it have a link?
I would prefer note 3 after the punctuation in Church rather than the word source.
The fact is not the sources, but rather the original name. You need to source facts. Sure it is important to qualify the statement by saying only some sources verify this, but the fact is what you are sourcing with a reference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rm spaces between punctuation and refs.
This sentence begs for about 3 or 4 links ""The denunciation of anything Western as 'capitalist,' 'bourgeois' and representative of the 'imperialist world' reached a peak during the ideological extremism of the Korean War (1950–53) when the final vestiges of the Western economic and cultural presence were eradicated."
Northern China – Tianjin, Beijing, Dalian, or Jinan are not places entirely familiar to English readers. Please link.
Same with Han Village and Yucheng County.
Not Fixed Han Village is so small as to not be searchable in English or appear on maps that I can find. Yucheng County exists in more than one province and the one on Wikipedia is the wrong one, so if you want links, they'll be redlinks. Let me know. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1b and 1c. From a cursory Google search I learned information that seems to be lacking in this article. For example, the name of the original German architect, information about the bell tower and the bells, that the church is a tourist attraction (the numbers of tourists annually are available). Also, information about why the Dutch missionaries were in the region seems relevant, as well as the style in which the Germans rebuilt the village. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sure those are reliable sources? The missionaries weren't Dutch. They were German. And the original architect's name is listed in the article. The number of tourists is not available as they don't count (no turnstyle, don't sell tickets), so any report on number of tourists is faulty. I spent six months researching this cathedral, took the pictures, lived in the town, interviewed the priests, etc. If there's information you've found that I haven't included, chances are there's a reason. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I think this is simply a case of disagreeing about the scope of the article. The first time I read the article I found the topic interesting, but had more questions than answers. As my comments and those below may well indicate, some work is might still be necessary to make this nice article fully comprehensive. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I find the article is now coherent and provides a good description of the historic context and present day appearance of the cathedral. The architectural context is however less clear as there is limited information about the architect (Any formal qualification? Did he design other buildings too?) and the design (was the design based on a particular European example? How does it differ from other Romanesque cathedrals in China? Did it influence church architecture in China in any way?), however I understand no sources providing such information could be identified. One minor correction I would like to see (as discussed at the first FAC review): the quote "...the cathedral is far too large for the scale of Qingdao..." should be presented in historical context by clearly indicating the year this was written, given that it does not reflect the present situation. --Elekhh (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was written in 1994, so not that long ago. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 08:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the scale of the city changed in those 15 years than is relevant. --Elekhh (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it has. To find out when other (modern) buildings in the city were built is beyond me. That photograph is not what you see entering the harbor, I can tell you that. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why do you think it would hurt to add "(1994)". --Elekhh (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons: 1) Date is already included in the footnote; 2) There's not a parenthetical date note anywhere else in the article; so in my brain, it seems odd. THAT SAID, if you still really want me to add the date, I will do so. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still the same oppinion, BUT if there is no consensus otherwise you do not need to change it. --Elekhh (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Info
How to Present?
I just found a new source here [18] (translated from German) that solves the mystery of why some accounts of the cathedral's construction list the architect as Arthur Bialucha and others list Alfred Fräbel, SVD. Fräbel designed the cathedral, but Bialucha was actually the one who built it. The source says he appears on a list of people owning construction companies in Qingdao. The link gives an account of other buildings that Bialucha built as well. Should his name go into the infobox as well, as an architect? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 08:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. His role appears to have been closer to General contractor than architect (and there is a field in the infobox for that). --Elekhh (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of 1a. But here are some comments concerning the top half.
"Following the Treaty of Nanjing (1842), the British established the first treaty ports. Such other foreign powers as France, the United States, Portugal, Germany, Japan, and Russia won additional concessions." This is a little cryptic, particularly "additional" (to the treaty, more than the British got?). Um .. " Following the Treaty of Nanjing (1842), the British established the first treaty ports, followed within a decade by similar concession for France, the United States, Portugal, Germany, Japan, and Russia won additional concessions." I've guessed all this. And I removed the "such as" assuming there were no other powers. — Tony 17:13, 14 June 2010 — continues after insertion below
"(alternately romanized as Shantung or Shan-tung)"—not alternating, surely? "Alternatively"and/or perhaps even in a footnote to reduce clutter?
fixed Although I didn't put it in a note, as I think it is important for the reader to see it right away so there is no confusion. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a rarity in large parts of Asia at that time and later"—was it just the last item in the preceding list that was a rarity, or the whole package of infrastructures? The "and later" is a bit awkward. Either omit or find a better way?
"The city reverted to Chinese rule in December 1922"—I removed "at the end of the war", but maybe readers won't know that ... unsure. Either way, wasn't this five whole years after the war? You're not saying the Japanese ran it then, are you? Perhaps a little more explanation here would be good.
I'm confused...five years after what war? World War I? Japanese military action (and rule) in Asia did not end with the Treaty of Versailles. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The changes are evident in drawings published before completion of construction, which show the roofs of the towers as bell-shaped. However, the roofs of the completed structure were changed to spires."— Errr ... so the spires were cheaper? I've lost the point.
That's as much information as the sources provide: There were money troubles, so the bell shaped towers were changed to spires. I had the same reaction as you (Errr ... so the spires were cheaper?), but I thought it was important to include. I can omit if you like. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My "Chinese government control"—better check.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dreaded User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing, which is often inelegant: "The cathedral was badly damaged during the Cultural Revolution, the crosses topping the twin steeples being removed by the Red Guards, with two men falling to their deaths during the crosses' removal." ing ing ing. "The cathedral was badly damaged during the Cultural Revolution, when the crosses topping the twin steeples were removed by the Red Guards; during the removal, two men fell to their deaths." That's better, but you may be able to improve it further.
I've looked only at the top half. It's a worthy article, with just a few surface glitches. Tony(talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the infobox is a problem: it squashes the lead text pretty badly unless you widen your window considerably. If the infobox is wide to accommodate the large pic, right reason, bad outcome (big pics are good, but the overall effect is cluttered and squashy, right when we need to be smoothly sailing. I guess it's not possible to ditch the infobox and display the pic at the top nicely? Only a pipe-dream. I also don't like the Chinese character box right at the top, but where else would it go ... Tony(talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tony about the layout. Maybe the Chinese character box could be placed at the bottom as a Note, or the talk page or at least adjusted to the same width as the infobox. As for the lead image landscape format would be more efficient, but I guess there is no alternative. --Elekhh (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The width of the infobox is to accommodate the map. I agree with Tony that the Chinese character box right at the top doesn't look good, but also agree that there is no where else to put it. It has to be at the top, to let people know that they might have trouble displaying all the characters if their software doesn't support Chinese characters. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support A worthy article, apart from a few minor prose issues. However I have a couple of observations. — Xandar 19:24, 17 June 2010 — continues after insertion below
The city is referred to throughout the article as Qingdao, which is the modern Pinyin name. However for most of the 19th and 20th century (and in the literature from those periods) the town will have been known as Tsingtao - which is so different from Qingdao as to require some explanation. So can Tsingtao be used early in the lead to avoid confusion.
You've not added this to the lead, which I think is important for identification. I've made an alteration to show you what I mean.
The History section starts with the word, "Following..." I think "After..." would be grammatically better in this context, particularly since the next sentence more properly starts with "Following..."
The subsection "German presence in Qingdao", mentions the Qing government. This isn't wikilinked, and probably should be.
The section "Design and construction" has a couple of unclear sentences: "Commissioned by Bishop Augustin Henninghaus, the cathedral's original architect designed a three-aisled Gothic church, and Father Franz Bartels, SVD [note 1] purchased some land on Qufu Road and began buying building materials." - Clumsy sentence. It could indicate that Bishop Henninghaus was the original architect. Do we not know who he was? Also the Father Bartels bit should be a separate sentence.
"Before the cathedral was started, an SVD mission hall (pictured above) was built on that same parcel of land, in 1902. It was initially used as a school[note 2] in 1922,[9] and was operating as of May 2010." - If it was built in 1902, and initially used as a school, why was it then said that the school use began in 1922? What was it used for between 1902 and 1922?
The section "1949–1976: St. Michael's under Maoist China" does not make it clear what happened to the Cathedral during most of this period. We are told that the Bishop was arrested in 1952 and that the Church was desecrated in the Cultural revolution of 1968. What happened in between? Was the Church open and functioning, or was the Church closed in this period? The section mentions the Diocese being "shuttered", what does this mean? If the Church WAS closed, what did the former parishioners do in this period?Xandar 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. Xandar 19:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dtgriffith's General review findings
Noraft, I have come up with the following:
I capitalized "province" in a few instances of "Shandong Province" where it was lowercase.
Lead, 2nd paragraph - this sentence is a bit confusing: "The cathedral was defaced and abandoned during the Cultural Revolution and repaired in 1981, reopening for services that year." Was the Cultural Revolution also in 1981?
No. That's been fixed, though. Thanks for pointing it out. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest defining the year or approximate era of the cultural revolution. Otherwise, you have a span of thirty years in which it could have happened.dtgriffith (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration - you have a quote containing "cultural revolution" in double quotes, I believe they should be single quotes.
Noraft, I am slowly working my way through the article tonight and Tuesday. I am taking the copy edit and readability POV, as that is where I can make the most useful contributions for this article. dtgriffith (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence beginning with "The Divine Word Missionaries, originally established...." - I find this sentence a little hard to digest at first, bordering on being long with the number of commas, can easily be rearranged or broken into two sentences.dtgriffith (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
German presence in Qingdao, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: You introduce the SVD as "the first German Catholic missionary society." In what context is it the first? First ever? First in China? dtgriffith (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Design and construction, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence beginning with "The Vicariate Apostolic of Southern Shan-tung was renamed..." I suggest breaking into two sentences. Break after "...December 13, 1924". dtgriffith (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, date formats need to be made consistent per MOS, including the use or-non-use of abbreviations for months. Most notable differences come at end of article. dtgriffith (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the remaining edits addressed. This is article is coming together very well from my point-of-view. dtgriffith (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and made comments at the last FAC. I was recently asked to comment on this FAC by both Noraft and Truthkeeper88. While I find this article has improved substantially and is generally well-written, I still have some issues that need to be resolved. These fall into three broad categories: MOS issues (minor), a clarification of when it became a cathedral (unclear in the article), and concerns about comprehensiveness (criterion 1b: "It is (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;"), mainly about not including pertinent details from reliable sources already used in the article.
I have switched to support - there are still a few quibbles left (adding tomb image, adding date for Japanese surrender (August 1945), explaining that Qingdao was the base for the United States Seventh Fleet) but I trust Noraft will resolve those and they are not enough to stop me from supporting. Thanks for all your hard work and for an interesting article. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MOS issues and nitpicks
First paragraph of History section - why is "Unequal Treaties" in quotation marks the first time and not the second? Should be consistent, either way is OK with me.
German presence in Qingdao section - It is unclear from the sentence what is meant by "the area" - assume it means Qingdao or Shandong, but there is no real antecedent In 1891 the Qing government decided to make the area a defense base against naval attack and began to improve the existing fortifications of Qingdao ...
I think the sentence Jiaozhou was romanized as Kiaochow, Kiauchau or Kiao-Chau in English and Kiautschou in German. should immediately follow this sentence German naval officials observed and reported on this Chinese activity during a formal survey of Kiautschou Bay in May 1897. to make it clearer that Kiautschou and Jiaozhou are the same. Perhaps something like German naval officials observed and reported on this Chinese activity during a formal survey of Kiautschou Bay in May 1897. The Bay is now known as Jiaozhou, but originally was romanized as Kiaochow, Kiauchau or Kiao-Chau in English and Kiautschou in German.
I meant to put the explanation earlier in the text - putting it below the hatnote works too (I would be OK with it in either place). Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article has alredy said Qingdao = Tsingtao, is the repetition here needed? On gaining control of the area, the Germans outfitted the impoverished fishing village of "Tsingtao" (Qingdao) with wide streets,... (your call)
Tsingtao is in quotations twice and not once, again should probably be consistent
On second thought I am OK with quotes or not, but I just noticed Qingdao = Tsingtao is in the lead twice (in two consecutive sentences). Again I think once in the lead and once in the body of the article is enough. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Divine Word Missionaries section - should there be a wikilink for Apostolic Vicariate on first use as it is not a term most readers will know?
Design and construction section - unclear sentence The World War I conquest of Qingdao by the Japanese on November 16, 1914 ended construction. Construction of what? The SVD Mission Hall was completed in 1902 (so its concstuction could not be meant), and there is no previous sentence that construction of the cathedral had actually started, just "Before the cathedral was started, ...". A few paragraphs later there is this sentence Construction began in 1931, but was frustrated in 1933,... so this needs to be clarified.
Possible error in this sentence "The Vicariate Apostolic of Southern Shan-tung was renamed Vicariate Apostolic of Yanzhoufu on December 13, 1924, and on February 22, 1925, the Vicariate Prefecture of Qingdao was established from its territory, with Bishop Georg Weig, SVD, appointed prefect on March 18 of that same year." I am not sure what a "Vicariate Prefecture " is and think it should read "on February 22, 1925, the Apostolic Prefecture of Qingdao was established" per the Roman Catholic Diocese of Qingdao article. I would also link Apostolic prefecture here
Would "Bundesarchiv Bild 137-041054" be better in a footnote?
1938–1949: occupation, liberation, and civil war section - this sentence does not seem to follow WP:Logical quotationThat year, the Japanese placed a large sign over the main door of the cathedral that read "Under Management of the Japanese Army."[12] (should be ...that read "Under Management of the Japanese Army".[12])
1949–1976: St. Michael's under Maoist China section - per WP:HEAD the name of the article should not be repeated in headers if at all possible - could this header just be "1949–1976: under Maoist China" or perhaps "1949–1976: Maoist China"?
Could the years for the Cultural Revolution be given? Even though the year for the removal of the crosses is not known, adding the years for the Cultural Revolution at least gives this event some context.
I would wikilink ordinary in The diocese went without an ordinary until the state-run Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association consecrated and appointed Bishop Paul Han Xirang, OFM without papal sanction in 1988.[20] I also wonder if this sentence about an event in 1988 really belongs in a section which the header says is about events from 1949 to 1976? it seems more like it belongs in the Restoration section
Added the wikilink. While the event of Bishop Xirang's consecration happened after 1976, it is common in historical accounts to mark a gap with the event that ended it, even in a section about a prior period. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my preference would be to group things chronologically, but I see your argument about including the ordination here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two images on Commons that seem like they might be added to the article. File:Bishop Georg Weig Tomb.JPG could perhaps go in the Maoist China section (as it shows damage from then) and File:Qingdao 05.JPG could go in the Restoration section as it shows a different (modern) perspective of the cathedral and city
I shot and added File:Bishop Georg Weig Tomb.JPG and will do some work to the image so that it looks more like it belongs in a featured article. Regarding File:Qingdao 05.JPG, there's already a modern perspective shot in the article, and I think File:Qingdao 05.JPG provides an unusual perspective, not commonly shared by visitors or those who live in the neighborhood. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the contrast between the church and the more modern high rise buildings behind it, as well as the harbor and ship. I also thought that maybe the 1902 SVD building is visible to the right of the cathedral. That said, I am OK with the image in or out. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGES says in part not to sandwich text between images, but this is done in the Interior subsection - would {{double image}} work here? Anoither possibility is to allow the images to be thumb size - if they were smaller, this would not be as much of a problem
Tell me if you think that looks okay. I think it looks a bit odd, personally. If you do too, we'll figure something else out. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the width of the second image so that both are the same height (ratios difer slightly). I think it looks better now. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need to be consistent on abbreviations - is it SVD or S.V.D.? Both are used. Or OFM or O.F.M.?
Watch out for vague time expression as these can easily become out of date - for example "today" in The church is active and today more than 10,000 Catholics in Qingdao attend services there.[33] or currently in Note: Oversaw the diocese from Beijing until 2005. Currently lives in Qingdao. (I mentioned this in the last FAC)
References are much better - I would still like to see a ref for The other tomb contains part of the ashes of Bishop of Qingdao Paul Han Xirang, OFM, the rest having been buried in his hometown, Han Village, Yucheng County, Shandong Province. and the two notes in the Ordinaries section
There is now a reference for Bishop Han's tomb and location, but the reference for the fact that his ashes are split between the cathedral and his hometown would be the grave marker in his hometown, and I haven't been there and seen it (nor know if it exists). If you challenge, I will remove it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, struck now, thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a brief explanation of what an ordinary is in general and relevant specifics would serve as a nice introduction to the Ordinaries section
Can you show me an example of that in any other cathedral featured article? I ask because I don't think it is necessary. Readers can click the wikilink if they want to learn more about ordinaries. This section should be a list, in my opinion, nothing more. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the FAs listed in Category:FA-Class Catholicism articles. There iare no cathedrals there - Cathedral of Magdeburg is a former FA, but was delisted in 2008 and has no listing of Ordinaries. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami is a FA And does have a list of bishops under the heading "Leadership". The section has a one-sentence introduction Below is a list of individuals who have led the Archdiocese of Miami since its founding. I think some sort of introductory sentence (at the least) would help here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 is currently for example, chinaculture.org [1] and many travel websites (e.g. AsiaHotels [2] and Synotrip [3]) I would prefer something like For example, chinaculture.org and many travel websites (e.g. AsiaHotels and Synotrip). I did not see any mention of the words Emil or church on the Synotrip site - is it still there?
When did it become a cathedral?
I think the article needs to be clearer on when the church became a cathedral - my understanding (quoting from the Cathedral article here) is that The church of a diocesan bishop is known as a "cathedral". — Ruhrfisch — continues after insertion below
The church of a diocesan bishop is known as a cathedral, but not ONLY churches of diocesan bishops are known as cathedrals. So the article is right, but that statement is misleading: all churches of diocesan bishops are cathedrals, but not all cathedrals are churches of diocesan bishops. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then this became a cathedral on April 11, 1946 when the Diocese of Qingdao was created. I also note the Bundesarchiv photo caption uses Kirche (church) and not Dom or other German terms for a cathedral. I asked someone I know who has a Masters in Theology from a Jesuit university if the main church of an Apostolic Vicariate or Prefecture was a cathedral and she did not know either, so if it has been a cathedral from day one - say so. In fact if having an ordinary makes a cathedral, then what was the church before this one was built (since the article says there have been bishops in Qingdao since 1925)? — Ruhrfisch — continues after insertion below
Tell your associate that the Vicar Apostolic of Qingdao was a titular bishop (consecrated Titular Bishop of Antandrus on the same date as appointment as Vicar Apostolic). That might give him/her the information necessary to make a determination. I don't have any sources that state it wasn't a cathedral, and lots that state it was...however this doesn't mean they are right, and canon law will say for sure. I know a priest who has a doctorate in canon law, and will see about asking him as well. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the information I was looking for, in the c.134 §§1–2 Code of Canon Law. Bishops heading Apostolic Prefectures and Vicariates are ordinaries. This means it was a cathedral the day it was consecrated. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great find (and I am glad you understand it all ;-) ) Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also note the photo of Bishop Weig's tomb refers to him as first bishop (if my redimentary Latin is still working) but I did not see any reference to cathedra just ecclesiam. So was there a church that was the cathedral (bishop's seat) before this one, or did it become the first cathedral at its dedication, or was it made a cathedral later?OK, I am saving this for now and will add the other part soon, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far as I know, it became the first cathedral at its dedication, but we'll continue to research the issue... ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you will resolve this and correct or clarify if / as needed. I am way over my head trying to figure out if was cathedral from day one or not, and suspect I may be committing the dreaded WP:OR. I did look at the webpage for the Apostolic Vicariate of Alexandria of Egypt on GCatholic.com. It lists a minor basilica, but does not designate it as a cathedral - see here where it does note a cathedral in Egypt. Of course even if the rules today are clarified, they could well have been different in 1934. Since all of your sources say it was a cathedral from day one, lets keep it there for now. Please do check with the cacnon law expert priest you know and go from there. This point is not worth holding up the FAC over. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness concerns from the previous FAC
First off here are items from my comments in the previous FAC that do not appear to have been addressed yet, quoted verbatim, with correction in square brackets []
The German concession ended in 1914 - what were the Germans still doing in Qingdao to build a cathedral in the early 1930s?
Your question seems to be based on the assumption that when a state loses a claim to territory, all the nationals from said state leave. There were Germans in Qingdao after after the concession ended for the same reason there were British in Hong Kong and Singapore after their claims ended...the sociopolitical environment was tenable for expatriate residency. I don't have a specific source for this, as it is so commonplace as not to be noteworthy. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have struck this, but still wonder if some brief explanatory phrase or sentence (the city remained home to many German expatriates China until the Communists took power in 1949) might be useful here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the Japanese conquest of the city in 1914 is mentioned, it would help provide context to the reader to mention that this was part of World War I, and that this effectivley ended the German concession - see WP:PCR
This could be a sentence with a link to Anglo-Japanese Alliance and/or Siege of Tsingtao. WWII makes me think if the Japanese attacks part of China it is against the Chinese, not against the Germans. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you quoted the World War I reference in an above comment. Under design and construction, it says: "The World War I conquest of Qingdao by the Japanese on November 16, 1914 put an end to the cathedral plans." The link to the Siege of Tsingtao is there. The Chinese canceled the concession a month or two before the invasion, IIRC. Will find a source and add that. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed that, struck and thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did the Japanese occupation during WWII end?
Even a sentence / mention of the end of WWII in China or Shandong would be better than nothing Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 20 year gap from the Marin[e] Band on the steps (1946) to the Cultural Revolution starting (1966)
The 1951 imprisonment and 1953 deportation of the ordinary is in the article, so not a 20 year gap. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the congregation during the Cultural Revolution?
No information available. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think that some general information on churches in the Cultural Revolution would be useful (though specifics would be even better).
Good idea. I will look. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only stuff I'm coming up with is the Three Self Movement, nothing specific. You want some info on that? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is Protestant, it seems less useful here than Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association which is already linked in the article. My thought was more that you mentioned worshipping could get you killed above - do you have refs for something like that? Just a sentence or two on worship being driven underground and the punishments faced in general seems like it would help here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Ordinaries section is very bare bones - can more details be added about the individual bishops or what they did?
I don't think that's appropriate. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think information on ordinaries should occur in the history narrative, and does to some extent. The ordinaries not mentioned are the ones that little to no information is available on...with the exception of the current ordinary. He's been in the diocese since 1994, and spent time in jail during the Cultural Revolution, and I could probably say more about that. Will add more about him. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with putting it in the history section - specific examples of what the bishops had to suffer help illustrate the challenges faced by all believers (see above). Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The function of the building is important too - the fact that the Chinese government paid for the restoration is mentioned in one of the Chinese sources. More could be said about the power struggles between the Vatican and Beijing - based just on the what is in the article arleady, a careful reader can learn that the cathedral reopened in 1981, but without a papal mandate for the bishop, then there is an eight year gap with no bishop, then the current bishop is appointed in 2000 but does not arrive in town until 2005 - this should all be explained in more detail.
Which source? I looked and didn't find it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about the Cultural Revolution in that article. I have added that the government financed the renovation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be unclear - my point is that there are seven sentences on the repudiation of the Cultural Revolution in the Restoration section before its effect on the cathedral is mentioned in two sentences. I like that and do not have a problem with it, but I think that, in a similar fashion, some details on what happened to Christians in general under Mao could be added. I also think that some more details on the Vatican vs Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association struggle could be added (why was the first post-Mao bishop not Vatican approved, why was there an 8 year gap between the current bishop and his predecessor?). The material would not have to be as long as the 7 sentences, and it would not be specific to just this cathedral, but it would be useful background / context. It seems to me I keep saying this in different ways and I not sure how else I can say it to make it clear. Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New comprehensiveness concerns (stuff that should be in the article but is not)
Noraft found a new source on Bialucha - this is a machine translation of a German article from www.tsingtau.org (which is used elsewhere in the article). It includes both the start date of construction (May 8, 1931) and the dedication of the building (October 29, 1934) which should definitely be in the article. I think at least some of the Bialucha material should be in the article, not just in the Infobox.
I was WP:BOLD and added this material. Feel free to tweak it. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 8 in the article has the area (2470 square meters)
Current ref 12 (Google translation) refers to Weig's tomb and its location, which needs a ref in the article now.
The reference already sources that Weig is entombed there and only vaguely gives the location of Weig's tomb ("west"). He's in northwest arm of the transept (which runs NW-SE). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured a vague ref was better than none. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I can't say "It's west" (west what?) and I can't use the source to say where it is. Suggestions? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is no source at all - this at least says that Weig's tomb is in the cathedral, which is better than any other source for the tomb being there. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean there is no source at all? Footnote 12. First paragraph of Design and construction: "...built during the tenure of Bishop Weig, who is entombed in the cathedral.[12]" Am I misunderstanding something? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be unclear and sorry to have missed the other use of this ref for the tomb - I was referring to this part of the Interior section which currently has no ref: "It also contains two tombs. One is of the first Vicar Apostolic of the Vicariate Apostolic of Qingdao, Bishop Georg Weig, SVD who supervised the construction of the cathedral." It might work to recast the paragraph this is in. Start with "The cathedral contains the remains of two bishops..." and put the Weig tomb information there with this ref, then the other tomb (that also has no refr, mentioned before). Then the start of the paragraph about these being in the north transept and describing what else is there could end the paragraph. As long as there is a ref that the tomb is there and the photograph which identifies it (since a signboard is a RS, surely a tomb inscription is too), I am OK with not having a direct ref for what corner of the transept it is in. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current Ref 14 gives month and year for the Kuomintang Government reasserting control of Qingdao after WWII
Current ref 16 explains why a US Marine Band was on the steps of the cathedral - it was the base for the "Western Pacific Fleet of the US Navy"
Current ref 21 (Google translation) mentions Italian Rennasiance decorations and seven chandeliers inside
I'll add the chandeliers, because I've seen them. I am suspicious of the description of the decorations being "Italian Renaissance." ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the poor quality of the translation, I am fine with that. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 30 gives more on the stained glass and gives the number of pipes in the organ destroyed by the Red Guard and the fact that it was one of the two largest pipe organs in Asia before it was destroyed.
added the pipe organ info. Did not include the stained glass info. That that was before the defacement (almost all stained glass was destroyed and replaced with regular glass that was painted over: it looks like crap) and I don't have a "before and after" section. If I did, there wouldn't be much to say in the "before" section. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be some sentence with something like "Although the cathedreal orignally had stained glass windows,[ref to this] after the 1982 restoration it does not / has only painted glass / something like this? Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a source for the modern glass... ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 36 (Google translation) gives more details on the current bishop, how his ordination was approved by the Vatican, and his life story as a Catholic in CHina (imprisonment, etc)
That tells me we should write an article on him. I don't know how much of that is applicable to the article on the cathedral. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I think if details on the congregation under Mao are not available, brief mentions of the current bishop's time in prison could be used here - the attentive reader will likely draw the conclusion that it was not easy to be a professing Catholic in Mao's China. Again the fact that his predeccessor was not Vatican approved but he was (and the 8 year(?) gap between them) seems to me to be worth including to help the reader understand some of the issues - China restores and reopens the cathedral, appoints its first bishop in decades but the Vatican does not approve, fast forward a few decades and the next bishop is not controversial. There's a story there that helps understand the cathedral's role in society and vice versa. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the details of Li Mingshu's life to the Under Mao and Restoration sections. There is no explanation as to why there is an 8 year gap, but this is common among all the dioceses of China (I don't have a source for that either, it is just an observation). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So my concern is that looking at just the internet refs, in most cases I was able to find things that could be added to the article, in some cases very major things like the dates of consecration andstart of construction. I have tried to point out every place I thought the article needed work - hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS XS is not linked and I am not sure which order it is - probably not this one sometimes known as "XS"Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean SX? They are the Xaverian Missionary Fathers. No article about them on Wikipedia that I can tell, from a very quick search. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noraft, forgive me, I don't usually strike through issues that have been resolved when I support. Support, I guess, means I take it on trust that the points will be accepted or rejected with your good judgement, as they have been. Thank you. Just one point: I'd link "cruciform"—seems to be a reasonable link-target, and it's kind of technical. I searched for "Jäger & Brommer", the organ building company, and not even WP.de has an article. Oh well. Tony(talk) 08:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes make it much easier to scroll through 9,000 words of text (which is how long this review is now) and quickly find what issues have not yet been addressed, so I encourage you to consider adopting the practice, especially on reviews that Ruhrfisch comments on! lol. I will link cruciform; thanks for catching that. And thanks for the review. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you get for asking me to comment on the FAC ;-) Thanks for all the replies and edits in response to my points. I believe I have struck everything and even if I have not I have meant to. I am done here, Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images; has anyone reviewed images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at them now, and have already found one problem: File:St. Michaels Cathedral 1935.png appears to be a derivative of a file that is sourced to a non-free image posted here. — Visionholder — continues after insertion below
The Bundesarchiv donated thousands of photographs to Wikimedia Commons, and this was one of them. Why do you think the image is non-free? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visionholder, I am also unclear how this is not free as it was donated to Commons by the Bundesarchiv (which still shows it on its web page). Could you be more specific please? Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I missed the obvious: the permissions linking here. I went straight the source, which said: "For free: Nein". My mistake. I often look past the Commons permissions to make sure the source agrees with the claims on Commons. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure how the copyrights work for File:Qingdao Catholic Mission.jpg given that it's a scan of a photo from 1902, yet the source is not listed. The rest appear to be photos taken by User:Noraft, and appear to have a valid license. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a scan. It is a rephotograph that I took. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noraft, I think what is needed is ideintification of the source you photographed. Was it a book or a postcard or what? Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a framed photograph hanging on the wall of the church office. Will add a note to this effect to the image. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things look fine to me. I'm not an expert on image licenses, particularly with old photos, but to my novice eyes, things look good now. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with this; we need either Jappalang, Stifle, Elcobbola, or another experienced image person to take a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: please ask User:Dabomb87 to run the script to remove empty parameters from the cite templates-- they clutter the article. What is Note 4? It's mentioned directly in the text, but the note could include more info about how to find that. I'm not comfortable with the note used as a tophat in the "German presence in Qingdao" section: can that be incorporated as a more traditional note? We don't usually put notes in sections like that. Shouldn't the Pieta be in WP:ITALICS (The north transept contains three large murals featuring Jesus Christ[38]: Jesus washing St. Peter's feet, the Sacred Heart, and the Pieta.)? Where is the close quote here? and "after several years of repair, [the cathedral] was re-opened in April 1981[33] for religious services. In May 1999 the church was opened to the general public, allowing entry when mass or other services are not being celebrated. Some year ranges are xxxx–xxxx, while most are xxxx–xx; please make consistent. The first six citations include three different styles of dates: please make consistent with date style used in article:
5.^ a b Limbrock, E. (1909). "Society of the Divine Word in the Catholic Encyclopedia". www.newadvent.org. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054a.htm. Retrieved March 8, 2010.
Support. Good organization, thorough info. Nice work on the research! I'm a little nervous about the one-paragraph sections at the start; any chance we could combine "German presence in Qingdao" and "Divine Word Missionaries"? I also feel that the abundance of images — while lovely to look at — make the text feel cramped and tight. Maybe drop one or two to help the article breathe? The prose is generally solid, although there seems to be a reliance on passive voice structures starting with "The". (For example: "The Chinese government's condemnation of the Cultural Revolution culminated in..." and "The change in prevailing political views was favorable...".) I'd like to see the sentence structures more varied, but it's not a deal-breaker. Scartol • Tok 13:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox template code provides a map_type= parameter that is interacted with by the geo coordinates parameters to place a dot on it. When you specify map_type=China, that is the map it serves. I decided to avail myself of the infobox map capabilities after a suggestion was made to have a map showing where in China the Cathedral was located, for readers unfamiliar with the area. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the file currently in the template for your suggested file. Hope people watching the 700+ pages it affects don't lynch me! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I did a bad here... I checked further: the template was intended for geometrically projected maps, and I recommended a conic equidistant projection. This templates seem to be a trap at times. Regardless, I made a map (verifiably in the public domain and accurate) for the template so this is resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Qingdao Catholic Mission.jpg: something seems a bit weird here; the article's caption calls this structure "Society of the Divine Word Mission Hall in 1902"; the caption in the photo says "Qingdao Steyl Mission (Society of the Divine Word Mission) Catholic Church (or Cathedral even), completed 1902", making it seem that the structure is the article's subject (instead of a different structure). Websites call it "斯泰尔修会圣言会会馆" ("The residence of the Steyler Missionary Society").[19][20][21] The article is also using a Chinese government source that uses the referred Chinese form; the reference does not give an English name, so am I correct to presume that "Mission Hall" is a translation and not the official/common name? From the above, is there some mix up here? Is the subject a Hall (会堂), Church/Cathedral (教堂), or residence of an organization (会馆)? It might help to clarify the situation in the Description parameter on the image page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs) 12:40, June 22, 2010
Good questions. I shot that rephotograph, so maybe I can answer some questions for you about it. Yes, Mission Hall is a translation, and is one of the common English names, the other being mission house (the Germans use missionsstation, which would be "mission station" in English, which is nonstandard, so most people would translate it to "mission hall" or "mission house.") Be advised that the Chinese name is itself a translation from German, which is the source language. The subject (of the photograph) is a large multi-use building that served as a hall, a church, and the residence of the SVD. It was their mission headquarters. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I am not certain as well that the photo is of 1902 (I am also presuming here that the date claimed for the photo was lifted from its caption); the date as stated in the caption is of completion (落成) and neither of the photo's publication nor creation. Compare that to the Chinese government source whose photo's caption explicitly claims the date of creation ("The residence of the Steyler Missionary Society in 1902"); We can use the photo on the government site if we are uncertain of the publishing/creation of this uploaded photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs) 12:40, June 22, 2010
Was told by the priests that the photo was taken right after the building was completed in 1902, but I don't have proof. Guess maybe I should have asked to remove it from the frame and flipped it over to see if something was written on the back. Too late...there's an ocean between me and that photo now. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... you can state in the image description what you have written here (it would be kind of improper if someone else writes it there); i.e. "the priests at St. Michael's Cathedral said this photo was taken in right after the building was completed in 1902; the building served several purposes, including hall, church and residence of the mission." or something to that effect. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than these two, the other images are fine (I have placed a freedom of panorama template on File:Han Xirang Tombstone.jpg just in case the text can be copyrighted; luckily, China allows FoP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs) 12:40, June 22, 2010
As Jappalang has been gone since leaving these comments, and therefore unable to reply to mine, I have removed the second image to expedite the closing of this FAC. When Jappalang gets back, with his recommendation we'll either put the image back, or we'll replace it with the other one he mentioned. As of now we have all editors unanimously supporting, so I hope we can pass this FAC. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sig on the above commentary-- will someone pls fix !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was in kind of a rush previously. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Rockpocket 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because FAs on proteins are extremely under-represented (in fact I think Exosome complex may be the only other one). I am the sole significant contributor, and wrote and researched the article from scratch for this purpose. As far as I am aware it meets all current FA criteria and I think (hope!) that it is sufficiently well written to be accessible to a layperson. I look forward to your constructive criticism. Thanks for your consideration. Rockpocket 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dab links or broken external links. Esuzu(talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: All sources look good, immaculately presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why the publication date for reference 17 is not in parentheses, while the dates for all the other references are in parentheses? Generally it is best to have the sources be as consistent as possible. Other than that, article looks great. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its a consequence of a quick of the template. If the news citation has an author, then the date placed in parentheses before the title. If there is no author, then the date gets placed after the title, but without parentheses. Unfortunately, BBC News does not give authors on their website. In an attempt to maintain consistency, I have now added parentheses manually. Rockpocket 08:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport: This article is an interesting read and seems quite comprehensive. As you note, articles on proteins (and, unfortunately in the past year or two, molecular and cellular biology generally) rarely appear at FAC. Kudos for bringing this article so far! A few comments:
Per guideline, the number of references in the lead should be pared down to few or none.
The first paragraph of the lead is slightly too technical -- I can imagine the layperson quickly bouncing because of intimidating terms and dense jargony phrases. An appositive near gene cluster would help. The last sentence of the lead should be shifted down a gear for the layperson.
More broadly, I feel like the article would be a bit too laborious for the layperson to read through. Finding the best balance between thoroughness and accessibility is difficult, but after reading this article I think greater weight should be given to accessibility. Although I don't think we necessarily need to aim for a 9th-grade Flesch-Kincaid reading level on article with this granular specificity, I do think that technically dense sentences should be filled in more liberally with appositives and other ways of diluting jargon. Here are some specific examples that could be addressed:
"Since they were named, the proteins have been found to be differentially expressed in other exocrine tissues, including lachrimal, parotid, submaxillary, sublingual, preputial and mammary glands."
"these duplications occurred very recently in mouse evolution and may still be occurring through recombination of endogenous retrovirus elements."
"Rat Mups also bind limonene-1,2-epoxide, resulting in a hyaline droplet nephropathy that progresses to renal cancer."
References should appear only after punctuation.
The article mentions there are several dozen known major urinary proteins. Scanning through, I see only one, Fel d 1, with an article on it. Are none of the others notable enough to warrant their own articles?
I'm of the opinion that captions of images of proteins should contain some identifier of the protein, e.g. its PDB or HUGO (or in this case, perhaps MGI?) ID.
Captions that are complete sentences should end with periods; those which aren't shouldn't.
Should "The Mups in C57BL/6J mouse urine by gel electrophoresis" read something more like "The Mups in C57BL/6J mouse urine analyzed by gel electrophoresis"?
I'll add any additional concerns as they come to me. Emw (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are all very helpful criticisms, thank you. I'll do my best to address them throughout the day. Rockpocket 07:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have been able to address these concerns:
I have removed all the references from the lead and ensured all content is sourced (and linked) at the appropriate place in the main text.
I have tried to systematically replace all technical language in the lead with simpler terms. Where technical terms are still present, I have employed appositives. I agree about the final sentence - I've softened and simplified it considerably.
I have gone through the article section by section and tried to remove unnecessary jargon. I feel the main text should be a little more detailed, which makes some technical terms difficult to avoid, but I can see it was certainly excessive before (particularly in the examples you highlighted).
All references should now be after punctuation only.
I'd given this a bit of thought myself. My original intention was to write content on each Mup individually. However, when reasearching it it became obvious this was going to be very challenging. The main reason is because until very recently the genetic basis of Mup coding was not known. Therefore, while there is a lot of literature on Mups stretching back ~50 years, its difficult to pin down which Mup the authors are referring to (indeed, for a long time the singlular "MUP" was used to refer to any and all of them). It is possible now to go back and deduce which is which based on sequence analysis but that involves a significant amount of WP:OR, and even then it isn't always clear because they are so similar to each other (in some cases they differ only at a single base pair!). Also, for the same reason, the nomeclature of Mups is all over the place in the literature and database. MUP1, Mup1 and MUPI all actually refer to different proteins. You'll notice, if you read the article carefully, I've tried to keep anway from naming rodent Mups as much as possible. Its for these reasons that I decided the best way to document them is to do so collectively. As more literature becomes available and one nomenclature becomes standard, I think it is possible that individual Mups will be sufficiently notable to have their own articles (Darcin seems the most obvious candidate, but at the moment it is unclear whether that name will be accepted by the community). The exception to this is perhaps Fel d 4 - mainly because it has a fair amount of information about its allergenic properties available, and it is a single Mup in that species. I've currently redirected that to this article, but when I have a spare moment, I'll write a specific article and make sure it is appropriately linked.
I've included PDB identifiers. MGI would be better, ideally, but that would require significant amount of OR to map the structure (which was resolved before the genes were identified) to the correct gene.
I think I have resolved the punctuation of captions, let me know if I've misunderstood your concern.
Yes, I've replaced that caption with your suggestion.
Thanks for reading it so thoroughly, Emw. Your suggestions have been most helpful. Rockpocket 12:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your fixes have addressed my concerns. I think the article is now much more accessible, yet still deep enough in coverage for someone with background in molecular biology to come away informed. Very well done, and please keep up the great work! Emw (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. All but one of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm sure that will be rectified at some point.
Comment—It is a good article and I enjoyed the read, but I think it has a few problems. I've tried to correct them where I could, but several remain:
The lead does not summarize the Discovery section.
The article left me with a pair of unanswered questions that I would like it to explain, if possible:
Why have only humans (among plancental mammals) evolved not to encode for these proteins? Is it because of our poor olfactory sense?
Why have these proteins become allergens to humans? It doesn't seem like a useful trait.
There is some unnecessary vagueness:
"Humans in good health excrete urine that is largely free of protein, therefore physicians and scientists have long been interested in proteinuria, the excess of protein in human urine, as an indicator of kidney disease." How long has this been known and studied?
"Soon after their discovery in rodents..." How soon? Should we go by the date on the earliest cited paper: 1979?
The last section begins, "While the detection of excreted Mups by other individuals...". The remainder of the section talks about mice, but those have already been discussed. What is meant by "other individuals"?
Please fix the reference genome red link so the reader has a place to look it up.
Please wikilink the term "sequential duplications" to an explanation.
There are a pair of grammar issues in the sentences that begin "One unusual Mup..." and "Other Mups were tested...". Please address them.
Minor point of style: the article switches between spaced em-dashes and spaced en-dashes. This is covered in the MoS. Please make them consistent. Em-dashes should not be spaced, per the MoS.
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RJHall. Thanks for your edits and comments. I hope I have addressed them to your satisfaction
I have now added a sentence to the lead about their discovery.
Yes, those are interesting questions. Unfortunately, in the case of your first question, the answer is simply not known. The human pseudogene was only characterized relatively recently and since then its function (or lack thereof) has not even been speculated on in the literature. So it is difficult to add hypotheses to the article without engaging in OR. From my own research, I would propose that it is likely that they were lost in humans because we lack a functioning organ to detect them. It appears that the loss of lots of pheromone detection genes in humans co-incided with the evolution of trichomatic color vision. If that is the case, it makes one wonder what the endogenous function is. I'm beginning to think there is no endogenous function and the whole point of them is that they serve as signals. With regards to your second question, I have cited the one published paper that speculates on this. The suggestion is that molecular mimicry is at play.
I have addressed the first two with specific dates. The latter was ambiguous and I've clarified what I meant.
I have written a stub on reference genomes, I'll expand that when I have some time.
I have linked it to a section on evolution by duplication.
Grammar fixed, hopefully.
Amazing. I've been editing WP for almost five years and only now do I learn that there are different dashes!? Thanks for letting me know, I've replaced them all with em-dashes, no space.
Unfortunately the {{mdash}} template does introduce spaces. You can see the nbsp and the extra space in the template source. The em-dash policy is given at MOS:EMDASH, if you would like to check it.
I should have paid more attention to the template. As far as I can tell, the nbsp seems to leave a trailing space too. I think I have resolved it by using the em-dash in the symbol bar, sans spaces, but I could be wrong. Rockpocket 10:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A well-written, comprehensive article on a specialized topic. Obviously very well-researched. An excellent article. ceranthor 02:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first paragraph of the lead states: "Mup proteins form a characteristic baseball glove shape". However I didn't see a reference in the article for this description of the shape. Axl¤[Talk] 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, you are correct. I have a source that describes a lipocalin as "baseball-glove" shaped (thought not a Mup specifically), but most simply use the term "glove" (probably because they are not North American!) I'll use the less specific term in the lead, and add the correct source in the text, by "Consequently, they form a characteristic glove shape, encompassing a cup-like pocket that binds small organic chemicals with high affinity"Rockpocket 09:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Axl¤[Talk] 10:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article is excellent. Rockpocket has done particularly well to make the highly technical information as accessible as possible. Axl¤[Talk] 10:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Engaging, comprehensive, beautifully written and illustrated, the article satisfies all the criteria IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images; have images been reviewed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Sandy, all the scientific images have appropriate licences and attribution. The ones from Genome Biology are free to use under Creative Commons (Attribution 2.0 Generic). The old (1895) cartoon is in the public domain because first publication occurred before January 1, 1923. Graham Colm (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pithole was short-lived oil boomtown that lived fast and died young. A city like Pithole you'd expect to have been located in Old West, rather than the woods of Pennsylvania. It sprung up in 1865 and was mostly deserted over a year later. The article is modeled loosely on the FA Rhyolite, Nevada and I believe it now meets the FAC criteria. Dincher and Ruhrfisch both provided thorough and helpful peer review comments. Plazak provided the lead image (which got me to thinking of expanding the article). Thanks in advance for any feedback... NiagaraDon't give up the ship 01:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by anoddname—prose looks good and probably meets 1a.
No dab links or dead externals (one link turns up green in the link checky but works fine). Yay.
Dates are consistent Month Day, Year throughout. Double Yay.
Not liking the space between refs and statements in the infobox. Looks like a template quirk (removing spaces between ref tags and equals signs doesn't fix them).
Ref 18 says "1 = 5 chains." Is there a missing unit on the left side, or is the 1 just an absolute grid/tick span thing?
Not sure how I missed that; original map says "five chains to 1 inch". NiagaraDon't give up the ship 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that last external link. There's some apparent warm and nostalgic comments by the copyright holder there, but I still sense a trap. I might just be oversensitive.
Naming: "...with some measuring 14 inches (36 cm) wide and 8 feet (2.4 m) long. Another possible explanation involves the discovery of ancient pits dug by early settlers, some 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and 12 feet (3.7 m) deep..."—I don't like the repeated 8 feet conversion so close to the first. It's not too bad—could be worse, I suppose.
"The teamsters were notorious for mistreatment of their horses, most of which lost their hair due to a buildup of oil and only had a lifespan of a few months in Pithole."—ouch! Poor horsies :,(
"Samuel Van Sykle, an oil buyer also frustrated with the teamsters, designed the world's first pipeline"—might want to reconcile para 1 of the Pipeline transport article's body, which suggests there is "some argument" about that (but looks uncited there).
The source I used only mentions Van Sykle, but that is no different than the many history books that say the Wright brothers flew the first heaver-than-air craft, which also is disputed by some. If I find a decent source, I'll see about fixing that. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visitors center: "forced the cancellation of festival and the visitors center to remain closed for much of the 2010 summer"—"the festival"?
I'm thinking of dropping that sentence, as it will eventually become dated. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance, the rest looks good or plausible overall. Feels like the Halkett boat, but in town form and abandoned to a more disastrous doom. You win some, you burn some. --anoddname 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking dabs and dead links. I felt Pithole was interesting enough to spend time and effort on it. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
Some online sources are listed as "Sources" while others, e.g. Hirschl, Love, Hahn etc are not. Is there a rationale?
I used WP:CITESHORT where different pages were cited, but some of the sources are only on 1 page and it seemed unhelpful to make the reader look in two different when there wasn't a reason to. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this because it seems to me that if an article has a list headed "Sources", the reader will naturally expect this to be a list of all the sources, not just some of them. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would using "Notes" and "References" as section headings instead of "References" and "Sources" work better? I've usually done that, except when I needed the "Notes" heading for actual footnotes in a previous FA. I think I may have done the same thing here, but decided against the footnote and never changed the headings back. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 23:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Darrach book has a location (Gettysburg) but not a publisher.
Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this as noted, and made a few copyedits to it. I felt it met the FAC criteria at the end of the peer review and am glad to support. I note the following quibbles which I missed in the PR, which do not detract from my support.
This sentence does not seem to follow WP:Logical quotationAnother possible explanation involves the discovery of ancient pits dug by early settlers, some 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and 12 feet (3.7 m) deep, that were "cribbed with heavy timbers impregnated with petroleum."[7] - the period should follow the terminal quotation mark, I believe.
OK, SandyGeorgia generally checks this anyway. Ruhrfisch><>°° 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tighten (remove first "century")? "pit-holes", found along Oil Creek and in Cornplanter Township, supposedly predate the Senecas who inhabited the area from the mid-17th century to the late-18th century.[8]
Tighten (remove second "sometimes") The presence of folds in the caprock called anticlines, or sometimes an inversion of an anticline called a syncline, greatly varies the depth that the reservoir would form, sometimes from around 4,000 feet (1,200 m) to just beneath the surface.[9][10]
Clarify which streets in All five [north-south?] streets terminated at First Street; Mason started at Third, Prather and Brown started at Fourth. Duncan and Holmden Streets both began at a Y-intersection with the road from Titusville. "All five cross-streets" might also work here
In the History section the Iroquois are mentioned, but not the Seneca. Since the Seneca were a member of the 5 or 6 Nations of the Iroquois, I would mention them here somehow. Perhaps something like On October 23, 1784, the Iroquois[, including the Seneca,] ceded the land to Pennsylvania in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix.[24] May make more sense to mention them in the previous sentence about the Erie and the Iroquois.
Barrels and tanks are unclear in the original - suggest something like this instead? Along with the pipeline, another innovation developed in Pithole was the railroad tank car, which was essentially two wooden tanks, each with a capacity of 80 barrels, mounted onto a flatcar.[41]
Unclear sentence - what do the wells have to do with falling population? By December 1866, 27 wells brought the population down even further to just 2,000 people.
Part of the orginal article that, somehow, got cut up. Took care of it. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the 2010 partial closure in - it is notable.
OK, I have struck everything that needed attention above - well done and thanks again for an interesting and enjoyable read. Ruhrfisch><>°° 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my concerns were taken care of at PR. Well done and interesting. Dincher (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Finetooth. Interesting article about an unusual place. I made a few copyedits, and here is a fairly short list of concerns:
Lead
"site of the first commercial oil well" - I'd alter this to say "site of the world's first commercial oil well".
"cribbed with heavy timbers impregnated with petroleum." - Words inside direct quotes should not be linked. Since "cribbed" needs explaining, you might paraphrase and link. Suggestion: cribbed with oil-soaked timbers.
"Over time, the oil migrates to the surface eventually become trapped beneath an impervious layer of rock called a caprock, forming a reservoir." - Maybe "Over time, the oil migrated toward the surface, became trapped beneath an impervious layer of caprock, and formed a reservoir."
"The average 44 inches (1,100 mm) of precipitation a year, would wreak havoc on the many unpaved streets in Pithole, especially with heavily traveled First and Holmden Streets." - Could be tightened to: "The average 44 inches (1,100 mm) of precipitation a year wreaked havoc on Pithole's many unpaved streets, especially the heavily traveled First and Holmden."
"A second railroad was planned and partially constructed, but was never completed; other attempts were made, but never made it out the planning stages." - Missing word "of"? Also, it's not entirely clear what "other attempts" refers to. Would this be more clear: "A second railroad was partly built but never finished, and plans for other railroads never led to construction"?
"In March 1866, a chain of banks throughout the oil region owned by Charles Vernon Culver, a financier and member of United States House of Representatives for Pennsylvania's 20th congressional district, collapsed, triggering a financial panic." - This might be misunderstood to mean that Culver owned the oil region. Suggestion: "In March 1866, a chain of banks owned by Charles Vernon Culver, a financier and member of United States House of Representatives for Pennsylvania's 20th congressional district, collapsed. This triggered a financial panic throughout the oil region."
Changed. I tweaked the last sentence to get it to flow it better with the next one. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The worst fire occurred on August 2, burning down several city blocks and destroying 27 wells." - Maybe "A worse" rather than "the worst". Or were there more than two fires?
I took liberties and changed the sentence to read, "The worst of multiple fires occurred on August 2... ". Feel free to discuss or alter again if you don't agree. Finetooth (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"With numerous oil strikes elsewhere in Venango County in 1867 and Pithole's hastily constructed wooden buildings falling victim to fire, people were drawn away from Pithole, often taking their buildings with them or just abandoning their property." - Non-parallel construction. Suggestion: "When many oil strikes occurred elsewhere in Venango County in 1867, people left Pithole, often taking their houses with them or abandoning their property." Since you've explained the fires of 1866 in the preceding paragraph, you probably don't need to repeat it in this sentence.
Changed. Tweaked it to include "places of business" as well, as it wasn't just houses that were moved. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Budget cuts, renovations at the Drake Well Museum and bridge construction on Pithole Road between Pithole and Pennsylvania Route 227, however, forced the cancellation of the festival and the visitors center to remain closed for much of the 2010 summer." - Non-parallel construction. Suggestion: "Budget cuts, renovations at the Drake Well Museum, and bridge construction on Pithole Road between Pithole and Pennsylvania Route 227, however, forced cancellation of the festival, and the visitors center was closed for much of the 2010 summer."
Changed. Tweaked it a bit, as parts of it didn't sound right to me. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem with the sentence seems to be that the festival is in the past, but the closure is indefinite and mostly in the future. Maybe something like this would work: "However, budget cuts, renovations at the Drake Well Museum, and bridge construction on Pithole Road between Pithole and Pennsylvania Route 227 forced the cancellation of the festival in 2010, and the visitor center is expected to be closed for much of the summer."
Ideally, it should be worded such that I won't have to come back in the fall (when the construction is completed) and flip it from present / future to past tense. If such a thing is impossible, then I'm fine with the wording you propose. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 14:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any alternative to updating every article in the encyclopedia at unpredictable intervals, but this morning my nitpick about this particular sentence seems a little too nitpicky. Let's call it a draw. I'm striking this last one. Finetooth (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also
On my computer screen, the portals box overlaps a section boundary. It should be moved down to fit inside the "See also" section.
Thanks. I've made some changes where it didn't sound quite right to me, so a second look might be needed. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. I've taken a second look, and I'm striking all but one of my concerns and changing to support. Excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images; have images been reviewed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All look OK to me. The lead image is "own photo". The two maps are derivatives from USGS base maps. The stereo card and Holmden Street images are pre-1923. The Methodist church and visitors center are Flikr licensed as 2.0 generic. Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wrt criterion 1a. Some of the prose is quite poetic: strange fissures from which sulfurous fumes wafted —I love the alliteration :-) Graham Colm (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA criteria. I have covered what I have found regarding this species, including recent events. If I've missed anything, please let me know and I'll quickly update the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—no dab links, no dead external links, images look good. I just passed this as a GA and think it meets all FA criteria. Ucucha 05:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: A couple of formatting issues:-
Consistency is required in the use of "pp." for page references. The templates you have used to reference your journal sources do not automatically print "pp." - you have to to do this. As an example, I have fixed ref. 13
Publisher locations: these are optional, but for consistency either all, or none, should be given. Thus the Kappeler book is the odd one out.
Otherwise, all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I never realized that {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} treated pages differently... but it makes sense, I guess. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Esuzu) On a first look the article seems very good to me, I will read it through and list the (possible) problems I find below. Esuzu(talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not like when you use the same reference in consecutive sentences. For example in the first paragraph [3] and [4] is used a lot. Just placing one of them in end of the paragraph would be enough (for [4] at least). It would clutter much less if you did that.
There are some red-links in "Conservation". Do you think these will be an article some time?
Delicacy and smoked are rather common words. Do they need to be wikilinked?
Otherwise it looks very good. One of the most comprehensive zoological articles I have read so far. Will add support as soon as my comments are addressed. Esuzu(talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "above mean sea level" stuff because the sentence makes it clear we're talking about elevation. Some other links were also removed to minimize red links. (I believe that what's left merits an article.) The comment about references is a lot trickier. If the paragraph in question only used those two references and nothing else, I would have no problem putting them at the end of the paragraph. Unfortunately, other four other references are used, and for verifiability, we need to be clear where the material came from. As it stands, if the reader wanted to verify a sentence in that paragraph, they would know exactly which sources to look to. Pulling the refs out and placing them at the end of the paragraph, in my opinion, would give the impression that only the last sentence or two is supported by those refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, right in what you say. But most readers do not care about verifiability that much. As long as there are good reliable citations most are happy. What most care about is readability, if one can decrease the "clutter" one will increase the readability. It doesn't have to be this way though, we can see what other editors think. Esuzu(talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if most readers do care about readability more, the way to go for a respectable encyclopedia is verifiability. Furthermore, the negative effect on readability from those references is small; the negative effect from verifiability of just placing all refs at the end of a paragraph is large, as a reader now has to read three or four sources instead of only one. Ucucha 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the aid of your keen eye! I've fixed all that you pointed out, and will try to review the article tomorrow for more mixed number errors. If you find any other problems, please let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the article and failed to see any more "mixed number" errors. Admittedly, I am not the best as spotting my own errors in grammar. If something leaps out at you, just point it out. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Taxonomy and phylogeny: "was scientifically discovered in 1974 by Ian Tattersall north of Vohemar in northeast Madagascar, who...". Since "who" no doubt refers to Tattersall, this would read better if his name was moved to right before the comma. Example: "was scientifically discovered in 1974 north of Vohemar in northeast Madagascar by Ian Tattersall, who...".
Behavior: "It is also emits...". Here, "is" should be cut.
Human interactions: Very minor point, but I found it a bit odd that the deforestation link occured on the word's second use in the section. It could potentially be moved up.
"disappear due to increase human encroachment." "increase" → "increased".
Conservation: "Suggested conservation action aimed at protecting this species and its habitat have focused...". The tense appears off in this sentence. There is a conflict between singular ("action") and plural ("have"), meaning one should be changed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst Blake Hall tube station, with its six passengers per day, is generally listed as the least-used subway station in history, Waddesdon Road at the very least runs it close. As with Blake Hall, this was effectively built to serve a single country house, and as with Blake Hall it wasn't even conveniently sited for the house it was intended to serve; with 281 passengers per year using the station, the sale of its platform for scrap after closure raised almost twice as much as it generated each year in ticket revenues.
This is another short(ish) one, but as far as I'm aware covers everything that's ever been published on the topic and in my opinion says all that can reasonably be said. The Brill Tramway is one of the more obscure pieces of transport history and Waddesdon Road was arguably the single most obscure part of the Brill Tramway, but the chain of cause-and-effect that began with the Duke of Buckingham trying to make life easier for the horses hauling goods around his country estate and ultimately led to a piece of empty countryside 40 miles from the City of London briefly becoming a part of the London Underground is still an interesting piece of history. – iridescent 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: All sources look good, no issues here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Obscurity upon obscurity, you certainly know how to draw in the punters(!) As expected from such an experienced author working within one of his fields of expertise, my comments below are, I hope, seeking merely to polish the gilding on the icing on the lily, or something like that.
Second para of lead has three "London Undergrounds" in quick succession; perhaps In 1933 the Metropolitan Railway was taken into public ownership, and despite its rural setting Waddesdon Road station became a part of the Metropolitan Line of the London Underground.
Reworded to avoid repetition. – iridescent 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third para of lead: "but aside from that saw little use". I want to say it's wrong and ought to be but apart from that, but I can't really explain why "aside" feels wrong even though it's not. It might just be my personal preference, so feel free to ignore this even more than my other musings. (I see you've used "aside" in the "Services" section, so I can't complain about inconsistency!)
I'm fairly certain "aside" is a correct usage here. Consider "besides foo, there was also bar", which is unquestionably correct, and beside/aside in this context are synonymous. – iridescent 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy that it's not wrong; it's more a matter of preference, so I'll defer to you.
Brill Tramway, third para: the first sentence here is rather long and stuffed with information; Brill railway station#Extension to Brill approaches it using shorter sentences. I'm not saying you have to use the same wording for each article in the series, but perhaps breaking this sentence down would help.
Split into two sentences. There are six of these in total, plus the parent Brill Tramway article to come, and trying to convey the same thing without repeating is difficult. (Each article has to have enough background to stand alone without confusing people, without boring people reading the whole series.) – iridescent 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Services (and elsewhere): {{inflation}} only goes up to 2009 at present ({{Inflation/UK/dataset}}); the documentation at {{inflation}} suggests saying "in present day terms" rather than giving an actual end year. Someone pointed this out to me at an FLC; I wouldn't have thought to check this otherwise!
To be honest, I'm not worried about it. Prices in Britain are stagnant and any minor inflation/deflation over the last 12 months is easily swamped by the degree of rounding I'm using. The CPI figures are rough anyway; it's just to give an idea of what the ticket prices etc would have bought in today's terms. – iridescent 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
Closure: "of the by now almost dormant" is a long stuffing of words before the company's name; would it would better as of the control of the Oxford & Aylesbury Tramroad Company, which at that time was almost dormant? Actually, out of interest, if it had no funds or rolling stock, what was stopping it being actually dormant?!
"Dormancy" is a technical term; it means the company does nothing except pay statutory registration fees. Because the O&AT was still doing something, even though all it did was collect the lease revenue from London Transport and distribute it amongst the Duke's descendants, it wasn't completely dormant. – iridescent 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sufficiently qualified to check images; I note in passing that all have alt text apart from Waddesdon Manor, not that alt-text is a requirement.
I acquired that photo from the Waddesdon Manor article. I don't see the point of alt text that reads "big house", personally; I can certainly add it if anyone wants it. – iridescent 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it for my sake; as you had it for the others, I was just noting it in case it was an oversight on your part.
Added now. It doesn't do any harm and might be useful to someone. – iridescent 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dablinks, no external links (therefore none broken).
Length / structure / detail / citation formatting etc all look fine. Overall, a very interesting read on a little-known part of London's railway history. BencherliteTalk 17:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all matters but images, which are outside my competence. Remaining quibbles are matters of taste only, I think. Subject to anything major cropping up in subsequent reviews (I hate being the first detailed reviewer, but someone has to be...), I think that this is ready for the star. BencherliteTalk 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small but perfectly formed. --DavidCane (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the five criteria. Dank was kind enough to copy-edit the article as part of the MILHIST A-class review. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues
Why is the Westwood book not included in the bibliography, along with the others?
Corrected.
Publisher information is missing from 10, 13, 15, 16 and 17.
Pu*Added.
Retrieval date missing from 10.
Fixed.
The sources themselves seem thoroughly reliable, but the article seems rather lightly cited (35 in all). There is also the issue of possible over-reliance on a single source; 27 of the cites are to one book.
If I'm using only a single source for an entire paragraph then I only reference it once, giving all relevant page numbers and note how many cites cover 3 or more pages. McLaughlin is the only source in English who's tapped into the Soviet material that became available post-Cold War, all others are based on Cold War-era sources which I don't consider reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should navweaps.com be considered a reliable source? It "is Owned and Operated by Tony DiGiulian". Who is Tony DiGiulian? --RedtigerxyzTalk 10:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the reasoning there. First, the webpage citing sources, doesn't have it reliable, as here at Wikipedia and on school assignments, people also cite their textbooks. Secondly, merely being cited by a reliable source doesn't make something reliable, as academic books also cite blogs and primary source websites [as such] rather than as a reliable source in and of themselves (eg quoting the opinion of a person/group or simply using a primary source to build their own work). This is not to mention the FA criteria about "high quality" sources YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Di Giulian quotes the most authoritative sources of which I'm aware, mainly John Campbell and several Russian books on naval weapons, so I hardly think that he's quoting some textbook. Most of your examples don't apply as Di Giulian is generally quoting published books, not any of that other stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS: "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." He's described as a "gun control expert" in one book, and his work has been published in others. I don't see how this doesn't meet SPS, YM... —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sovetsky Soyuz class battleships (Project 23, Russian: Советский Союз{{Cat handler |main= }})." For me, this comes up as though it had the nowiki flag on the main page. Please fix.
I don't see "Cat handler" in the edit screen, and it displays correctly in both the old and new skin for me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The automagically disappearing layout problem. If only they were all that easy. Doug (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Only four hulls of the sixteen originally planned had been laid down by July 1940, when the decision was made to cease construction to divert resources to land forces in preparation for the imminent war with Germany." Either the surprise attack by the Germans was imminent, and therefore unknown to the Soviets (or I'm a very bad student of WWII), or it was underway and therefore it was not imminent. This appears to be a factual inconsistency.
Not at all. The Soviets expected a war with Germany, but on their terms and timing. They were caught by surprise by the German attack.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets had no idea war was "imminent" (a word with very specific implications) and we cannot be seen to retrospectively infer contemporary motivation based on contemporarily unknown facts. I'm sure that was not the intention, but it reads that way. Perhaps "planned invasion of Germany" with a wikilink for clarification. Doug (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to dig out the original wording from my source and clarify it; it is a bit ambiguous as currently written.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sturmvogel, no offense intended, but having gone through two first paragraph disasters already tonight, I'm not going past two errors in the first paragraph of the introduction. Please comprehensively review. Doug (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected the typo to 1941. Anything else? - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the resposes, I'll move on. Doug (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where are we with the sourcing issues? - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment since I'm lazy enough not to add a colon infront of this If you meen the RSN stuff, I've replied. Buggie111 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did it for you, cause I'm just that kinda guy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sovetsky_Soyuz_class_battleship. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. On the question of navweaps, my position is that people have raised some legitimate questions and I'm happy to add alternative sources when I use navweaps both to cover the material and to educate reviewers on the esteem that navweaps holds among authors of books covering naval weapons. I think this is the general consensus at WP:SHIPS, and we're going to spend a few weeks gathering as many helpful cites as we can. If anyone is dissatisfied and wants to remove navweaps from this article at this time, that's fine with me, for now. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and support
The text refers to "the Second London Naval Treaty that limited battleships to a displacement of 35,000 tonnes (34,447 long tons". The treaty language says "No capital ship shall exceed 35,000 tons (35,560 metric tons) standard displacement". This should be corrected.
Done
Sturmvogel-- the conversion was overlooked here. I have inserted a manual conversion, which uses the exact treaty values (the conversion template yields an overly-exact number different to the treaty's rounded number). Question: are the tonnage measures actually stated in your sources as metric tons, or is that an assumption? Given the prevalence of the imperial ton in displacement measures in treaty language, we need to make sure that a displacement ton is not assumed to be a metric ton. Kablammo (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
McLaughlin gives metric tons in the specification for the ship, otherwise type of ton is not noted. I have presumed metric tons as the Soviets were fully metric by then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While your assumption is reasonable, I suggest not specifying the type unless specified in the source, given the use of long tons in displacement measures, perhaps influenced by the treaties, which use long tons. There is little difference between a long ton and a metric ton anyway. Kablammo (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation because somebody will question unspecified tons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. Another reason why I think we overconvert-- the difference between long tons and metric tons is less than is consumed in fuel each day by one of these ships. But in any event you should not be criticized for not going beyond the source. Perhaps some outside views would be helpful here. Kablammo (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional suggestions:
"Ship" used four times in three sentences in 3d paragraph of lede.
Fixed
You may want to indicate Stalin's title.
Done
I have added two more sources since the reviews above; the authors of these books (Frank Braynard and Bernard Ireland) are published authors on nautical subjects.
While the multiple conversions of units of measure are neither needed nor required by the MOS, I believe the article meets FA standards and therefore support. Kablammo (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the image concerns expressed below, and therefore my support is conditional on their resolution (and correction of the discrepancy noted above on the treaty). It appears that Sergei Myagkov is a ship modeler who participates in several other websites and has contributed images to others; perhaps he should be contacted.
Unfortunately his website is now defunct.
His image is similar in overall plan but different in detail to the one prepared by Tony Gibbons for the cited Ireland book. It is doubtful that either is based on actual prints.
It matches, as best I can tell, the photos in McLaughlin of the official model in the Central Naval Museum in St. Petersburg, aside from the catapult and aircraft handling cranes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image use
I'm far from a licensing expert but I believe that you need a specific free use rationale for using the photo in this article. The origin of the photo itself isn't the best either. At the source it says "Courtesy of Sergei Myagkov" and in the WP summary it's claimed and is a scan of the illustration in the book published in Soviet Union circa 1970 What book was this? etc. Brad (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a rationale. I have no idea what book was used, although that's not necessarily important given that the image is most likely still in copyright.
This is an uncomfortable situation. At the source there is an author name but it's not listed at WP. I also believe that for legitimate fair use the image should be low-res. From a WP standpoint we don't know the author; we don't know the original source. It's obvious the listed source is not the owner of the pic. I think we do indeed need to know what particular book this photo originated from. Brad (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define low-res, please. I do not read Russian; the likelihood of identifying the book approaches zero. And since I'll readily concede that it's most likely still in copyright, how does that matter? I don't understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A low resolution photo. Meaning a photo only large enough to illustrate the ship with no larger photo available for viewing. The trouble with this license is that it's not filled out correctly for wikipedia. We have information of who the author was but it's not listed here. Same goes for claiming that it's from a book but then not listing the book. This needs cleaning up. Otherwise i don't know what else to say; I'm not a copyright or free use expert. Maybe asking at commons would find someone more knowledgeable. Brad (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Screw it, you're wanting information that is unlikely to ever be available since I'm not the uploader. It's gone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when this is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will work out the conversion issues-- we shouldn't go beyond the sources when making conversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've unconverted the tons in the design section and added a note saying that they're unspecified in the source material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Re-nomination. The Battle of Bardia was fought over three days between 3 and 5 January 1941, as part of Operation Compass, the first military operation of the Western Desert Campaign of the Second World War. It was the first battle of the war in which an Australian Army formation took part, the first to be commanded by an Australian general and the first to be planned by an Australian staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs)
A FAC of yours has recently been archived, and FAC instructions state that you'll have to wait for two weeks before nominating another article, unless you get permission from a FAC delegate to start another FAC sooner. Did you get that permission? Ucucha 00:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Hawkeye has had no less than seven successful FACs in recent times and a further 17 successful WP:MILHIST A class nominations, that seems a bit unnecessary - he isn't a blow in spamming nominations! Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with letting this one run, because his recently archived FAC (MacArthur) was an enormous undertaking, and its next FAC may take some time to prepare. But ... considering the backlog, reviewing half a dozen other articles (not just MilHist) would help-- a lot of reviewers put a lot of effort into MacArthur !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the {{harvnb}}s for references to Playfair (1954) work. Mm40 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Had to dump the HTML to see what was going on. but fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that. Mm40 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proofread done - one very minor change made (removal of a colon in a time reference). Didn't notice any spelling mistakes. I'd be unable to spot any errors in designating, for example, numbers to denote the bodies of men (battalions/regiments) involved. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: The Chapman book lacks an ISBN. It is 0-909439-12-8. Otherwise, all sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am concerned about the sources used for this article. Of the twelve entries listed as references, not one is Italian or even non-Commonwealth; all are Australian or British. This raises questions about whether the article has been constructed accurately and from a neutral stand point. This is compounded by the fact that every photograph (excluding the maps) appears to have come from the Australian War Memorial's online collections, and the only ones related to the Italians is after they have been captured. Perhaps both of these are inevitable, but I would still like to know whether an effort has been made to consult alternate, non-Commonwealth sources? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the photographs is the duration of copyright. My understanding is that Italian copyright is for 70 years. Whereas Australian copyright from before 1955 is expired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the photographs (though post-1955 only applies to government photographs in Australia), but what about the sources? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only read English, French and German, but I looked through the Italian wikipedia articles for sources with no luck. The best English source I had was Stockings, so I went through his bibliography looking for sources. Stockings used mostly British and German sources for his information on the Italians. Through his bibliography, I found three articles about the Italian Army in the Second World War - sorry, La Seconda Guerra Mondiale - by James J. Sadkovich. He's an American, so doesn't count as an alternate, non-Commonwealth source, but it led me to the Italian Official history, La prima offensiva britannica in Africa settentrionale. I found a copy in the War Memorial. I can have a look at it if you think it would improve the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sounds good. Are there any Italian sources that have been translated that you could perhaps have a look at? Also, something in German would still be an improvement to the complete Commonwealth bibliography. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some references from La prima offensiva britannica in Africa settentrionale. It seems that the Italian historians read Playfair but not Long. I can have a look at Schreiber.Enno von Rintelen may have something to say. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that will break the dominance of the Commonwealth sources and allow some diversity and balance is good. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some information from a German source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article, but i have to agree with Abraham, B.S.. There is a problem with Commonwealth-POV especially in the section describing the actual battle and with the sources. The movements of the Australian troops are described in extended details, mentioning a lot of names but there isn't much about the actions of the Italians. Otherwise well done. 217.235.48.164 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (reiterated) for promotion of this article to featured with respect to FA criteria 1a, 1d, 3 and 4; see Archive 1. Doug (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - one minor point: I believe your weapon sizes need a hyphen as they are adjectives (this has at least been raised in an A class review of one of my articles). In some places you have this and in others you dont. Other than that it looks good to me.Anotherclown (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
images seem appropriately licenced;
ext links all work;
there are no dab links;
images all have alt text (even though it is not a requirement);
Having read it a number of times now since its nomination, I believe the article to be comprehensive, well written, referenced and MOS compliant. — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a MOS and independent review. I saw a lot of WP:OVERLINKing (shovel, rum, sanitation, morale, well known countries as examples), I'm not certain if hyphens are handled correctly, and I saw several missing conversions (but can't relocate them now, so can't give example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to support this, but I have some questions.
In the lead, my mind tripped over this sentence ( Bardia boosted the competence and reputation of the Australian Army, which would carry it through difficult fighting against formidable opponents.) I thought initially you meant it boosted confidence, but you talked about confidence boost later. do you mean the experience increased competence and reputation?
Yes. I've removed the trailing clause so it merely says: "Bardia boosted the competence and reputation of the Australian Army" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Italian section, I wasn't aware that guns had fuses. Could you clarify this for me?
Reworded to make it clear that I'm talking about the fuses for the ammunition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need for another set of eyes on this. I fixed several typos in the Italian section, plus a few sentences that were repetitive.
Thanks. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy mentioned conversions (above). She might mean, for example, 20 mm armour, or the like. I'm not sure those should be converted, since armour is measured in mm, not in inches. Does it make sense to have 20 mm-armour (.79 inches)? I don't think so.
Me neither. This was my interpretation of the style guide's requirement for conversion when different parts of the English-speaking world use different units for the same measurement too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why is it called the Switch Line?
In military parlance, a "switch" is a trench connecting that branches off one forward trench and forms a secondary trench line behind another. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean: Honners men had to chase the barrage?
A creeping barrage moves at a predetermined pace. The infantry follow the barrage. If they fall behind, they have to catch up - a very dangerous situation. I'd link creeping barrage but it is already linked in the previous sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave some additional comments, but I'd prefer to do so after the independent set of yes has had a run over. Most of the comments have been from MH folks, of which I am one, and I do agree that it needs someone else. auntieruth(talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I meant on the conversions, but when I went back to check, I couldn't find the ones I did mean! SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Support I think that this very comprehensive and well-illustrated article meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through an extensive rewrite, and peer review. It now seems fully ready to be included as a Featured Article... Abebenjoe (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the proviso that I may have worked enough on this to compromise my objectivity. Steve Smith (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: Mainly very minor formatting issues:-
Refs 81 and 107: spaces required after commas (check for possible others)
In this article the convention employed for page numbering is "p.10" rather than "p. 10", that is, no space before the number. Ref 12 (and possibly others) departs from the convention.
Ref 55: publisher looks to be the Parliament of Canada Information Service, not "Elections Canada" (unless they are one aand the same).
Otherwise, all sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired spacing issues and changed the publisher from Elections Canada to Informations Service, Parliament of Canada.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still spacing problems - see 5, 34, 100. Please check throughout to ensure everything is caught.Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired more spacing issues. However, any citation that uses Template:Cite news has a space after the period, and a period at the end of the footnote. It is applied consistently throughout the article whenever a newspaper is quoted as a source. Since the template is automatically formatting the citation, therefore I cannot change it. It even uses pp. when only a single page is quoted, which is not correct according to the MLA style of citations. Sources from books, are cited consistently without the space after the period, nor are there periods at the end the of the footnote. These are manually generated footnotes, with the bibliographic information in the next section with a complete citation using the Template:Cite Book. --Abebenjoe (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearing support and comments/review
I came to this article knowing nothing of the subject (and very little of Canada! I'm a UK resident). Having read through I found myself a little disappointed at the end. I felt I came away with far too little knowledge of his policies. One thing that comes through loud and clear is his wish to vanquish communist tendencies but I feel I know too little about what he really wanted to campaign for; I recall his wish to nationalise some industry and desire for a mixed economy. I also got that he wanted to broaden the appeal of the parties he represented. But I would like a bit more about the platforms he stood on in his elections. Now, it is probable that I could learn much about policy if I were to follow some of the wiki-links to the party articles and so on. But it would be good to get more from the article itself.
I could put more of the CCF and NDP platforms in the article, but for brevity's sake, I left that out. You did get most of what he stood for though: Democratic Socialism, in particularly parliamentary democracy before any other ideology; anti-Communism; mixed-economy; welfare-state, a-la Clement Attlee (they were both at the September 1944 Conference of Commonwealth Labour Parties in London). In the NDP, he fought for national medicare (The National Health as you would know it), and once that became law across the country, his policies were mostly either fine-tuning social welfare programmes or nationalization of key industries. See the link to the 1971 Leadership Convention, and you will, more or less, see his platform for last years of his political life. Even that article doesn't do a thorough job, but that's why there are so many books and articles on his and the CCF/NDP's policies in this period. I wish I could say more in the article, but I think it would make it far too long. That's my thought on it anyway.Abebenjoe (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proofread done - no major issues identified, I made some minor edits. There's one part I hope you will check: Section - Political Involvement, paragraph 6 says "Here were so many naive..." I just wonder whether that is possibly meant to be "There were so many naive...". The first way does work but I thought I'd ask you to make sure.
You are correct, I checked the book and it is indeed "There" not "Here". Thanks for catching that one.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1(a) Prose style - V. GOOD - I found it an engaging read. As mentioned, I have no knowledge of this subject so all the names and parties were entirely unfamiliar. I am, however, interested in left wing politics. I found it a little tough at times but given my limitations I found I was engaged throughout, which is no mean feat given that the subject could have been very dry.
1(b) Comprehensiveness - V. GOOD - my lack of familiarity with the subject means I'm ill-qualified to judge, however, I found no gaping holes in the chronology, eg he didn't seem to disappear from the article for a decade unexplained.
1(c) Research - V.GOOD - again, my limitation is knowing nothing of the subject but to my untrained eye I see multiple sources used and all nicely listed.
1(d) Neutral? - YES - I didn't get any sense that I was being asked to favour the politics of the CCF or NDP. I didn't feel that the article was a hagiography... in fact, if anything, perhaps it's a little dispassionate in that I come away with no feelings about the man whatever; perhaps a little criticism here and a slap on the back there might improve the article. I'm not suggesting editors voice their views of course! But if a little colour could be added via the views of his contemporaries that might not hurt.
I am afraid of hagiography, that's why my writing is so bland. I do know of many very colourful stories about him, but they are either hearsay, or not otherwise quite encyclopedic. I did meet him once, when I was six, but again, I don't think that story would be appropriate for Wikipedia;-) Abebenjoe (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1(e) Stable? - YES - No sign of instability for years.
2(a) Lead - EXCELLENT - Seems to hit all the major points in a concise manner.
2(b) Structure - EXCELLENT - Follows a chronological approach which seems the obvious and best suited way. I perhaps miss a section, as mentioned, on his Politics and policies but as mentioned I guess these are covered to a large degree in sibling articles.
2(c) Citation consistency - NOT CHECKED by me, at least, I think someone else has, though.
3 Images - NOT CHECKED - I do not know enough about image policies.
4 Length - V.GOOD - with proviso of wishing there were additional content as outlined previously. Otherwise, I didn't feel the article got bogged down at any particular point, it strikes me as well-balanced. If it had been much longer my attention may have begun to wander, so it strikes me as about right.
I think it is too much of a fan piece. As well, we're dealing with a fairly obscure politician here. I found the writing stilted, the piece overly-long, and the subject rather uninteresting.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide examples of stilted writing or superfluous detail? The subject being uninteresting is not a valid oppose reason under the featured article criteria. Steve Smith (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I disagree with the above. He's an important figure in Canadian politics, and this article covers him well. Excellently referenced and well written. - SimonP (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well written and interesting. Seems to cover all of the important aspects of his life and the politics are in sufficient detail. I've fixed a few trifling ref formatting errors. Just a few comments:
Jewish people were the majority ethnicity in the shtetl - why "ethnicity" ?- they were the simple majority
Unlike many of the other shtetls in the Pale - perhaps just "many other shtetls"
The statement "They Lost" in reference to his first debate is unsupported - should it be covered by the preceding reference ?
Does the article really need the starting salary as CCF National Secretary ? - the article does not otherwise dwell on the monetary side of things. I cannot see the relevance of the figure
There are some repeated references eg [106] after a few successive sentences - surely just put it at the end of the referenced text ? I've fixed one and had this disputed but it seems that <sentence>[106]<another sentence>[106]<more text>[106]<and more>[107] adds clutter that <three sentences>[106]<and more>[107] does not.
I mentioned ethnicity, as there were several in the Pale of Settlement. I put the starting salary there, to show that Lewis wasn't doing it for the money. He could have easily made more money in private law practice, which he did, once he stepped down as the Secretary. Hope that helps explain why these items appear in the article. - Abebenjoe (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point on the ethnicity is that the word is redundant. 3500 out of 4500 is a majority and needs no qualification. as for the $1,200, was it high, low, median, what was it compared to what he earned before or after ? The number tells me nothing as there is nothing to compare against. It means nothing more that stating he had a salary or, and this is silly, what his shoesize is. The number has me searching for relevance and finding none - Peripitus(Talk) 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor edits to the page, and hopefully they will make it clear that $1200 was not much money even in the late 1930s. As well, I took your advice, and removed ethnicity and restructured the sentence.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media I don't like File:Orange_Maple_Leaf.svg, I feel artificially created logos are unencyclopedic, and i dont like it that teh maple leaf is amber, and the parties maple leaf is green, however but I will not oppose on that basis Fasach Nua (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is part of a template that deals with CCF/NDP articles. I have no control over it.Abebenjoe (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (by Finetooth) this interesting article, which I peer-reviewed in April. All of my concerns have been dealt with except a new one.
In the "Trying to create an organization section", this sentence does not scan: "It did not matter that Underhill was one of Lewis' mentors, when Woodsworth House was stricken with financial difficulties in the late 1940s, Lewis was quick to blame and then discharged Underhill and the rest of the Woodsworth executive of their responsibilities." Should the first comma be a semicolon? Should "discharged" be "discharge"? Also, and more importantly, it would be helpful to non-Canadian readers if "Woodsworth House" were briefly explained. I do not understand how Lewis had the authority to discharge the executives, what exactly Underhill said or did to provoke Lewis, how financial difficulties were related to criticism of the party, or why Lewis' actions cost the CCF among academics and the intelligentsia. Could you make this paragraph more clear for readers with little background in Canadian politics?Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will address this in the next day or so with a footnote that provides more information on Woodsworth House, which was a CCF financed and owned building and think tank. I'll check the paragraph's grammar again as well, and correct it if need be.Abebenjoe (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made updates that hopefully addressed what Woodsworth House was. I created a footnote explaining the back history of the event. Changed the paragraph's sentence structure to make it more readable.Abebenjoe (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is very helpful. All is now clear. Finetooth (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but a query. The lead concludes with "...he and Stephen became one of the first father-and-son-teams to simultaneously head Canadian political parties." I cannot find this claim in the body text, and it seems such a peculiar circumstance that I am surprised it does not say they were the only father-and-son team etc. Related to that query, the closest text I found (under the heading Leader of the NDP) - "During the early to mid 1970s, the father-and-son-team led the two largest sections of the NDP" - lacks a reference. I'd like to see these things addressed, but the article overall is excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was being super cautious with the claim "the first father-and-son-team", because, although I have done a reasonably thorough check that would suggest overwhelmingly that this is true, ultimately, I can't gurantee that statement one-hundred precent, hence why I used "one of the first." I can change it, and then have someone challenge it later, if they can prove otherwise. I'll add citations from Smith and either the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star that will back that up further.Abebenjoe (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added citations, but left the opening the same, since, I can't guarantee they were the first father-son-team to lead both a federal and provincial party simultaneously, though it very likely is the case.Abebenjoe (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a fairly short (3000 word!) article about another period of Texan political bumbling. When told that one political convention was illegal and its results would be thrown out, Texans promptly called another one. The man responsible for delivering the results was jailed for treason. Nevertheless, Mexico gave Texas trial by jury, and lots of other cool stuff. This was archived last time with a lack of reviews, and I've since given it another copyedit. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No dab links or dead external links. In the lead, the piece about Austin's letter to Texas does not seem a fair representation of the body: the letter was not intercepted by the Mexican government, but by someone from the local government, apparently, and he did not encourage the Texans to "revolt", but to form their own state, and actually tried to quell radicals. Also, you need to be consistent in abbreviating (Jan) or not abbreviating (January) months. Otherwise good; the prose reads well (though I made a few tweaks), and the article appears comprehensive to me at least. Ucucha 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is still unclear; the lead now suggests, although it doesn't say, that the letter was intercepted. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how else to word this. I don't want to get into details about the delivery of the letter in the lead and I'm at a loss as to how to be more clear and concise at the same time. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing for File:SHouston 2.jpg is rather confused, but shouldn't it be PD instead of CC-BY-SA?Ucucha 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I've redone the bit about the letter and fixed the abbreviation issues. I'm not sure about the image licensing - it's a derivative of a PD image. Are those PD too? I'll ask User:Jappalang. Karanacs (talk)
Thanks for the fixes. I see now. I don't think you can claim copyright on removing scratches, but we'd better wait for what Jappalang has to say. The image description needs to be cleaned up anyway; it doesn't have the original author, for example. Ucucha 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the US side tends to ignore faithful restorations as they tend to lack "creative" element of work; some other parts of the world (such as the UK), however, awards copyright for "sweat of brow" (hard work put into the job) regardless of creativity. Funnily, there are artists/entities in the US who claim copyright for restoring Civil War illustrations/photos and such; some call their acts "copyfrauds". I think this is a more touchy situation here; editors in a volunteer project would have pride in their work, especially if they spend hours on something. Perhaps a civil discussion should be first taken up with Globalearth or started on say commons:Commons:Village pump with a request for Globalearth to join in? Jappalang (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the history of the image more closely, and it looks like the restoration was uploaded by User:Oldag07, who is on wikibreak until August 16. Globalearth (who hasn't edited since May 2009), moved it from en.wp to commons. I've left a message at the commons village pump to get clarity [30]. Regardless, the image should be fine to use - it's either PD as a derivative or it's been released as CCA-share alike 3.0. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I released the image into the public domain. Shouldn't be a problem anymore. Oldag07 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: All sources look OK, no issues outstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well-written and interesting article. Just a few small points:
"the United States state" - I know that it's conventional to spell out abbreviations on first appearance, but that phrasing is quite awkward
You use "Texians" throughout the article but not in the lead - was that intentional?
"As the number of Americans living in Texas blossomed..." - wording?
"The lack of Tejano representation fostered a perception that only newcomers to Texas were dissatisfied" - seems like an odd way to start a section - lack of representation in the 1832 convention, in the complaints, where?
"known hothead" - source?
"One of the resolutions would have been more suited for passage by a state legislature than a group of concerned citizens" - I agree, but this reads like personal opinion and is unsourced
"Preparations" and "Preparations for delivery" - similar headings, consider changing one? Not a big issue
"state Attorney General" - "State Attorney General" or "the state's Attorney General"?
Morton - 1947 or 1943?
There are a number of resources that are only in Sources, not in footnotes. Perhaps use these to create a Further reading section?
Are Eugene C. and Eugene Campbell Barker the same person? What about Joe E. and J.E. Ericson?
Location for Lamar & Barton? Access date for the first Ericson? Page numbers for Morton? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, and my sincere apologies for the delayed response; real-life intervened.
I changed "United States state" to "American state" and added "The previous convention's" to "lack of Tejano repreentation..."
I did deliberately steer away from using Texian or Tejano in the lead because that takes a bit of explanation that I felt was overkill for the overview.
"known hothead" is sourced to Davis. I added an additional citation to the next page of Davis, where he specifically uses the term "hothead" in a discussion of several delegates, including Wharton. The point on state legislature is a paraphrase from Davis (p 98), which is cited at the end of the next sentence (I follow the standard where a citation covers all the information from the last cite to this one).
state attorney general is a valid term, and I've often seen it with the s uncapitalized and the a and g capitalized.
I fixed the year for Morton (thank you for catching that; I mixed it up with the volume number). I also removed the two sources that are no longer used in the article.
The Barkers are the same, as are the Ericsons. They are listed in differing ways depending on the source, and I retained the source's original formatting.
Comment Are you aware that several North American constitutions forbade primogeniture and entailment? Do you have a source that this was derived from Mexican or Spanish law? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, my apologies on the delayed response. According to [http://www.tshaonline.org/shqonline/apager.php?vol=062&pag=474[ (Ericson, J.E. (April 1959), "Origins of the Texas Bill of Rights", Southwestern Historical Quarterly (Texas State Historical Association) 62 (4): 457–466) "A prohibition against monopolies and perpetuities was included in at least two state constitutions by 1835 and was included in both Texas constitutions of the period. The Texas provision, however, included also prohibitions against the English common law practices of primogeniture and entailment, not to be found in American constitutions of that time. Spanish law had abolished entailments by 1821, and Mexican law had perpetuated the prohibition.. Karanacs (talk)
Leaning to Support - a well written and interesting article. Thanks for your thoughtful responses, which have addressed all the points I raised.A few fairly minor points:
"Nevertheless, Stephen F. Austin journeyed to Mexico City to present the petitions to the government. Frustrated with the lack of progress, he wrote a letter encouraging Texans to form their own state government." - it's not clear (unless you know) that he didn't write the letter immediately. Perhaps "Frustrated with a continuing lack of progress"?
"The federal and state legislatures later passed a series of measures to placate the colonists, including the introduction of trial by jury." (also more on this later) - I think the lead needs to bring out the fact that they did this while he was imprisoned, rather than at some unspecified (and possibly much later) time.
Although Background is, on careful reading, exclusively concerned with the 1832 convention, I think a closing sentence emphasizing that fact would help our focus as we move to the next section, which addresses the 1833 one. So, rather than simply ending Background with "The political chief could then escalate the concerns to the appropriate governmental authority", I suggest adding a concluding "Hence the 1832 resolutions never took effect" (suitably worded!).
"As the number of Americans living in Texas blossomed," - can a number blossom? Very picturesque! But it seems to carry more baggage than "increased" or similar. We are not given reason to suppose that all parties saw the increase as a beautiful, maturing development, so a neutral term would be preferable.
"A 27-article bill of rights,[22] containing an "impressive list" of protected rights,[20] was included. " - I was unable to infer who found (or claimed) it to be impressive, and I think it should be stated ("what x called 'an impressive list'" etc.).
"Seguin declined to accompany Austin. Dr. Miller also withdrew.[32] Texas was in the throes of a cholera epidemic, and Miller felt it his duty to stay and tend the sick." - "Dr. Miller" seems incongruous here. I think you intend this to connect with tending the sick; however, we don't know from "Dr" that he's a medical doctor. Perhaps "Miller also withdrew. Texas was in the throes ... and Miller, a physician, felt it his duty to stay and tend the sick"?
There are confusing mixed messages about the nature of Austin's letter. In the lead, we learn first that "Frustrated with the lack of progress, he wrote a letter encouraging Texans to form their own state government", which leaves us with the impression that he set out to incite revolutionary action. Then, in Reception, we're told that the letter was rather "an attempt to quell some of the more radical groups in Texas". Yet in the very next sentence we find that "In an especially inflammatory gesture, Austin signed his letter "dios y Tejas" ("God and Texas") rather than the traditional Mexican closing "dios y libertad" ("God and liberty").
I found the timing of events in the last two paragraphs confusing. The penultimate ends with "Austin was arrested in December on suspicion of treason.[42] He was imprisoned through all of 1834 and remained in Mexico City on bond until July 1835." The final paragraph then starts, "The government addressed several of the convention's proposals. Before Austin's arrest, the immigration ban was repealed ..." (i.e., nearly two years previously). I think it might be clearer if a couple of sentences were shifted, so that the final paragraph begins, "Austin was arrested in December on suspicion of treason.[42] He was imprisoned through all of 1834 and remained in Mexico City on bond until July 1835. However, during this time the government addressed ..." or suchlike.
I look forward to supporting once these points are addressed. PL290 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pl290, for taking a look! I've fixed all of the issues you raised. The letter is a bit more complicated. I've tried to reword a bit more for clarity, but I think I've gone about as far as I can. Basically, the federal government would have been unhappy either way if Texas formed its own state without federal approval, but the feds would have been much more likely to take harsh measures if the action took place as a result of an illegal political convention instead of as the decision of the town councils. None of the sources explicitly state this, but it's always implied in the chronology (where the sources have already discussed why political conventions were looked on unfavorably) and the use of terms like drastic/radical/etc for those proposing new conventions/etc. As for the "Dios y tejas", well, several of the sources set this up for readers to draw the conclusion that the letter was really Austin's attempt to be on the "winning" side - if it looked like public support was against his stated position of "wait for the government to do something", then he wanted Musquiz to release the letter so that Austin could still be one of the driving forces behind the political development of the area; otherwise, I think Musquiz was supposed to keep it secret. However, that's my interpretation - the sources don't actually "connect the dots". Historians are often hesitant to be too direct on this period in Austin's life (either because no one is sure what was meant or they are afraid they'll get lynched if their view is unpopular. Even my four-year-old knows who Stephen F. Austin is and why people here revere him, and that wasn't my doing! Sometimes living here is like being in a cult.). Anyway, let me know if this is any better; if not, I'll keep working. Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Thanks for addressing those points. A new point, and an old one revisited:
I think it would be good if the lead could mention that the "measures to placate the colonists" were significant: so much so, in fact, that In a letter to a friend, Austin wrote "Every evil complained of has been remedied. This fully compensates me for all I have suffered." I'm not necessarily advocating including the quote in the lead, though perhaps it would be a good addition; just that Austin's reaction to the measures be presented there one way or another.
I understand your point about Austin's letter. I think there is still a slight problem with one phrase. Since, taking our cue from the historians, we must leave our readers to "join the dots", I think we should avoid implying Austin deliberately made an inflammatory gesture (which is how it currently reads, to me at least, and which conflicts with what we state to be his intention). I would therefore suggest avoiding calling it an inflammatory gesture, and instead moving the sentence to point a couple of sentences on when the letter was "read by an unsympathetic ayuntamiento member", noting there the possibly inflammatory effect the non-traditional signature may have had on that reader. PL290 (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been toying with the idea of putting the quote in the lead, and now I've added the first half to be the new last sentence. I've also amended the sentence on the letter's closing to read "In what could be intepreted as an inflammatory gesture,..." I didn't move the sentence - I didn't want to speculate on what exactly caused the ayuntamiento member to forward this on. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have not checked images (dealt with above); meets all other criteria. Kablammo (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2010 (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 inglorious (or glorious, depending on whose side you're on) end of the Canadian campaign of the American Revolutionary War. Shipbuilding in the middle of nowhere? A naval fleet commanded by a general? Several characters who go on to later fame (or infamy, in one case)? Read on, and tell me if it's worthy of the FA star. (It did go through a MILHIST A review, which helped the writing a fair amount, and it has had some more work since then.) Thank you for your attention and constructive feedback. Magic♪piano 13:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 13:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"The naval Battle of Valcour Island, also known as the Battle of Valcour Bay, took place on October 11, 1776, on Lake Champlain in Valcour Bay, a narrow strait between the New York mainland and Valcour Island during the American Revolutionary War."→Why does every MilHist article smash as many details together in the first sentence as possible? We've got time to start of slow and clear. "The Battle of Valcour Island was a naval engagement that took place at Valcour Bay on Lake Champlain in October 11, 1776." Throw the other details in their own sentence.
Considering the length of the article, I'm missing some of the details of the battle. Why aren't the fleet makeups described in prose at the relevant section before the battle? How Arnold slipped his ships past the British isn't mentioned. Colorful details!
Comment I've added some detail on Arnold's escape. I originally had a detail paragraph describing the fleets (essentially a partial order of battle), it was replaced by the full order of battle during the ACR. I can certainly add words of that nature back in. Magic♪piano 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I've added some prose on the fleet compositions. Magic♪piano 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much information is published, (I've only handled NHHC archives, so not sure what's actually been put out), but there seems to be stuff for a paragraph at the end about underwater archaeology (the Philadelphia, Spitfire—think they're trying to raise her, not sure if there's literature on that front.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. After brief research, the Spitfire was found in 1997, and is now listed as an underwater historic site. I can certainly work something in on this. Magic♪piano 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, large tracts of the Bratten book are about the recovery of Philadelphia; certainly more could be added about her recovery than the brief mention of her 20th-century history, but I think the article is already quite long enough... Magic♪piano 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not really that long an article. I'm not saying I demand 50KB of prose on the battle (while influential, it was pretty minor), it's just that I see areas that could do with further elaboration that add interest and a bit more detail.
On another note, there's inconsistency in the article in regards to "Ship Name" vs. "the Ship Name". "The" should only be used when describing ship types or inspecifics, etc. ("the schooner Congress"). In all other cases it's left out (Royal Savage and Congress.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've extended the legacy section, and made the ship naming thing more consistent. Magic♪piano 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
Citations
[9] and [51] are online sources and should contain links
[59]: "Bulletin of the New York State Museum Bulletin"?
References list
Malcomson book. There's something wrong with the attached note, which begins: "This work contains and detailed specifications..."
The second NHL summary listing needs its retrieval information fixing (the word "Retrieved" is missing)
I've taken care of these. Magic♪piano 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Background: "embarked on an invasion of the British Province of Quebec. Quebec...". The last two words should be further apart than this, to ensure against prose redundancy.
Prelude: "Shipwright was not a common occupation in the relative wilderness of upstate New York, and they had to pay extremely high wages to lure them away from the coast." Who are "they" in this sentence? Shipwrighters?
Don't mean to be a pain about this, but is "them" meant to be shipwrighters? (or whatever the correct term is). It turned out that "they" was also a bit vague, so I'm happy to see that fixed, but I'm still a little shaky on "them" since I don't see who this is referring to. I think it is builders, but there's no plural element before this in the sentence.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK; I expect a measure of pain at FAC :). You are correct that the pronoun is poorly used; I have corrected. Magic♪piano 03:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to skilled help, materials and supplies specific to maritime needs also needed...". Why is "also" needed here? That's pretty redundant, considering the "In addition" at the start of the sentence.
Battle: Royal Savage, a red link, is linked twice in consecutive sections. Very likely, only the first is really needed to draw attention to that topic.
The Congress link in the same location seems to be the intended target for a red link in the prior section, unless they were two different ships.
A couple more repeat links to ships (Revenge and Philadelphia) are present here. An overlinking audit in the rest of the article would be a good idea.
Legacy: "his son sold the remains to National Civil War Museum." Missing "the" before the museum's name.
Two links each to National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark in back-to-back sentences. If that's not overlinking, I don't know what is.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've taken care of these specific concerns, as well as doing a fairly careful overlink check. Magic♪piano 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is not my usual subject of choice, so I can't speak as to whether this is comprehensive (seems so to me at a glance), but the various other components of the article all seem FA-quality to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from mav
Over long sentence, last phrase should be its own sentence: "More than 70 islands dot the 435-square-mile (1,130 km2) surface, although during periods of low and high water, these numbers can change; the lake is relatively shallow, with an average depth of 64 feet (20 m)."
"head of navigation" sounds jargony. Please revise.
Third paragraph of ==Prelude== is huge and hard to follow. Please reorganize and split up.
Other than the above, prose, organization, image copyright and referencing look like they are up to FA standards. --mav (reviews needed) 01:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've taken care of these items. Magic♪piano 13:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be possible to add the numbers of dead on each ship to the order of battle? If the data does not exist it is understandable.XavierGreen (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there are no formal tabular casualty returns for this battle; sources like Beatson or that reprint official reports certainly don't have them. Accounts of the battle mention casualties incurred on a few ships, like Carleton -- I don't think there are enough of these to make it worth adding a column to the table. Magic♪piano 12:31, 10 June 2010)
Fair enough, then in that case I. SupportXavierGreen (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of Easter egg links, and a problem with the formatting of the tablein the "Order of battle" section. I'd also like to more review here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Easter egg links are, and I saw no problem with the table in the order of battle section. I reviewed this article carefully at ACR, and, figuring that Piano would bring it here, brought up most of my comments there. A new map was added, and more details on the lake to make it clear that it was full of islands, and a very BIG lake. I've checked the sources, and they were good, and I thought this represented as complete coverage as is possible with the state of knowledge about the battle today (more may be revealed in future digs, etc.). So I:
Well, I've taken care of the easter eggs. I'm not quite sure what Sandy's getting at with the table formatting; I believe I copied the table format from one of the naval orders of battle that are FLs, and I didn't see any visible issues. I did remove some (for these tables) clearly extraneous formatting instructions. I'll ask over at MILHIST for a few more reviewers. (Thanks for the support, Auntie.) Magic♪piano 01:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of empty space to the right of the table-- something messed up in the formatting (I don't speak tables). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything untoward in either Firefox or IE with the table layout. The images that precede each table have spacing around them, but I don't think they should be bigger than they are. It's kinda hard to fix what I can't see. Are you saying the table is not taking the full width of the page, or that there is somehow (nonbreaking) whitespace making the page wider? Magic♪piano 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media this article contains a derived work of a 3D artwork located in the USA, File:Nathan-hale-cityhall.jpg, on what basis is this licensed as creative commons? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, the statue dates from 1893, and the sculptor died in 1937. It seems to me that is sufficient to make the statue itself PD. Magic♪piano 02:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please tag the image subject as PD-old, and cite the source given Fasach Nua (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added {{PD-art-70-3d}} (which seems more suitable than {{PD-old}} in this case, since the photo remains CC) and updated the provenance. Magic♪piano 12:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Ben Gascoigne was an Australian astronomer who died about seven weeks ago. He played a crucial role in understanding the size of the universe, when his work revealed that astronomers had underestimated the distance to our nearest galactic neighbours, the Magellanic Clouds, by a factor of two. He was also husband, photographer, curator, cook and archivist to Rosalie Gascoigne, one of Australia's most important abstract artists. Thanks go to GA reviewer Xtzou, and special thanks to Iridia for the de facto peer review that was critical to the article's improvement. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Dabs and external links checked.
Image licenses look fine.
Images are fine, except that File:Gascoigne Stromlo 1948.jpg is in the public domain only in the source country and not in the U.S., which is required by Commons, but that's not uniformly treated by Commons so I believe it can stay and I marked it with the intended template. Hekerui (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "The creation of the Anglo-Australian Observatory" be included in the "Select bibligraphy"? --RedtigerxyzTalk 05:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - reluctant because I didn't find the article, though it's written very well, particularly grabbed me. FAC criteria asks that the article be "engaging". I can't really say much more than that I found it easy to read but I can't claim enjoyment. At the end I was rather "meh" about the whole thing. But then again I'm not mad about astronomy, so I am not the core market for the article. It strikes me as written to a professional standard which is called for by criteria 1(a) so perhaps that's good enough... anyway, my notes follow...
Proofread done - two minor changes made, one wikification (someone may wish to check it points to the correct person) and one spelling correction; otherwise all appears to be well.
1(a) Prose - PROFESSIONAL - Of a professional standard; no clunkiness and article reads as a unified whole rather than a disjointed effort of a number of editors.
1(b) Comprehensiveness V.GOOD - though I bring no knowledge to the article, each decade of his life appears to be accounted for. As an observation I guess I didn't feel I got anything of the personality of the man; it would be nice to hear something on that but that's not a deal-breaker for me.
A number of quotes have now been added to the article to hopefully improve this aspect. Iridia (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1(c) Research - V.GOOD - again, as an amateur judgement, a variety of sources are used and listed.
1(d) Neutral - YES - though I'm sure the editors admire the man, I didn't feel the article was 'selling' him to me.
1(e) Stability - TOTALLY STABLE - no evidence of instability in article's short life (created on May 7 2010).
2(a) Lead - GOOD - I might quibble with whether it is necessary to name his children or even the fact of their existence in the lead; personally I'd be happy to see that aspect removed.
2(b) Structure - V.GOOD - takes a chronological approach which seems the obvious choice and most well-suited to the subject.
2(c) Consistency of citations - CHECK IN PROGRESS at time of writing by Hamiltonstone
3 Images - CHECKED by Redtigerxyz (see above) - I'm not personally familiar with the policies on images.
4 Length - V.GOOD - well within length limits. I didn't feel it went into too much detail at any point and, as someone with only a layman's interest in astronomy, I didn't feel bogged down as a reader (though, as stated, nor enthused).
Comments. I've left some comments here, mainly just prose things I think need to be addressed. Re Bodnotbod's comment above, I found myself warming to the man, particularly when I read that he took a welding course to help make his wife's artistic creations safer. I'm confident I'll be able to support once the issues I've raised have been addressed. MalleusFatuorum 21:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These comments have been addressed point-by-point by hamiltonstone and myself. Iridia (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
I am unable to figure out ref. 7, which reads in full: "University of London. Institute of Education; Columbia University. Teachers College (1934). The Year book of education. Evans Bros.. p. 327." Can you explain?
The full stops have now been eliminated - these are two authors, Uni of London's Institute of Ed, and Columbia Uni's Teachers College. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was the basis for compiling a "select" bibliography?
I suggested his five most cited papers, as given by searching for "Gascoigne, S.C.B." on ADS and sorting by "citations", and his book(s). Iridia (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(adds) and I accepted Iridia's approach - Gascoigne has at least 80 publications and a line had to be drawn somewhere. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well written article which I believe should be a FA. I only have two issues with it. Firstly, I concur with Bodnotbod, that the article starts in a rather dull manner. However, I think it is relatively easy to fix. It seems that Gascoigne's most significant contribution was correcting the distance and hence evolution of the Magellenic clouds. This is touched on in the lead but no great fuss is made about it. 'So what?' I ask myself, 'Why should I bother reading further?' It is only when I get to the main part of the article do I find out the significance of this work. I'd like to see the lead shortened with his real achievements highlighted rather than glossed over. That would then make me want to read the rest of the article (which is interesting and engaging). My second issue is that the photo from Mt Stromlo looking towards Canberra is very dull. I have looked for a better copyright free photo of Mt Stromlo but without success. I'd delete the dull photo until we can find something suitable. Gillyweed (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Completely agree with you about the lead. Writing and updating article leads is something at which i'm particularly bad. Have revised it. Will wait on the image issue to see if anyone else expresses a view about whether it's worth deleting - like you, i had searched for a decent free image and came up empty. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, fine, noone likes the photo. ;) I'll take a better one next time it's nice and sunny. Do people want one looking towards Canberra, or out towards the suburb-empty valley or mountains? Iridia (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are offering - any chance of a landscape photo taken up top with the restored original observatory building in the picture, since that would have been the main building i think when Gascoigne worked there. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. I was thinking one of the landscape related nicely to Rosalie's perspective on the then-isolation of the mountain, but a CSO building shot is easy to do. Iridia (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been rewritten, and the photo deleted. Iridia (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Nice article, I'm not done with a thorough reading, because I'm slow, so I wanted to post some comments before this is wrapped up. The available online sources look alright, I have to agf on the offline sources.
Lead
I know there was some work on the lead, but now the number of paragraphs is not in line with WP:LEAD, as far as I can tell
Something had happened there. Look now. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
to Auckland University College, he won a scholarship, the bursary was for the University of Bristol according to the source, no?
Both. bursary to the College; then later, scholarship to Bristol. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Honorary Fellow/Member" - isn't that "Honourary", in keeping with the British spelling, or is that a spelling used by the Australian Science Societies?
No - "honorary" does not vary in spelling, even though honor / honour does. Another triumph of the English language! hamiltonstone (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
War service
what does Frame & Faulkner, p. 81, source?
The Frame and Faulkner book in the reference list at the bottom?? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"When in 1941 Gascoigne was offered a research fellowship by Woolley" - that formulation appears weird to me, shouldn't the 1941 move to the end there? Maybe that's just me.
It is grammatically correct though not how you might expect someone to speak. I'd prefer to leave it, but will revise if others don't like it. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I feel that's a good scientific story: achieving understanding is the essence of what you want to do" - this part of the quotation belongs to another problem, the quotation is stitched together.
You are correct. i have deleted the second fragment. i have also converted one of the pull-quotes to in-line quotation as it was getting too busy. Still battling some layout issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1949, the Gascoignes' third child, daughter Hester, was born." - that's not in either of the given sources but in the Media Kit Article
Sorry, I think that happened when the text was reordered. Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first cquote in the section Mount Stromlo is distracting. As this is part of the text itself, it shouldn't be a calloutquote (at most, a blockquote), and it needs to be properly introduced. The second of these quotes in this section is poorly placed - on my laptop screen it means there is text sandwiched between the quote and an image. Karanacs (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a no-win. If it isn't part of the text, one gets told that a call-out quote must repeat the text, then when it is part of the text, someone suggests it should be "at most a blockquote". Get the impression that what people really wannt is no callouts at all. OK :-) will get to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have introduced the first quote and changed it to a blockquote. The second quote has been rearranged and also made a blockquote. Iridia (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
Is it the "Anglo-Australian Telescope" or the "Anglo-Australian telescope"? It's called both in the article.
Found only one instance of "Anglo-Australian telescope", in the AAT image caption. Fixed. (It is also referred to as "the telescope": were you meaning those as well?) Iridia (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the occurrence in the image caption I noticed. I don't mind whether it's called "the telescope" or "the "Telescope" more generally. MalleusFatuorum 14:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like those distracting and overpowering {{cquote}}s. That template should only be used for pullout quotes, i.e., to draw attention to something said elsewhere in the article by repeating it. The MoS is pretty clear that the quotations here should be blockquotes, for which you can use the {{Quote box}} template to give you less in your face quotation marks around the quotes.
Changed all cquotes either to blockquotes with no box ({{quote}}) or to {{quote box}} with the small quotes activated. Better? Iridia (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my issues have been dealt with. MalleusFatuorum 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support no deal-breakers in the prose, but could be massaged a bit. I found a few bits and pieces. I'm pretty sure it's comprehensive. I have no strong opinion on the quotes either way. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cquotes issue needs to be resolved, and I see WP:MOS#Ellipses without spaces-- could someone take a closer look at MOS issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on both, but can't today - only got a min to spare. Back 2morrow i hope. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One only realises how ***** long the MOS is when someone asks you to go through and check MOS issues :-) I've now had a shot. Hopefully found everything. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like what Iridia has done to eliminate the cquotes, but I can't speak for others. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Ωphois 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards after being copyedited by multiple editors. Ωphois 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—a dab link to acrylic; no dead external links. Ucucha 08:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7: "Bad Day at Black Rock" What is this referring to? Book, magazine, TV episode etc?
Fixed. Is ref for an episode. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8: Why not format as "Knight, p. 14"?
All the previous FA's for Supernatural have been formatted the current way. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing my point. Let me put it another way: why is this formatted differently from 4, 5, 6 and 8?Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. My apologies. That is referencing the season 1 guide. The others are shortened versions of the season 3 guide that is fully referenced in the General section of the sources. Ωphois 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10: more details needed. See WP:CITET ("cite video") for guidance. You don't have to use the template format, but it helps you see what is required.
I've added a couple more things to it. Ωphois 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT doesn't suggest it as a link, it reports it – along with Wikipedia which would not be accepted as a reliable source. I will leave it to other editors to judge the reliability of this one.Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it from the article. Ωphois 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I wasn't able to find them for this season. Anyways, TV by the Numbers is referenced by sites such as LA Times, Business Insider, MSNBC, and USA Today. Ωphois 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a review from a site owned by Quantum Global Media Inc. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This is now ref 18): Why does ownership by Quantum Global Media Inc. indicate reliability? Despite its name, this does not appear to be a large-scale organisation. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below by AnmaFinotera, "It is run by several journalists and has a long history in the business for news reporting (operated under another name before said name was sold to NBC), and it carefully screens writers." Ωphois 21:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information provided, which broadly summarises the site's "about us" section, doesn't actually prove reliabity, and AnmaFinotera's remarks below scarcely represent an endorsement. However, I will leave this issue for other editors to comment on/judge. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the resulting brotherly scene at the episode's end." - Can we be more specific? Was it a reconciliation or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last paragraph of the Plot section. Basically Dean teaches Sam how to repair their car since he will soon die. Ωphois 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" Dixon had spiked her drink with his own blood at a club, transforming her. Dixon had taken her back to his home, but she had escaped to feed." Few too many "had"s in a short span.
Support - Some of WP's best work. Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in response to some of the notes above, who owns something does not make it reliable. I also question what makes TV Squad reliable. There is no information at all on who any of the authors are. Is it a user edited site? How, exactly, does it meet WP:RS? Same for the TV Guide blogs. Who are the editors? Are they TV Guide reporters or is it like About.com? Airlock Alpha is more borderline. It is run by several journalists and has a long history in the business for news reporting (operated under another name before said name was sold to NBC), and it carefully screens writers. It seems to meet WP:RS, barely. My major concern is how is this a notable episode. Even if we accept all three as reliable, they also all appear to be summarizing every episode of the series, and many others, with an intermix of opinion thrown in (i.e. typical type blog posts), which does not lend itself to notability (anymore than a film directory that lists every film with a plot summary makes all the films notable. That New York Times "suggests" iF as a link, does not make iF reliable, and I see nothing on the site or elsewhere that shows that it meets WP:RS. While the Chicago Tribune article is reliable, the author is covering the entire season, not just a single episode and her comments on this would not really be what I'd call "significant coverage" when taken alone. I'd have a very hard time supporting this for featured article candidacy until some seriously demonstrable notability can be shown, not just some borderline instances and less than reliable sources.
For other aspects of the the plot is excessively long. The single sentence quote being called out is unnecessary and does not comply with the basic Manual of Style (call outs should be used only for longer quotes). The TV Guide review is given an entire paragraph of summary, while the others less so, seems a bit unbalanced to me when, again if we consider them reliable, the three noted above gave the episode the same amount of space. The prose is not what I'd call "brilliant" nor "engaging". Random example, from the start of the effects section "Both special and visual effects were utilized to accomplish Gordon's death sequence." - stating the beyond obvious since its unlikely they really killed him. Almost all of the sources from this article are primary sources, and I can't help but wonder why it can't be part of that article. It doesn't seem like much of the information is very unique to this specific episode. For side notes: I find it curious that the season article does not link to this episode in the table and why is the talk page missing the TV project banner? (note, Ophois please reply below rather than mixing your reply with my remarks as you did above)-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about with primary sources? There is only one item that can be considered a primary source. Everything else is print or websites...
Anyways, I'm willing to remove TV Squad and IFMagazine, but the TV Guide is done by columnist/blogger Tina Charles, who is also supervising producer for TV Guide Network and has written under the TV Guide News pseudonym. The reason her section is so long is because her review was the longest. I believe that the reason the Chicago Tribune article is a grouping is because Ryan did not review the series until the fourth season.
I will try and trim the plot down today. As for your comment that "It doesn't seem like much of the information is very unique to this specific episode", I have no idea what you are talking about. There are one or two general sentences that mention previous vampire or Gordon episodes, but overall it pertains to this episode...
As for notability, it is the last episode to feature recurring character Gordon, and has a cameo by McNab (both of which are mentioned in the reception area). As noted before, all but one source is also a secondary one. Ωphois 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that it is not linked with some other Supernatural articles is simply because I forgot to add it. Anyways, thanks for your input. Ωphois 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book, interviews, magazine from the series, etc are primary sources. It doesn't matter how they are published. They are not independent of the subject. For unique information, I meant the development details, which seem standard type stuff and mostly unnotable. And being the "last episode to feature Gordon", who seems to be a fairly minor secondary character that only appeared in four episodes anyway, does not in anyway at all make the episode notable. Notability is shown by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, which this does not seem to have. It's relevance to the series fans or storyline does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what you are saying. However, any secondary source on a topic like this would be based on primary sources. I don't see the difference between an interview and someone summarizing an interview. Ωphois 19:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is done by Nicholas Knight for Titan Books. It is not done by the show. The same can be said for the magazine. It may have interviews with people from the show, but it is written by other writers. Ωphois 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also regarding your comment that it is "beyond obvious" that they used both visual and special effects... that is not true. They could have easily done the sequence solely with visual effects or solely with special effects. It is not obvious that both were used. Ωphois 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book and magazine are fan vehicles for the show. They are not third-party nor independent of the topic nor are they academic examinations of the topic. Visual effects are a type of special effect. So it isn't that both were used, it is that two types of techniques were used, one being visual, the other being? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Titan makes companions and magazines for numerous shows, such as Lost, Heroes, Smallville, and Stargate. It is not made solely for the series or network, is not associated with the production team of the show, and is therefore independent.
And visual effects are not a type of special effect. Visual effects are done with computer imagery, such as digitally adding in blood or removing something from the frame. Special effects are what is done during filming, such as prosthetics or fake blood. Ωphois 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a fanbook and alone is not enough to make the episode notable to me, particularly as it is not about the episode itself, but the series as a whole. Same thing to me on the effects, but the article on special effects seems to indicate that they are now considered different. I still do not feel the prose is very engaging however, nor do I feel that is a particularly good sentence as I suspect most readers will have the same "well no duh" type reaction. Perhaps something like "To lend a strong air of realism to Gordon's death scene, the scene was created by combing various special effects during filming with post-production visual effects." or something similar which better clarifies they are different and when they happened. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine does not cover every aspect of the series, though. McNab was interviewed specifically for her role in the episode. And I added in your suggestion, but tweaked it a little bit. :) Ωphois 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to me, the episode is notable because of all the information that is available for it in the sources I used. The magazines and companions usually only give a few tidbits on the episodes. Ωphois 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two articles that BuddyTV covers on the episode. The first discusses Ivan Hayden talking about the effects of Gordon's death, and the second is one of the columnists discussing the fallout of the episode's events. Ωphois 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes that site anymore reliable? It bills itself as a fansite for fans, and again gives no real info on who any of these columnists are. Is there editorial control? I see no signs that the site meets WP:RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at the information and sources at its wiki page. As noted on its about page, it has been mentioned by numerous big-name sites/newspapers, and one of its writers is quoted by USA Today here. As noted here, the website does have editors and oversight. Ωphois 05:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking of BuddyTV, I also came across an article reporting McNab's role for the episode. Ωphois 06:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also found an article on The San Diego Union-Tribunehere that names the episode as the #6 best television episode (of all shows, not specifically Supernatural) of the 2007-2008 television season. The writer of the article is a staff writer. Ωphois 05:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Rolling Stone briefly mentions Sterling K. Brown's role as Gordon in the third season (which "Fresh Blood" takes place in) here. Ωphois 06:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...if these much higher quality sources have mentioned this episode, why was it not in the article before now? This would seem to be a failing of criteria 1c: "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". It seems like much of this should have been found way before this FAC and the episode's notability came into question. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 13:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of these sources don't have information that can really contribute to the article, or were extremely hard to find (the Rolling Stone one doesn't mention the character or episode, and had to be located through Web Archive). To find the Seattle Post one, I had to specifically search their website. I will add the #6 episode one to the reception section, but the others just talk the episode or an aspect without giving any good information.
For example, the Rolling Stone one just mentions the actor coming back due to popularity. This is his second appearance in the season, so I don't find it relevant for this episode. The BuddyTV about Gordon's death is very general, and I have much more specific details from another source. The BuddyTV article on McNab mentions that she will appear, but doesn't offer other details.
If you want, I can add in another section, referencing the fallout article, and discuss Sam's possible descent into darkness. Ωphois 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph about that in the reception area. Ωphois 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also went through the article and made some adjustments in an attempt to be more concise and engaging. Ωphois 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why TV Squad is reliable (or not), is that it's part of the "blog" (not really blogs) network along with Engadget and a bunch of others, where the writers are paid, and there are editors in control. I don't think the writers are paid much, and I don't think the editors edit much. The NY Times it ain't, but I think it at least meats the bare minimum for RSs, and since it isn't controversial BLP info, I think it's OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been shown outside the US, eg Canada, the UK, Japan? If so viewing figures from outside the US could be included, and reviews from non-US sources could also be included. This would broaden the perspective and also help to address the RS issue, since any reviews might be carried in national newspapers, RS for this sort of thing by definition.
It has, but unfortunately the series did not become visible to critics and the media until the fourth season, so there isn't really any international reviews or anything like that that I have been able to find. However, I feel that the extra sources that I provided above prove its notability. Ωphois 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In infobox, how can actors not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles be “guest stars”? “Man” and “woman at bar” don’t sound like starring roles.
Support - Sorry for the delay, I've been kind of busy in real life but I've been following the progress here. I adjusted a couple of things. One thing that does come to mind that I didn't touch was all of the "praise" and "lauded" type of qualifiers in the reception area. For me, I think we need to be as objective as possible, and I think that means not including such personal qualifiers. I mean, the reviews should probably speak for themselves. If a critic liked the episod then it will probably be reflected in the words. That's just me and wanting to keep everything WP:NPOV. On a personal note, I didn't read the plot section because this is a series I plan to watch and I don't want to ruin anything for myself - so I trust that it has been address fully by the above editors. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Did a good lookover of the article, and overall I found it to be solid enough for FA-status—clear prose, comprehensible information, and a brilliant reception section. No fairuse images to comment on; just one free-use pic that is verified at commons. Nothing else to say. The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently a Good Article and has received a peer review. I feel it now meets the FA criteria. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Douglas Jardine was the captain of the England cricket team in the early 1930s. As the captain during the Bodyline series, he remains a very controversial figure but was still a very notable cricketer, as well as an interesting character. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content comments
Should give context about lack of exuberance, no celebration in the old days to explain why Jardine's jumping up and down re Bradman is of note?
Discuss Jardine ordering the players to refer to Bradman as "little bastard"? Important to convey the bad blood etc
Ditto for mentioning "Well bowled Harold" after hitting Woodfull in heart and the almost riot should be mentioned?
Should explain that in those days most bowlers were slow and bowled full; the non aficionado might not know this, that physicality was rare in those days, or how the new field setting came into it.
Field setting was not really new, it had been used before, including with some faster bowlers such as Frank Foster, George Hirst, Fred Root (although a bit more medium paced), Bill Voce (pre-bodyline I believe, but I may be wrong) and even Ted McDonald while playing for Lancashire. Although none of them were as fast as Larwood, and that field setting at that pace was unusual to say the least! And bang-it-in fast bowlers were not that rare in those days either. I think it was the combination which made it revolutionary and a just a bit dubious. Not too sure where I could make this point, though, without forcing it in. I've put a bit after the description of the Australian XI match but it may need more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"When the first Test began, Jardine persisted with Bodyline tactics, even though Bradman did not play in the match" it might be good to say beforehand that they wanted to hamper all the Australians, not just Bradman because this way it seems like a surprise
Should the amateur-pro divide be touched on to explain how Allen and the Nawab disobeyed and the "I see his highness is a conscientious objector" lol
In this case, I don't think it was relevant. Allen and Pataudi disobeyed; Pataudi was dropped, Allen wasn't. Similarly, Larwood clashed with Jardine but survived, as did Bowes. And Jardine was quite tolerant of some of Larwood's excesses. I think his main concern was how useful the player was, not their social class. I think he disliked Freddie Brown quite a lot too. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised, this makes him sound a very socially enlightened sort of chap with regard to the professionals. He wasn't! But very few amateurs were in those days.--Sarastro1 (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Bradman's century in Melbourne should be mentioned, that people thought Bodyline had been tamed after that? The result of the first two Tests isn't actually made explicit and some thought that Bradman coming back and winning at the MCG meant that with him in the team, Bodyline could be dismantled
Larwood's foot is misleading; it didn't end his career; he recovered but was then excluded for political reasons
Would it be useful to explain who the second manager is; most books always say "The Eng manager Warner" and never mention the other guy, whoever he was
Mention fears that the controversy would cause a trade boycott per Bodyline. Bodyline transcended the scoreboard
Done: taken most of the trade bit direct from Bodyline article. Did the rest of the comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"A controversial figure among cricketers" - The public/pundits also didn't like him
In Australia maybe, and I think this is covered quite well, but he was popular with the public in England and the pundits had mixed views but didn't dislike him as such. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph is a bit understated and doesn't really capture the feelings he fuelled, especially as Bodyline is stated without explaining the physical nature etc, or that Bodyline was new etc
Took a bit from Bodyline article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"run out by Tate" explain a mix-up? Else people will think it is some WIndian named Tate?
Dropped after 83? Or only two Tests in the series??
Probably rested to look at someone else before Ashes tour, but it doesn't say this anywhere. He may have been injured. Or even dropped! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He was also on the five-man selection committee for the tour" They only select during teh tour, not the original squad, correct?
"Jardine did not appear in first-class cricket in the 1929 season" Any reason?
None that I can find. Financial? Fed up with cricket after the tour? Who knows! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. However, I think it is taken straight from the Douglas book in the main (it says as much) but does not reference anything else. I'm not sure how reliable the "business reasons" explanation would be, although it's probably correct, and I'm not sure how reliable an article like this on CricketArchive would be. I'm open to suggestions! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found a vague reference to business reasons in Le Quesne, so added it here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So JArdin'es first Test as captain was a draw? It is phrased rather tantalisingly
"England only played one Test match, India's first ever match" You mean their first Test rather than their first FC etc as a nation?
974? explain phenomena, not just another world class player
Foster did slow leg theory, needs differentiating?
Foster was quite fast and drew complaints from the Australian players for hitting their inside legs at a brisk pace and generally knocking them about, but never by bowling short or at the man.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It was not unusual for Oxford and Cambridge cricketers to wear similar caps while batting, as both Jardine and M.C.C. captain Percy Chapman did so on this tour, although it was slightly unorthodox to wear them while batting" repetition
All done except those mentioned above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue is not explaining Bodyline enough, how it contrasted from the status quo, as from just reading it, one doesn't get an impression of how it shook up the orthodoxy, especially with the incidents. It might be useful to include the thing about it being voted the biggest scandal ever, per the main article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it is a little more prominent now, but I didn't want this to just turn into a second article about bodyline so didn't go into too much detail. However, it was a little sparse on how controversial this was; hopefully it's better, but just let me know if it needs more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues
I have fixed an unformatted link in the infobox
Cricinfo is a cited source (infobox and ref. 25) and should not, therefore be listed as an External link
Ref 47: "Fouglas" needs correcting
The Peebles book needs an ISBN
The edition I have doesn't seem to have an ISBN for some reason.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Readers Union is, or was, a book club rather than a publishing house, and evidently didn't bother with ISBNs on its reprints, so there's not much you can do. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General: the sources look OK, but I am concerned about a rather narrow range, and an over-reliance on the Douglas book. Of about 220 citations to book sources, 155 (70% of the total) are to Douglas. 45 are to Frith (that's all right), and a bare 20 to the other listed books. This looks like over-reliance on a single book. I know it's the only full-length biography, but much has been written about Jardine as a cricketer which I might have expected to find represented here, e.g. Bradman, Neville Cardus, etc. A history of Surrey CCC might also be an informative source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources which I have access to do not go into enough detail about his life, but rather talk about his technique, personality or the bodyline series. Many of them tend to repeat the same points and give very little biographical information. Do you know of any other good sources? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jardine's life as a cricketer is what is notable about him. This should be the focus of the article, and should be covered from a range of angles. As to additional sources, I've mentioned the Surrey history - I'm sure there's more than one. There are several general histories of cricket covering the 1930s. Pelham Warner was a prolific writer - and England's manager on the bodyline tour; I'm sure he had plenty to say about Jardine. Bradman's autobiography Farewell to Cricket could be useful. There are the lives of cricketers such as Larwood, whose careers were greatly affected by Jardine's actions. Plenty of places to look, really. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more sources, including Larwood biography, biographies of some Australian players, Fingleton's books on Bodyline, Warner's autobiography and a couple of others. Unable to locate a Surrey history at the moment. Also, Bradman's book does not really mention much about Jardine, except in general terms and mainly concentrates on bodyline series. As I've said above, I don't think this article should focus solely on bodyline unless directly related to Jardine, so I haven't used any of Bradman's stuff. I would appreciate any comments on if the sourcing is improved and what else may be needed.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The additions to the sources are good. A couple of further suggestions: this BBC broadcast could be interesting (I don't have the software to play it); also, Jardine's ODNB entry might have useful information - I'll check it out when I'm next in the library. Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) You should definitely check out the ODNB entry. It has interesting information, e.g. about Jardine's degree class from Oxford, and the fact that he died leaving £71,000 (worth over £1¼ million today), and the textbook Cricket: How to Succeed that he wrote for the National Union of Teachers. If you have a library card you can access ODNB online. Also, a couple of points from the article:-
In the Early life section you describe Jardine as living with his aunt in St Andrews and attending school "nearby" in Newbury, Berks. They are hundreds of miles apart.
"Australian figures such as Alexander Hore-Ruthven..." He was by no means an Australian. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the two points you raised. Great call on the ODNB, thanks. Added some of the info to the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sources point
"Jardine's father-in-law was keen for him to pursue his law career but he instead continued as a bank clerk..." I need some convincing that Jardine's employment with the bank was in the role of a "bank clerk", a lowish-grade clerical profession unlikely to be occupied by an Oxford graduate who was a qualified solicitor and had the status of an England cricket captain. Please check out the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source (Douglas) does say that he worked as a clerk. It is possible, as he was never financially wealthy, and Douglas mentions it twice. The author spoke to Jardine's daughters in writing the book. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very curious. Jardine may not have been independently wealthy - so why would he choose a low-paid job in a field in which he was evidently not qualified (he trained as a solicitor, not as a banker)? I've not read Douglas's book, but I suspect he is short on details, and uses the term "clerk" rather loosely; maybe Jardine worked in the bank's legal department, rather than as a cashier in a High Street branch? But that's guesswork - you can't go beyond your sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a little hesitant but this article is so thorough it meets my interpretation of the standards. I found myself reading it and half and hour later was still engaged clicking on the links of links and images. I loved the bits about the crowd giving the guy a hard time. A few notes:
I also agree that the Douglas source is used a little much but what are you going to do? Some Google news archive searches or hitting the library databases could help but if one source has the info then one source has the info.
Some more sources added as mentioned above.--Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More wikilinks are needed for cricket terms. I was able to assume what was going on (making the links provided that much more interesting) but I imagine those who don't follow sports at all would be lost.
Tried to link a few; but I could do with a few more specific examples of what needs linking. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the first few paragraphs and it seems better after trying to dissect it. I noticed that every time I found something I wanted linked it was already done (century, Test, and so on). You kept within the linking standards and did not overlink later on in the article. Maybe it was my misunderstanding of the game and not the linking that was a concern.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is good. I noticed that every time I thought it was getting a little pompous (like the guy?), "however" would be there. However, you might use "however" a bit much even though you did not exactly break WP:HOWEVER.
Removed some of the "howevers".--Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I feel like I have a good understanding of the guy. You are a little screwed with it being so in depth since that it is a long read there are many more opportunities for grammatical errors. Nothing jumped out, though. Nice work putting it all together.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The comment directly above this one is 100% correct. The longer an article, the more things can be spotted; that goes double for someone like me who reviews line-by-line. That said, this is certainly an interesting read, and looks quite comprehensive in scope. Picked up the following items in what I read, which sadly doesn't include anything related to Bodyline:
"Best known for captaining the English team during the 1932-33 Ashes tour of Australia". The sentence continues for a little bit, but it's lacking one important thing: a subject. Is this meant to be "Jardine is best known", by chance?
Leg side is linked twice in one sentence, which is a bit of overkill.
I think it's leg stump and leg side in the same sentence, which are two different things, unless I'm missing where it is. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He joined the Territorial Army in the Second World War, most of which was spent in India." Currently reads like the majority of WWII was in India, which I doubt is the intention. Is it that Jardine mostly stayed in India?
Early life: "But his main sporting reputation came from cricket." Somewhere in the deep corners of my brain, I remember seeing that starting a sentence with "But" is not optimal. Maybe try "However" here? (a comma might be needed if this is done).
"Their bowlers had enjoyed some success against England and possessed several fast bowlers who bowled with hostility." The bowlers possessed bowlers? I think the first one should more specifically refer to the team.
Appointment as captain: Little inconsistencly here regarding Bradman's first name; I see both Donald and Don. Honestly, I don't even think a first name needs to be provided after the first use, so that might be the best fix.
Picky, but there should be an apostrophe after The Times', like that. Don't want the fussy reviewers to notice that (yes, there are reviewers fussier than me).
"but it was some time before this ... were confirmed." Taking out the bit bracketed by commas, it appears as though "were" should be "was" to ensure the proper tense.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got to read through the Bodyline section and it was mostly good. I made a couple little copy-edits changes, and found the following couple items that I can't fix myself. If I spot anything else I'll post it later.
Beginning of the tour: "although bowlers had previously used both leg theory bowling, where bowlers bowled at our outside leg stump...". First, I don't understand where "both" is coming from, since leg theory is the only thing mentioned (is it two types of leg theory?). Second, what is "our" doing here?
Quote in Retirement: "I have neither the intention for the desire to play cricket against Australia this summer." Is "for" a typo, or is that correct as is? Need the book to know for sure, so I have no way to tell. Sounds funny, though.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last one from me: in the quote at the end of Captaincy, it appears that an attribution is missing beforehand. Right now, it says "In fact", and then goes on to the quotation. Without "Werner said" or similar, it sounds more editorial than is intended. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it is an honorary position. He did umpire one match according to CA, but not sure it's worth mentioning, and he was certainly president, according to Wisden.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Okay, read through and is very comprehensive and engaging. However, I haven't had a thorough look a the prose, but there doesn't appear to be any glaring issues. Well done. AaroncrickTALK 04:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I peer-reviewed this in early May and greatly enjoyed it, although I know little about cricket. Now that others more well-versed in cricket lore have helped improve the content, I'm happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
No, not a cricketer. Neil Brooks was an Australia freestyle swimmer of the 1980s who was part of the victorious team in the 4x1 medley relay at the Moscow Olympics. A rebellious character, he was suspended for a physical altercation with a coach (leading to a team revolt), booted out of the Australian Institute of Sport for indiscipline, and finally retired in 1986 after being suspended for drinking 46 cans of beer in one session on the return flight from the 1986 Commonwealth Games. Later, he became a journalist and sports broadcaster, but was sacked after a few drunken incidents YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues
Ref 24: the publisher appears to be marksonsparks, not Celebrity Speakers per ref. 23.
Why are Celebrity Speakers and marksonsparks considered reliable? Each seems to be a plug advertising the services of Neil Brooks, and neither appears to have a neutral encyclopedic quality.
Fixed the first point. For the second point, I considered those two as his agents, so they are effectively self-published sources. I only used them under the provision of WP:SELFPUB, only including the raw fact that he was a newsreader and swimming broadcaster, and not the fluff that he is quality, versatile etc, so there should be no POV problem. The fact that he called Olympic swimming and football for Channel 7 is not disputed by anyone in Australia and I could just delete the source and leave the material unsourced as it is not "likely to be challenged", if that is determined to be more efficient. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the information cited to these sources is factual rather than interpretative, and I won't pursue the point, but on principle I feel that if possible, sources like these should be avoided lest a general impression is given that WP relies on material like this for the substance of its articles. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand. I have a strong aversion to websites generally and never use them in Vietnamese history articles, and only a minority in sport articles, generally for stats databases not analytical comment. I'll be on the loohout for stuff to replace it if it comes up YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—a dab link to FINA World Cup, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative SupportComments - as I said, I'd be happier with a more comprehensive treatment, but if there's nothing else out there then it is impossible to improve. Also, an image would be great (I get the impression he'd give us one if we asked nicely) but again, if we don't have we don't have. I don't see any deal-breaker clangers prose wise but suspect other reviewers might find bits and pieces. beginning a read-through now. I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff was virtually outside Western Australia. - I have no idea what this means here.
The inaugural director Don Talbot, a former head coach of the Australians swimming team, expelled him for indiscipline - be good to know why exactly/what happened.
His family aren't mentioned much after the beginning. I don't get much of a feel about them or his relationships with them, so if anything can be added that'd be good, but if not don't worry.
I did see this on google books, but only a snippet view, and also this looks intriguing. If you can check the first one might be a little more on some relationships. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the first book is by a much-loathed spammer/promoter, so I wonder if it would be considered RS in any case with its self-aggrandisations, but the book doesn't seem to be stocked in any library in the whole state. The second is Nadine Neumann's autobiography and only has one mention of Brooks when he itnerviewed her after a race YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I thought Markson might have said something interesting but I suspect from the link that it wasn't much related to swimming so is (I suspect) of less encyclopedic value really. Okay....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Comments — I've read through the article and looks very solid as always; however, I'll read through it again and jot things down.
"Shortly after, he switched to the tutelage of Kevin Duff, who coached him for the next fifteen years, and came third in the 50 m breaststroke at the State Age Championships just six weeks later." — Makes it sound like Duff came third.
You link England (a link I removed) but you fail to link Western Australia. I'm not sure a link to Western Australia is entirely necessary though.
"Brooks was known for his rebellious nature, and had a glowing assessment of his coach, opining that "He's not pushy like many other Australian coaches and he's not in the politics of Australian swimming." — Capital H?
"W'ithin a year, Brooks' physical growth began to catch up and he started to regain the dominant position." — You use up in the previous sentence, can you perhaps tweak?
"Brooks dedicated his win to his mother, who had died from cancer the previous Christmas." — His win? I sorta of understand what you mean, but he was part of a team.
"He later felt that the victory had diminished his hunger for further success." — You'll probably disagree, but wouldn't adding however before he help with the flow of the sentence?
"Brooks suffered from a lack of motivation after the Olympics." — You're basically repeating what you've already said. You could perhaps merge with the previous sentence?
"He then won the 1981 Australian title in the 100 m freestyle in a time of 52.61 s without training, substantially slower that his personal best." — I get what you mean but the bit after training just doesn't flow.
"He enjoyed the less paternalistic treatment that the coaches accorded to their swimmers, saying that "In Australia, after a race they want to lock you in your room." — Again, why does in have a capital I?
Per above
"Brooks spoke out about the accommodation, leading officials to make improvements." — Perhaps clarify by saying he spoke out about the quality. I guess the bit after the comma basically spells it out, but it could mean the location, ect.
"He received as one month ban, effective after the conclusion of the Commonwealth Games." — Do you mean a?
"Brooks stood 200 cm and weighed 95 kg." — I don't get why this is randomly just wacked after talking about what sports he played after swimming. When was he 95 kg? Wouldn't it be better to merge it with the bit about his weight increase?
"He also fought a battle with obesity, after ballooning to 150 kg, but has now lost the weight and fought off his alcohol problems." Lost how much? Back down to 95kg or what? I highly doubt it. AaroncrickTALK 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It didn't say how much, but the last time there was an ACA ad fro his business dispute, it showed him looking normal YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Very interesting article. Thankyou YellowMonkey for being so quick to respond to my concerns. AaroncrickTALK 09:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Read through the article from start to finish, and for the most part it was a good read. There were a few copy-edit needs remaining, but I went through the article and took care of the things I saw, though I forgot that there were a couple of abbreviations (FINA and NCAA) that could use spelling out. Also, the "He has now lost substantial weight" sentence is time-sensitive as is and could use some re-wording, especially since the source is from 2007. Still, the article is of the standard I've come to expect. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giants: "Brooks retired thereafter, moving to Nambour, Queensland and started a rock band called The Union. How come you changedstarted to starting? AaroncrickTALK 04:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that in a situation like this, the elements should be both passive or active voice, not both, as with "moving" and "started". I didn't think they worked well together, so I changed one of them. I wasn't sure if a comma was meant to be after Queensland, but didn't think one was needed so I made the passive voice change instead. If you don't like the switch, go ahead and switch it back. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): –MuZemike 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a second attempt at FA for this Nintendo Entertainment System classic. While there were relatively little comment on the previous FAC attempt a little over 3 months ago, the sole oppose had concerns about not meeting 1b, which after looking back I completely agree. Since the last FAC attempt (version at the end of the last FAC, [38]), the article has been greatly expanded in all directions, including 17KB more material (8KB more of written prose and about 1400 more words); coverage from 1989 is now provided to the point in which this should easily meet 1b.
Some background information about the article: this video game basically launched the Ninja Gaiden franchise and is considered one of the best NES titles of all time. The gameplay mechanics and animated sequences were revolutionary at the time.
And finally, as I have mentioned in all my previous trips to FAC, of the 131 video game FAs currently, not one of them is on a game for the NES which, having grown up in the "NES generation", is shocking and sad. I'm hoping that we can break that mold right here with this article. –MuZemike 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Images: I'm going back on my previous statements in the old FAC about File:Ninja Gaiden NES Duel.png. Yes, cutscenes are discussed, but it's really only two critics, and what they discuss isn't shown in this image (the close-ups of characters, and fluid animation which we really can't see anyhow.) Also, why do the fair use rationales for the screenshots say "No: Image is high-resolution"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those were mistakes on my part, as the images are as small and low as resolution you can possibly get (FURs corrected [39] and [40]). As far as the usage of the one image, if I remove it, would having only the boxart and gameplay images be sufficient enough to meet criterion 3? –MuZemike 19:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If absolutely necessary to have an additional (free) image in there, I could include Seth Godin's (publisher of the game's novelization for Worlds of Power) image (File:Seth Godin.jpg) in the "Other appearances" section, provided that is relevant enough to the given material in that section. –MuZemike 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your first question: I think the gameplay shot could use some expansion to its rationale, but it's valid; as to free images, you can go crazy, as far as rules go. Whether or not the images are relevant enough is your call (although the Seth Godin image you linked should be deleted as copyvio, as the description clearly says it's supposed to be a NC-license and thus invalid for Wikipedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fuchs is correct—the licenses allow commercial use, but Godin only granted rights "to use online in any non-commercial way" (says the Author field), which doesn't cut it for those licenses or Commons in general. If he's not dead or reclusive, there's no "non-free" room either. It's gotta go byebye. :( --anoddname 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just talked to a couple of admins on Commons, and after looking at that image's history, the "non-commercial" part wasn't part of the original upload. commons:User:Krinkle over at Commons reverted the "non-commercial" part, (Actually, I was in the process of restoring the image here when that was discovered, causing me to re-delete the image here.) so I would think that would be good now. I am also uploading an image of him that is only tagged as CC-BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr to Commons if there are any additional doubts (and because you can, provided attribution is provided and it's not NC, which it isn't). –MuZemike 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues: A few very trivial points:-
Ref 8:The "cite journal" template doesn't identify page numbers as such, unless you out "p." or "pp." in the field. In this case it would be appropriate to enter "pp. 20–30" in the field, otherwise nobody knows what "20–30" refers to.
Ref 23: Needs the publisher (I know it's IGN, and the title begins "IGN presents...", but consistency requires that the publisher be listed.
It helps when you spell "publisher" correctly ;) –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 26: The "pp." point again. Also, "issue= 0": if this means that issues are un-numbered, best to simply omit this field.
It actually says "Issue 0" on the magazine's cover; that (Issue 0) is also referenced in Ref #5 in the second coverage by Mean Machines (page 68 under the "Ninja Binge" section). –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to reference the actual magazine's cover, which I'm not sure how to handle that as far as verifiability is concerned. Alternatively, I could just leave out the citation completely if it's that trivial. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think just saying "front cover" as the page would work; I've edited it accordingly. --anoddname 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From 41 onward the page number identification occurs repeatedly so I won't list them all.
The sources used look pretty mainstream to me, but it would be good if an editor with experience of video game articles at FAC could comment on their reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added in "p. X" or "pp. Y" for consistency and corrected the one "publisher" error. Relevant diff for the above corrections is [41]. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Hellknowz ▎talk 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Manual in reference should link to the corresponding reference entry.
Not sure what you are getting at. Much of the citations in the first few sections go to the manual, in which I used shorthand citations to reduce redundancy. I then put the full citation down in the "References" section. That should be consistent with WP:CITE. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and change it myself to show what I meant. — Hellknowz ▎talk 00:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Nine, F.X.; Singer, A.L." - there should be a space between first names.
Ref 61, 76 - I'm not sure on this, but should IGN Staff be author? It seems that an editor would be better.
If we knew who the specific editor was, but unfortunately they did not disclose that. That should not make the reference any less reliable as a result. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I'm not concerned about reliability. I meant use editor= field instead of author= field. Of course I was being stupid and cite web doesn't have editor, that's just for books. — Hellknowz ▎talk
Ref 31 author Fletcher, JC - it says so on site but is JC first name?
I did change to "J. C.", but again that's all it says. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should work= not always link to articles for existing works, like 1UP.com— Hellknowz ▎talk 23:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following what you mean on that one. I can't tell if the issue is overlinking or underlinking; I thought once in the citation list is sufficient and is consistent in how it's linked in the article prose. By the way, the diff of the above corrections I made is [42]. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant underlinking. Correct me if I am wrong and only first instance should be linked. I assumed references are usually very scattered and sources not in sequence, so every instance is to be linked. — Hellknowz ▎talk 00:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scholastic Press is redirect to Scholastic Corporation, "Press" part is not subsidiary, division, and the company does not do anything else, so it may be better to redirect directly.
Week supportfor now given above issues. It looks good with no big issues; particularly for this hard topic. — Hellknowz ▎talk 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to "fix" non-broken redirects. That said, if the article's term is wrong (and not just alternate spelling or such), it should be changed, so I've fixed the last one and I'll leave others to the nominator. --anoddname 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know about not fixing not-broken, and I only pointed out obvious misspellings or redirects that are unlikely to have separate articles.— Hellknowz ▎talk 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I fixed that and added one link as noted above with the exception of "ninpo". [43] suggests that "ninpo" is different from "ninjutsu", even though that distinction is not made in the ninjutsu article. Hence, I think it's better to go by what the source says, which is "ninpo". –MuZemike 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar about this, therefore I asked with a question mark, so no quarrel.— Hellknowz ▎talk 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; this looks to meet FA standard after the previous FAC. Good work on the large reception section for this relatively old game. One comment: You may wish to change the section title "Other appearances" to "Other media" or "Related media". Tezero (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and changed that heading to "Related media" here as it does make more sense and is what is in many other related FAs. –MuZemike 03:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ImagesFile:Ninja Gaiden (NES).jpg, "To identify and illustrate the game or program in its own article or a closely related article.", boiler plating of a FU rationale is far from acceptable, fails wp:nfcc, fails FAC3, opposeFasach Nua (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Made more specific as far as the purpose of the boxart is concerned. –MuZemike 20:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Fasach Nua to re-evaluate the Oppose, given the length of time since your response. --anoddname 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport. This article is 99% of the way there. My objection is that the development section is slightly incomplete and incorrect. There is an interview at http://hg101.kontek.net/ninjagaiden/ninjagaiden9.htm with an artist on the first game. While most of the interview relates to the second and third games in which this individual had a larger role, he gives some information on the first including on a Mr. Yoshizawa, whom he considers the father of the series for deciding the game should have a story. Yoshizawa was also the writer of the story, but the article credits Sakurazaki instead. There is also an interesting story about how having to start the last chapter from the beginning if you lost against the final boss resulted from an unintended bug. Once the information from the interview is incorporated (I know I could do it, but I figure the nominator should put it in there in the manner he wants) then I think it will be good to go. Indrian (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The interview was originally used as a source for the timing of the releases of both the arcade and NES version [44], but the reliability of that source is questionable and was questioned in the previous FAC. The author of these series of pages is "derboo", which according to the site's main page, he is the "catalog administrator". The site's head editor is Kurt Kalata, who is a contributor (articles, that is) to 1UP.com, Gamasutra, and Sliconera. The guidelines here seem to suggest that the content of the site is generated by users. That's why the source was removed because of its shaky reliability as a source. –MuZemike 19:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the individual in question was author of the material, that would be one thing, but since this is an interview, I really do not see the issue. Do you have some reason to doubt that the interview itself is authentic? Indrian (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated content (as far as I can tell) is basically self-published. By that SPS section and SELFPUB just below (both part of the Verifiability policy), a self-pub'd interview would basically be an even bigger red flag, because it claims that an important third party (in this case, Masato Kato) said those things.
My concern about hg101 is not whether the authors hide behind aliases (see GamePro until recently) but whether there's fact-checking. The site looks useful, but I just don't know what their fact-check policies (if they have them) are. The submission guidelines MuZemike linked above say little or nothing on those (let alone whether they differ between contributors and HG staff like "derboo"). Lacking those, I'd consider it just another fansite (however insightful). --anoddname 20:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I placed them in (diffs: [45], [46], and [47]). I'll let a rough consensus form as to whether or not it's reliable. I'll be happy to revert/remove if it's deemed not reliable. –MuZemike 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I personally think the interview is reliably authentic since the editor of the site appears to be a trusted journalist himself (in other words, I would expect him to make sure that he was actually posting a real interview), and an interview consists of direct quotes from the subject rather than truly user-generated content, but I do agree it is borderline and obviously if there is an outcry you should not be penalized for failing to use it as a source. Furthermore, since you have been able to correct the naming issue through other sources, the interview is not really strctly necessary at this point anyway. I withdraw my objection. Indrian (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the "Some reviewers appreciated the redrawn graphics" sentence actually belongs in Reception or Legacy, and if the "In its preview of Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos" one should go in Legacy (because it was more a reflection on the good ol' days of Part 1 given the upcoming Part 2). Minor, though.
Otherwise good. I went through and corrected and tweaked a few text things but the prose looks nice and crisp. There's a lot to see here about the game and its re-releases and adaptations, and "Gameplay" and "Plot" agree with reality. The sources all look good and reliable, and I don't see any sort of POV-ness. Structure looks good (no odd "Overview" or "Trivia" sections, or glut of small sections) and refs look consistent. Once the Godin image is confirmed free (or removed), you can consider me a full support because the non-frees have good rationales. --anoddname 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and with that, I think we are good to go. --anoddname 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After seeing that this had been nominated, and examining its high praise from reviewers thus far, I went to look it over for possible issues. The article seems to be FA-quality in its research; unfortunately, I think the prose is a little iffy. I noticed problems with redundancy and informal voice, and, occasionally, with punctuation and information overload. The diff on my rough copyedit of the first four paragraphs is a good indication of what I'm referring to. Do not consider this to be an opposing vote, however; my Wikipedia time too limited to go through the checklisting-assisting-supporting process that an opposition entails. I'm only pointing this out so that other reviewers can examine the article from a different perspective. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at the prose when I get time today (I have a peer review, a GAN, and a baseball game to do today). I will note that [49]has some errors also, including a comma splice and introduces more passive voice – something I was trying to avoid (i.e. "Players lose a life when ..." as opposed to "A "life" is lost when ..."). –MuZemike 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out the "comma splice" portion there as I did not realize what I saw was an appositive, which is okay to set off with commas (or with dashes or even without commas). –MuZemike 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Started on some general copyediting lead, gameplay, and plot. More coming later on today. –MuZemike 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and finished up with development and reception/legacy. (I didn't see anything that stuck out in the "Other appearances" section.) The material in the latter half of the article is newer and was probably written better from the start than the first half. –MuZemike 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"Didn't quite get this sentence from Plot: "Walter then tells Ryu of an evil demon that "SHINOBE" defeated and confined its power into two "Light" and "Shadow" demon statues." SHINOBE confined the power? If so, the sentence is not 100% clear on that point. It could stand a re-write.
Amazon doesn't need multiple links in this section.
"that he was the one who dueled with Ryu's father and, that his father is still alive, and that Ryu will meet him as he presses onward." Something feels off here; I think it's the first "and", which seems to be making this awkward.
Development: The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles link currently goes to a page on the entire series. On a glance, an appropriate article for the individual game should exist and could be linked instead.
Other appearances: Drop-down tables such as the track listing here are discouraged by accessibility guidelines. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with removing the show/hide function; the text is substantial enough that it won't be overwhelmed by the list.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made the corrections in the first three points here. As far as the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" are concerned, I think the context of that what the article (and the source) meant was the entire series itself (i.e. the entire series became "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles" when it reached Europe). I don't have much a problem undoing the collapsible table for the discography, but I have WP:LAYOUT concerns if I also do that to the infobox. That gameplay image would have to be virtually moved down to the Plot section, which is also not a good thing to do as the image is not next to the text in which it's attributing. –MuZemike 01:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discography table was what I meant. I didn't even notice the one in the infobox until the response, and agree that it would cause more trouble than it's worth to uncollapse that one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went ahead and un-collapsed the discography table here. –MuZemike 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the only Victoria Cross recipient flying with an RAAF squadron during World War II, a man who was shot down and beheaded by his captors for his trouble. Took it to GA some time ago but always intended for FA. This recent expansion employing his sole biography and that of a comrade, Charles Learmonth (another article in my sights), has just passed A-Class Review in the MilHist and Aviation projects, and I believe meets FA criteria as well. N.B. This is a Wikicup entry; please note that due to travel commitments, I'll have limited access to the web (and even less to references) for a month commencing 10 June, so if people are able to review and raise any issues sooner rather than later, that'd be very helpful. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket alert!: "...Test batsman Bill Ponsford—still the only man to twice score 400 in a first-class innings..." I suggest you check out the record of B.C. Lara (West Indies). Admittedly, one of his was over 500, and the other was only against England, but still... Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I didn't put in that little snippet myself but as nominator I'll take responsibility for it... ;-) Happy to change "still the only man" to "the first man" unless anyone has a better suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went for "only Australian" for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does look a bit dubious, doesn't it? I'm happy to replace with the Australian flag until or unless the emblem licensing is verified -- we'd always tended to use the Australian flag for the Army till this emblem file became available recently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another great article on a significant RAAF figure which meets the FA criteria. I've re-worded the last sentence in the lead so that it flows better, but could be tweaked more I suspect. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nick. I think your modification to the last sentence of the lead is generally fine but wonder if it'd work slightly better as "for action" as opposed to "for an action" (seems to flow better and still accurate), and kind of prefer "sole Australian to be so decorated" unless that sounds a bit peacockish... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "for action" is more accurate (given that this is an unusual VC in that it wasn't awarded for a single event) and "sole Australian to be so decorated" cuts down on some duplication. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is an excellent article. It flows well and has just the right amount of information in it. I had a look in my books on the VC and couldn't find anything to add or anything incorrect so sources works out well. I have a slight qualm with the sentence: "The citation in the London Gazette, which incorrectly implied that he was shot down on 17 March rather than the following day, and as having failed to escape from his sinking aircraft, read:" It just doesn't seem to flow right to me, maybe it can be reworded? Also, you don't need the double citation there in terms of "ref [13]," the Gazette should suffice. Apart from those small personal issues I think the article is great and meets the FA criteria. Good work. Woody (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Woody, I'll think about that sentence (maybe on the plane)! Re. the second citation, I was being careful of any suggestion of editorialising: the two errors are actually pointed out by Staunton, so it's not just me saying it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this rearrangement is an improvement, Woody? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newton was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions on 16–18 March, becoming the only Australian airman to earn the decoration in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II, and the only one while flying with an RAAF squadron. The citation, which incorrectly implied that he was shot down on 17 March rather than the following day, and as having failed to escape from his sinking aircraft, was promulgated in the London Gazette on 19 October 1943:
That reads better to me, after reflecting on what you said I suggest you put the ref at the end of "1943:" and then put the Gazette citation at the end of the citation. Would that work for you? Woody (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support fascinating read. I find nothing lacking. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Read the page from start and finish, and to me it certainly deserves the star. Well-written, well-sourced, and a fine read. There were a couple tiny flaws that I noticed; the first was in the bit that Woody mentioned earlier. It still looks a shade off to me, and I think it's because of the "as having" part. Just dropping those two words would be sufficient to fix it. The second thing was toward the end, where I saw "by the-then Chief of Air Force"; the hyphen looks like it should go one word later. Other than those small points, excellent work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I can't think of anything else to add, and I believe it meets the criteria. It's another little brown swallow, I'm afraid, but at least its African, an area of weakness for WP fauna projects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: For consistency's sake, publisher locations should be added to those books that don't presntly have them. Otherwise, all sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looking good. Ucucha 06:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Comment. I passed this as a GA before and it seems to have improved since; on a read through, I didn't find any problems. There are a few sources that should perhaps be included:[reply]
Title: Nest eviction of rock martins by little swifts.
Title: Variation, geographical arcs and gene-flow within the populations of the rock martin Hirundo (Ptyonoprogne) fuligula in eastern, southern and south-western Africa.
Thanks for reviewing again. Carr is a good find, they often nest together, so this behaviour is not surprising. I can't access Irwin. If there is anything important that should go in, would you me kind enough to email it to me? Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have it either, but is in the library (don't know when I'll be going there). It does sound like there could be some interesting pieces. Ucucha 13:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that Turner used this paper as a primary source for her discussion of the seasonal movements of Rock Martins. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the summary, I've incorporated Irwin's useful data in a new sentence at the end of "subspecies". Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addition and support. I don't know if there is an MoS on whether to use current or former country names, but you sentence neatly solves that for this article at least Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for the lead, I'd suggest linking plumage, flight feather, subspecies, clutch; conversely, is a link to insects necessary?
since there's a dearth of photos of the species, how about cropping the taxobox image so that more of the picture is of the bird?
"The sexes are similar," in appearance? (same in description section)
"… and are sometimes split as the "Pale Crag Martin". split into a different species? Need to be more explicit here for clarity I think
"16–19 days to hatching" ->prior to hatching? (also in breeding section)
authority & year for synonym in taxobox?
nbsps in short-form
link hybridise
not a fan of the list-like subspecies section with incomplete sentences. Would rather see it in a table than the form it's in now, or (preferably) as prose.
perhaps relink covert & fledge (there a ways from the lead), rufous, vagrant, conspecifics
"short range" needs hyphen
why link Congo but not Gabon, Kuwait, Mali or Mauritania? (and later, Botswana and Namibia)
link synonym
foreign-language titles should have Engligh translation
some refs end with full stops, others don't
Tuner cited text title in sentence case, other aren't
Thanks for careful review, I've followed all your suggestions. I opted for a table rather than prose because there are too many ssp to make compelling writing when there is so little to say about each form. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The range map looks like it has been drawn with a bit of a shaky pen, and I would not like to see it go out in the FT book like that. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments. This is version 3 of the map following geographical corrections, and it's the best I can do. Distributions don't follow straight lines or small curves anyway, they just fade out. Maps aren't a FA or FT requirement and can be removed if necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The shaky lines are not like a finished product and I think the schematic makes the article look a bit amateurish. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the authority formatting in wrong. I have occasionally written it the way you have written it and some erudite bird editors rewrite it with the the name and the date within the brackets. I have not asked why, but I presume that there is some agreed standard format somewhere.Snowman (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to the parentheses, they are used where the current name is not the original name. So Barn Swallow is Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758, but House Martin is Delichon urbicum (Linnaeus) 1758 since he named it Hirundo urbica. I corrected the first taxobox occurrence of Lichtenstein, which should have been parenthetical since he named it as Hirundo. AFAIK, none of the ssp has its original name and all should be parenthetical Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some erudite bird editors would use "(Linnaeus 1758)". Snowman (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you amended it to "(Linnaeus, 1758)"? Snowman (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a "correct" style, other than when parentheses are used. Turner used (name) date, I switched these to (name, date) for consistency with the taxobox style rather than because Turner was "wrong". If you prefer it without the comma, that's fine with me too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to pursue this any further, because I do not know much about the format. Nevertheless, it is good that the authority formatting is now consistent within the page. It might be something that WP Birds could discuss. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is mi2 a well known abbreviation?Snowman (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, mos recommends superscript for metric and sq mi for imperial Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy with the readability of the article and I would recommend copy editing of the whole article again. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give examples, its hard to address generalised comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some copy editing in the "Predators and parasites" section: generally I improved readability by reducing ambiguity, complex grammar, and abstruse words. If necessary, please reword this section to improve it even further. In the absence new editors to the article, I would ask you to have a look through the rest of the article. Snowman (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Other raptors known to eat Rock Martins include the Peregrine and Taita Falcons." - presumably these are fast and agile and catch martins in flight too. This line does not explain enough details.Snowman (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's the case, since that's how falcons normally hunt birds or insects in flight, but the sources do not specifically say that for the two species you mention. Do you think I should assume it anyway and put something like Some falcons have the speed and agility to catch swallows and martins, and Rock Martins may be hunted by species such as the Peregrine Falcon,[24] Taita Falcon,[25] African Hobby and wintering Eurasian Hobby.[23] ? Unsigned edit by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does mean amending, because it could imply that the latter two do not catch them in flight. I was thinking about writing something like you suggest, but I have not got the references. I thought that it might be informative to differentiate the most common "enemies" and occasional "enemies", if there is such a difference. Snowman (talk)
now Some falcons have the speed and agility to catch swallows and martins in flight, and Rock Martins may be hunted by species such as the Peregrine Falcon,[23] Taita Falcon,[24] African Hobby and wintering Eurasian Hobby. All these falcons take a wide range of prey; Peregrines mainly eat larger birds like pigeons, and the others will take any available hirundine and also large insects. It's unlikely that any of these are common predators. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Table presentation:
The table was not rendered well on small screens, so I have fixed the table so that it is viewed OK on my screen. If you have a wide screen you may not see a difference. The image got in the way on the right of the table, so I have moved that to the section below. It it still OK on your screen now. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In (Geyr von Schweppenburg, 1916) will "Schweppenburg" be adequate? All the other names are just one name, but this name is in three words.Snowman (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the format of the table footnote, so that it appears different to a reference. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should it say binomial or trinomial?Snowman (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, footnotes look better. I've changed to "scientific name" since the principle applies to bi- and trinomials Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the references for the table? "The treatment here follows Turner (1989).[10]" should be rewritten. Does it mean that this is the reference for the table? Snowman (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rephrased as The list below is based on Turner (1989)
The putative split with the Pale Crag Martin could be indicated in the table by using alternative letters in the trinomial names; see the "Trichoglossus" genus page for ideas. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate here. It's not a single ssp that would be split, and although that doesn't prevent giving the trinomials, I follow Turner, who doesn't accept the split, and the ssp involved are clearly identified in the text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - disclose COI as wikiproject birds member, nevertheless these swallows have all flown past me to this point. Looks tight and professional. I can't think of anything else to tweak. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because the Millennium Park featured topic currently had 6 WP:FAs among its 15 articles. On September 1, the required FA proportion will be increasing from 1/3 to 1/2. Thus, the topic is in danger of being demoted from WP:FT to WP:GT if it does not get two more FAs before September 1. In addition Park Grill and Grant Park Music Festival are expected to be added to the topic as soon as Park Grill gets through its WP:PR and then a WP:GAC. Thus, the project is likely to need three more FAs before September 1. This is a high quality areticle that is very befitting of the FA designation and it would help the WP:CHICAGO project retain its only FT if it can get promoted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Tony for co-nominating me. I found and fixed the circular redirect (it was in the {{Chicago Theatre District}} template). Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That template seems to be linked to about 8000 articles. Should we just remove the image or should there be a discussion? Also, are the other images O.K.?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explicitly say which copyrighted material / file it is derived from? When I follow the links, it appears to be derived from File:Reinel compass rose.svg which is a free image and a FP, and is itself based on a map image published in 1504 (so PD old). I am not seeing the copyrighted material and would appreciate a more explicit explanation. Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader of this image, Eubulides (talk·contribs), stopped editing without explanation on March 19 and it looks less likely each day that he'll ever be back; that's all I know. —Soap— 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is ultimately a derivation from a 500-year old map; how exactly is that copyrighted? Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Fasach Nua and asked for clarification. The answer was that the file it is derived from ( File:Compass rose pale.svg) was licensed GFDL, CC-BY-SA, while the file in question was licensed PD-self. I have changed the license accordingly - here for the talk page conversation and here for my edit to change the license. Thanks to Fasach Nua for the clarification, Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks Ucucha for finding these and checking the others. I added the Internet Archive link to the second one. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All good now, thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: Mainly minor fixes necessary:-
Ref 2 (and other NYT refs): It isn't necessary to give the NYT publisher - you have in some, not in others.
Support. Sources look pretty solid. So does the content. Good job.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and kind words. As a general note, I am experiencing computer issues at home and may not be able to get online this weekend (from about 7 hours from now until Monday morning). Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the state Illinois in the title? The article should be moved to Harris Theater (Chicago).
If I recall, it was formerly there and got moved here. Here is what the page log says:
09:12, 23 January 2010 Markhh (talk | contribs) moved Harris Theater (Chicago) to Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) (standard disambiguation for articles on U.S. theaters)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the Chicago, Illinois. As if there is a Chicago in other states or something... It is also irritating when I search for a category e.g Theatres in Chicago and find it no longer exists and has not even been redirected to "Theatres in Chicago, Illinois. I find the ""Illinois" on the end of everything redundant. You never see for instance London referred to as London, England in every category. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some year ranges have four + four numerals, and others have four + two? For example: 2002–2003 versus 2008–09. Still others have apostrophes to stand in the place of the first two numerals: '03–'04, '04–'05, etc.
Why are some numbers larger than ten spelled out, and some are not? For example, there is 'seventy-fifth' in one place, and '75th' in another.
I am going to leave this one for Ruhrfisch, who is a much better copyeditor than I.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed the numbers that did not follow MOSNUM. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some of Blair Kamin's newspaper articles, are the stars part of the article title, or do they establish a new line or section? It doesn't seem to me that stars should be in the article title. Kamin has other such news item titles (with stars) in the Millennium Park article. If the stars go, the subsequent address or location description should go as well.
I believe that if you traced down microfilm of these articles the title would include a star character instead of the words that you see here. However, in the databases that we are using the word star replaces the character. I think this is correct as presented, but I could be convinced otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not about the words swapped in for stars, it is about having stars (or words saying star star star) in the title. I don't think the stars were intended by Kamin to be part of the title. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the Title ends before the stars. here as an alternate source for the same article in which the stars seem like subtitles, which I often include in citations. I am now tempted to change the asterisks back to prose (star)s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting that the article title is "Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance" and that the "**" or "(star) (star)" is the beginning of an unneeded subtitle, followed by the address. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My standard convention for titles in citations in every article I have written on WP is to include the subtitle, with a colon between the title and the subtitle. I have never been told that this is wrong or pointed to any MOS on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence which starts "The seats are maplewood, carpeting and walls..." should probably have a semicolon following 'maplewood' so that the reader does not think the seats are also composed of carpeting and walls.
Why is there a difference between the article body and the reference section in terms of date formatting? The body uses mdy, spelling out the month, and the references use ymd with numeral month. (Except for the MPNYT cite.)
Thanks, but my understanding was that the dates had to be consistent in sections (within the article, within the references) but could be two different styles in two different sections. I note that Wikipedia:MOS#Dates says in part "Dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD (like 1976-05-13) are uncommon in English prose and are generally not used in article prose. However, they may be useful in long lists, references, and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." If you still want this to be changed, please say so and I will make the reference date changes. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The parenthetical aside "($4,750 plus the expense of stagehands in 2008)" should probably put "in 2008" after the dollar figure, not after the stagehands, whose unstated expense does not need to be modified by what year was under discussion.
The table containing attendance, music and dance figures has these words below it: "Source: Chicago Tribune". In my browser window, the word "Source" directly follows the article body line ending "...a dozen music and dance groups. The twelve...", yielding (from their proximity) an apparent line reading "...a dozen music and dance groups. The twelve Source: Chicago Tribune." Is there a way that a border can be thrown around the table so that it stands further apart from the article body text?Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, but I still think there might be a way to throw a little empty border around the table. I don't know how. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the table so the source is within the borders (at least in IE 8). Is this what you wanted? Thanks for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a margin one em wide to the left and below the table, after asking the missus for advice (she's the expert HTML whiz of the house.) Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful comments and adding the margin to the table, Ruhrfisch><>°° 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well referenced, good photographs. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support - note that I have moved this to a more appropriate place in the article chronologically. Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment - Concise and well-written. Nice images, too. Some minor comments:
“The theater is the culmination of 'years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders' including groups like Music of the Baroque which are now residents in the venue.” Does Music of the Baroque operate out of the facility or just perform there? And is it only them? Perhaps “groups like Music of the Baroque, which now performs there.”
Thanks for your comments - my understanding is that Music of the Baroque performs there regularly, but has its own headquarters elsewhere - see their official history online. Will respond to your other points tomorrow. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to The theater is the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders", including groups like Music of the Baroque which now perform there regularly. Is this better? Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“The plan also resulted in the extension of Chicago’s performing arts district east to Lake Michigan … " East from where?
My impression is that the performing arts district was in the Loop west of Michigan Avenue before, but will let Tony answer this for sure. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be out of place to say that, for those who may not have that context? -Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the sentence has been changed to "The plan also extended Chicago’s performing arts district, which had been predominantly west of Michigan Avenue, east towards Lake Michigan, and linked it more with the Museum Campus and Michigan Avenue cultural institutions.[9][10]" - hopefully this is clearer? Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“The Harris Theater is a privately owned institution serving mostly local mid-size non-profit arts companies and projects, including those sponsoring touring artists such as Old Town School of Folk Music … “ Also reads oddly. Is Old Town School a sponsor? Perhaps “including those, like Old Town School of Folk Music, who sponsor touring artists.”
Thanks for the catch, used your wording (with which for who). Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“The MacArthur Foundation enables numerous performing arts groups to have an artistic home base at the theater, where they share hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants.” Can this be clarified? Is it the grants that do the enabling, or is there more to their support?
As I understand it the Theater serves as a performing venue that has costs. I imagine the grant funds stage hands and clean up crews. The theater makes it possible for all the small groups to share the cost of such functions at a wholesale rate and the Foundation probably picks up a lot of these costs through their grants.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, but might be a bit unclear. Maybe something as simple as "The MacArthur Foundation funds numerous performing arts groups, enabling them to have an artistic home ..." -Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence to " For example, in 2009 the MacArthur Foundation gave the theater $150,000 over three years "in support of a subsidized usage program for smaller arts organizations".[43][33][44]" and added a ref to the foundation's report on the grant. I thought a direct quote on a specific example might be clearer. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2009–10, the theater introduced a pair of discounted ticket programs." Is the “pair of” required? It makes it seem like they need describing.
I believe the wrong item was struck, just above. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are correct. Apologies. -Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“By providing a regular performing venue, the Harris Theater has also raised the profile of dance in Chicago.” Strictly speaking, the source says it has raised the profile of local dance groups. That seems like a different claim.
I am not sure I understand the point of this hairsplitting. If dance groups who perform dance have a higher profile, performance dance has a higher profile.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to raise the profile of a few small companies without necessarily doing anything for profile of dance in a place like Chicago -- that would be a much bigger deal. That is how I read it. The theater benefited the dance companies, certainly, and that was all the was being claimed. Is that hairsplitting? -Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to a brief direct quote from the Frommer's guide: "By providing a regular performing venue, the Harris Theater has also "raised the profile of local dance groups" in Chicago.[38]". Thanks for clarifying the distinction, Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the External links be pared down? The map links mostly duplicate the maps already here. The archive links take you to mostly program announcements and reviews rather than information about the theater. The calendar info is available at the official website (already linked). And the Twitter link just seems out of place here.
I removed the Loop map as it does not even show the theater, the Twitter link as it can be reached from the theater's official website (which is linked), and the calendar info link. I kept the official Millennium Park map link (it also includes a brief description of all the features in the park), the official theater website, and the newspaper article archives, for 4 ELs. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments and support, Ruhrfisch><>°° 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stricken, I'm neutral now. Thanks Tony and Ruhrfisch for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose by Karanacs.[reply]
I'm concerned that the lead includes information about who performed in the last two years - this seems like it will need to be updated yearly, leading to a longer lead. Can we perhaps just mention something along the lines of "Performances through this series have included ..." with two names?
I used your suggestion and included the San Francisco Ballet and Baryshnikov as they seemed the biggest two names (if it were three names I would add Sondheim). Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a theater for dance and music, I added Sondheim - other names were both dance. If three is too many, please say which dance name to remove. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"as a less than ideal venue for jazz groups because of its cost and size." - this is ambiguous. Is it that the size is bad for the sound of the jazz, or that jazz groups can't attract as large an audience? And how does cost factor into this? I know the full explanation is in the body, but the lead needs to make a little more sense
I tweaked this in the lead and used the word "cavernous" from the source in the body to express how the theater is seen as too large for jazz by some. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is much clearer now, but the sentence is now a bit wordy and repetitive - it uses "venue" three times. Any way to reword it to be a bit more concise? Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I switched one word in the lead and tried to make the sentence in the Reception section tighter, thanks. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is somewhat repetitive. Example: both the second and third paragraphs essentially begin with a sentence telling us that the theater was built for local music/dance organizations.
Is there any more background from the MacArthur Foundation study which would be useful here? It might be nice to know what options were available for performing arts in pre-1990 Chicago and why they were inadequate.
There are two sentences on the study on the Harris Theater's website's History section; the information from them is parahrased in the article already. The MacArthur Foundation does not have the study online and I have not found it online searching. So much as I agree it would be interesting to know more details, they are not readily available. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the study isn't available we can't have info on it. However, can we find anything elsewhere about the state of performing arts in Chicago pre-1990? Anything from the newspaper? When the theater was announced, were there newspaper/magazine articles that delved into why it was being built? Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just emailed the MacArthur Foundation asking for a copy of the study. Looking at Google News, I found a fair number of articles that detailed the various proposed plans for the Music and Dance theater after 1990 (it took over a decade before construction started - there were lots of changes in plans and proposed locations before they settled on Millennium Park). I do not think that this article needs to go into all the possible sites, etc. I did not find any pre-1990 articles, but I did find this 1993 article from the Tribune "No room to dance Shrinking performance space tests ingenuity of top troupes". I only read the abstract, but it points out how dependent dance troupes without "homes" were on finding performance space, and how the haves protected their own interests first (Lyric Opera (LO) made one theater into rehearsal and storage space, which removed it from the pool for itinerant troupes; LO's home theater was being renovated when LO was not using it - no problem for LO, but big trouble for other users). The Music of the Baroque homepage's history also goes into some detail how they used to perform only in churces- the Harris Theater gave them a more secure and performer friendly space they could count on. Not sure if this is OR or SYNTH. Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be O.K. to add something about this squeeze on the homeless troupes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the kind of information I was hoping could be found. Something along the lines of "The Chicago Tribune reported that ...." followed by "In 1990, a study by the foundation also identified a similar issue..." Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have added the 1993 "No room to dance" story to the section and as a ref and have rewritten the first few sentences to make it all flow (hopefully). Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The theater is the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders" including groups like Music of the Baroque, which now perform there regularly - does this mean that there were committees to determine how to build this theater, or that there were committees to determine that a theater was needed? Are there any more details on the plan and how it was developed?
I tweaked the sentence to show it was a committee to determine how to build the theater, but do not have any more details - sorry. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a change, did this get lost? Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it from "The theater is the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders" including groups like Music of the Baroque, which now perform there regularly." to "Once the need was identified, the theater was the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders"..." Here is the diff. I can try and change it more, if needed. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a few more details on the Montgomery Ward height restrictions?
Tony may have more on this, and has access to the books used (I do not). It may be that the books have more details on the two questions directly above too. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The adjacent Jay Pritzker Pavilion is classified as a work of art (and not a structure) to avoid the restrictions. Is that worth including? Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Macaluso book has the most detail that I recall. I don't currently have that book but I might be able to get it and I spend a lot of time online at Borders and they may have it. I will check this afternoon when I pass by there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony added a fair amount more on the background of the height restrictions, and I just added the pavilion as artwork dodge. Is this better? Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good information, but perhaps it can be summarized or massaged a little more. Also, is there information on what the actual height restrictions are? Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to know the details of the other Harris donations?
I presume you are suggesting cutting down "The Harrises have a history of philanthropy: in 1993 they gave $7 million ($10.5 million in current dollars) to fund the Joan and Irving Harris Concert Hall at the Aspen Music Festival and School in Aspen, Colorado,[21] and they were the primary benefactors of the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago, and several other causes for the arts and youth,[2][20]". Do you want it to be totally eliminated, cut to just the first phrase of "The Harrises have a history of philanthropy" or could we include something like "The Harrises have a history of philanthropy for institutions such as Joan and Irving Harris Concert Hall at the Aspen Music Festival and School in Aspen, Colorado and the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think something short along the lines of "The Harrises had a long history of philanthropy benefitting the arts." would be sufficient. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the three pictures wedged together in the beginning of the Architecture section. They are small, which to my poor eyesight then appears as just a bunch of lines - I had to click on the leftmost and center pictures and open them up full size to understand what they were supposed to be. Furthermore, I don't think the pictures add that much to the article. At the very least, I'd get rid of the one on the left. Perhaps either the middle or rightmost could stay and be made a bit bigger so that we can see them (both is probably overkill)?
I removed the leftmost image and made the two remining images larger. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better - I can see them! I still think two is overkill, though. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Pritzker Pavilion, which has the benefit that Millennium Park's indoor and outdoor performance venues share a loading dock, rehearsal - now we're assuming that readers know that the Paviliion is the outdoor performance venue. Perhaps this sentence could be restructured a bit. Also, was the theater built first, or was the pavilion? which takes advantage of the other's effort?
The park was a unified effort by one planner. I don't know that either is taking advantage of the other. However, I have clarified their respective roles in the LEAD so that it is not sudden information at this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the sentences on Jay Pritzker Pavilion to make it clearer that they were built at about the same time (JPP 1999-2004, HT 2002-2003) and some other tweaks. Is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you - both changes are useful. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got lost in the paragraph that's full of numbers. Perhaps this would be better served in a table (replacing the phot of random performers on stage - which could be any stage anywhere).
I think the third paragraph of the Architecture section was meant originally. I tried to fix it but moving some of the figures / numbers to a caption, removing one figure (the height of proscenium), combining two (the stage height and depth are the same, and reorganized the remaining numbers to try and make them flow better / be grouped together better. Is this OK? Apologies as I think this was lost due to my internet issues. Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is an opinion - The theater's sightlines and acoustics provide "an unusually modern and stainless-steel bolstered environment" for experiencing performances, can it please be attributed in the text?
Lots of repetitive phrasing in the first paragraph of Local performers. "When the theater opened...dozen groups" followed immediately by "The twelve are" and then "When the Harris Theater opened." Can this be reworked a bit?
Good catch - comboned the first two sentences and worked on the one discussed below too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence needs work When the Harris Theater opened in 2003, it provided a goal for aspiring small dance companies like Luna Negra Dance Theater;[35] by 2006, Luna Negra had achieved its goal of performing at the theater, and returned there in 2007. It's overly wordy and not clear.
I tweaked it further, after working on the rest of the paragraph. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not quite there... Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to After the 2003 opening, small dance companies aspired to perform in the state-of-the-art theater;[39] one such troupe, Luna Negra Dance Theater, achieved its goal and performed there in 2006 and 2007.[40][41] Is this better? If you have any ideas, please feel free... thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article repeats the opinion that the theater "raised the profile of local dance groups" in Chicago without attributing this. It then goes on to talk about the Frommer's and Fodor's new editions. I'm concerned that this might be synthesis. We don't know what the previous profile was, and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to do our own comparison of, say the 2000 edition of Frommer's vs the 2010 edition.
It is a direct quotation and I have attributed it to the 2005 Frommer's Irreverent Guide to Chicago. So the sentence now clearly identifies the source and year of the direct quotation that the profile of dance groups was raised, followed by quotes from more recent guides (years also given in the text) by Frommer's and Fodor's. Is this clearer? Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is much better with the attribution, thanks. For the next two sentences, though, do those books actually talk about these performances in conjunction with talking about raising local dance profiles? Otherwise, I think it's synthesis.
They do not explicitly talk about the profile of dance troupes. I was not sure what else to do, so I moved the raising the profile sentence so it is last in the paragraph (so the other statements do not seem to follow from it). The paragraph is now in reverse chronological order in terms of works quoted - is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The attempt to facilitate modest-sized performance groups has been appreciated;" - "appreciated" seems like the wrong word when used in this context. Can we really say that the two foundations "appreciate" the attempt?
To me it seems too trivial to mention the discounted ticket program for the last 90 minutes before a performance
The point of that is in relation to earlier complaints that the theater was to expensive. They have introduced two types of discounted ticket programs. I think it makes sense to elaborate on them. They could become a tradition of some sort. On broadway there are different traditions for discounted tickets like the TKTS and individual theaters releasing last minute tickets. This is in keeping with discounted ticket info like that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that the Harris Theater has taken some business from the Chicago Theatre, and also mentions a new competition with the local Symphony and the Auditorium Theatre. Is there any information on whether the Harris's programs have adversely affected the other venues?
I did not see any reports on this in the online sources. Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any articles to back this up, but it is my perception that the Chicago Theater district is blossoming. For example, Now that the Joffrey Ballet makes appearances at the Harris, that probably frees up some nights at the Auditorium Theatre for more broadway-type productions. The theater has really just kept the small- and medium-sized groups from getting squeezed out by the increasing Broadway in Chicago demand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the four paragraphs in Visiting performers start with "The theater"
do we really need to know that the theater was mentioned in the NYT?
For borderline notable articles I commonly throw the name of the most notable reliable sources into the actual text. That was the purpose of this mention. This is not an internationally known theater. However, I think I found content that makes the theater notable in other ways later so I will remove this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three pictures in the Reception section are likewise very small and hard to see. The ones on the left and right seem to be almost the same - do we really need both of them? I like the one in the middle and suggest that it be moved to the architecture section, replacing the others.
Got rid of one and made the remaining two bigger - is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it is able to experiment by venturing along new paths" - how?
I replaced that with a direct quote from the article so that it now reads He also notes that because of the theater's success it is able "to present an increasing number of risky, sometimes boundary-busting events the likes of which audiences will hear nowhere else in the area". Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to mention the discounted ticket programs in two places - I'd leave it in reception and remove the details from the other section
Moved all discounted ticket program material to reception section, thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reception, do we really need to repeat the praise about the acoustics, sightlines, etc? This is mentioned at least 3 times and should be tightened up.
Consolidated and rewritten, thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but there's still room for further tightening. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tried to tighten it more - is this better? Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very helpful and detailed comments - I will work on responding to them in the next 8 hours or so. Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize - I have been having intermittent internet access issues and lost web access a few minutes after I started my edits last night (which I had not saved of course). Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have addressed all of your concerns or at least asked how you would like us to proceed in addressing them. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all have done good work so far. I've stricken some, added comments to some, and noticed a few that weren't address. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as I noted on your talk page, we are waiting for further feedback from you on the latest changes. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for switching from oppose to neutral, we will try to address your remaining points. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:13, 11 June 2010 (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 River Parrett is the largest river in Somerset, England. The article covers the rivers course and its significant role in the history of the area, with all significant structures for road and rail crossings and flood prevention described. It also covers the geology and ecology of the river. Since it's previous nomination in January, when it had no support or opposition but several comments, it has undergone major revisions by the nominators and an extended peer review (on the talk page) by Ruhrfisch with copy-editing by Malleus Fatuorum. Jezhotwells and SP-KP also provided significant input with Redrose64 leading a major revision of the referencing format. We now believe that all previously identified issues have been resolved and it meets the FA criteria, Nominated by Pyrotec and — Rodtalk 20:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand that one - the image is from Geograph Britain and Ireland & is labelled as being "Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0" - what else is needed?— Rodtalk 20:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The license is fine, however the website is temporal, and there is no guarantee we can confirm copyright in three years time, often we get cc images one week and relabeled non-free the next week. If we have a wp:otrs ticket, we have a permanent record of the image being PD Fasach Nua (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Geograph site FAQ on use clearly sets out the terms, and it has been stable for 5 years. Other images from Geograph are used in this article (& in many of the other FAs listed at Wikipedia:UKGEO#Featured_articles) so I am at a loss as to why particular action is needed for this image (or what you are asking me to do)?— Rodtalk 21:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image is correctly licensed and meets FA criteria. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: In general the sources look comprehensive, with just a few issues mainly involving reference formats:-
First book listed is Blair, John (ed.) (2007) Author and chapter number missing (see Hollinrake and Rippon entries below)
This entry to the whole book appears to be needed for the Hollinrake and Rippon refs but isn't to a specific chapter
I have added publisher & ISBN details to the Hollinrake and Rippon entries. The genereal Blair entry is no longer strictly necessary, but I've left it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Costen book lacks publisher location
Done
Farr book is dated 1954 yet has an ISBN. This suggests that this is a later edition
Done
Well, I'm using the 1954 edition for my citations and it most definitely does not have an isbn. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Murless book lacks publisher location
Done
"Bridgwater and Taunton Canal", - the year (2003) is misplaced
I'm not sure how to fix that one but will investigate
It's apparently how the "citation" template organises it when there's no author, so no worries. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otter book lacks publisher location
Done
Priestly book lacks publisher location
Done
Robinson book lacks publisher location
Done
Formatting of on-line sources: Where the origin is a print sources, e.g. The Independent on Sunday, the source should be italicised, otherwise not. Check 3, 8, 9 and others.
For consistency, titles should come before publisher (see 13)
13 fixed I will check for others— Rodtalk 10:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23: Why is this source reliable?
It is a book, published in 1857, citation reformatted to online text source. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. 148: Clarification: is this citation to site signboards and to a NT brochure/map? If so, details of the brochure should be given.
I've changed this to explain map on display board.— Rodtalk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it's the stupid template, but I doubt Combwich et al have ever been called "cities" before. Can this be changed without the thing blowing up? Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this comment relates to the infobox Template:Geobox/type/river & I presume comes from a difference between US English where any small village is a city and UK English which attaches special meaning to "city". I am certainly not able to fiddle with the code which generates the infobox - but would welcome input from those with more expertise.— Rodtalk 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to villages, if you want it to be something else it should be obvious now where to change that, it can be whatever you want. Kmusser (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - but can it be more than 1 city_type as Bridgwater and Langport are towns & Cannington and Combwich are villages? I tried to change to 2 different types ie city_type=Towns & city_type2=Villages but the template didn't seem to like that.— Rodtalk 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined the source of {{geobox}}, and also the documentation at Template:Geobox/legend, and it seems that |city_type= may be any value you like, but it's applied to the whole row. Kmusser added |city_type=Villages, |city1_type=Villages, |city2_type=Villages and |city3_type=Villages to the article, but only the first of these is recognised: the other three are not. Thus, you could have either |city_type=Towns or |city_type=Towns and villages. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating. I have changed it to city_type=Town and villages, as the only option which covers all issues.— Rodtalk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both - there is always "settlements" of course. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article appears to be excellently referenced and satisfies the FAC criteria. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Ruhrfisch: As noted above, I did a very detailed peer review on this and made the map in the Geobox, as well as some edits. I find this meets the FAC requirements and also like the group effort that went into improving this. I have a few quibbles / questions that do not detract from my support.*This might be American English vs British English, but isn't "northwest" one word? The Parrett then flows north west for approximately another 10 miles (16 km) to Bridgwater through the Somerset Levels past Aller,...
I have asked for expert advice as I believe both are acceptable, but would agree on the need for consistency.— Rodtalk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The River Severn is introduced without proper context in The rate and direction of flow of the Parrett is therefore dependant on the state of the tide on the River Severn. I think the article needs to make clearer the relation of the Severn to the Bristol Channel.
I will look for a form of words to clarify.— Rodtalk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the previous sentence explains the Severn Estuary & Bristol Channel (which is previously linked) & clicking on these or River Severn provides more context - I'm not sure quite what else is needed here?— Rodtalk 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, here are the three sentences in the text now: The lower Parrett has a fall of only 1 foot per mile (0.2 m/km) between Langport and Bridgwater;[3] and it drains into the Bristol Channel. Here, the Severn Estuary has a tidal range of 14 metres (46 ft).[19] The rate and direction of flow of the Parrett is therefore dependant on the state of the tide on the River Severn. Could the second sentence be clearer to those not familiar with the local geography - perhaps something like "To the northeast of the River Parrett's mouth, the Bristol Channel becomes the Severn Estuary, which has a tidal range of 14 metres (46 ft).[19]" Not perfect, but hoefully it gives the idea of what I think is missing / needed better. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to this with your text.— Rodtalk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight problem with this sentence This natural border endured for almost a century until further fighting between the Anglo-Saxons and Britons in the mid-8th century, when the border shifted west to its current location between Somerset and Devon.[36] While I understand its menaing, it is no longer a border between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons (unless I am quite mistaken).
Could the comma in brackets be removed to improve the reader's ease of understanding Extensive land recovery was undertaken in the Somerset Levels by land owners between 1770 and the end of the Napoleonic Wars[,] in 1815, as part of a general scheme of agricultural improvements.[46]
Done
"Improvements" is plural, "this" is singular: Further drainage improvements were needed in the 19th century; and this involved the use of mechanical pumping engines, originally steam powered (see Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum), but later powered by electricity.[47]
Changed to "which involved".— Rodtalk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vincent Stuckey and Walter Bagehot should be identified by their full names (and Bagehot linked) earlier in the article at Construction, at first mention (currently only as "Stuckey and Bagehot" there
Done
Last sentence, second paragraph of Construction - unclear which lock exactly is meant The lock has since been replaced by a sluice gate to control flooding.[9]
Oath lock added.— Rodtalk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea how the American Mink got there?
Most mink in the UK were brought in to be farmed but then escaped into the wild, but I will look for a reference to support this assertion.— Rodtalk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The rearing of mink on farms was established in Britain in 1929. Inevitably some escaped into the wild but there are no records of them breeding until 1957, when young mink were seen on the River Teign in Devon. Since then there have been widespread reports of breeding in England ..." (Burton 1992, pp. 83–84) harv error: no target: CITEREFBurton1992 (help) --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - assumed it was something like that. I would add something on this - even if it is just the phrase "mink, escaped from breeding farms,"Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few words to explain this + ref.— Rodtalk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI've returned to this article after some 2 months away from it... I see that Citation bot (talk·contribs) has got at it, so all the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} etc. became {{citation}} on 12 May 2010. This bot is supposed to tally the {{citation}} versus the other types; decide which of the two is in majority, and adjust the minority ones. Unfortunately it was buggy, and changed a number of articles from {{cite xxx}} to {{citation}}even though there were no pre-existing {{citation}}, and River Parrett was one such victim, with this edit. I had this happen to other articles, so informed the bot operator. It seems that the operator had believed that Harvard references would only link to {{citation}}, and misunderstood how the {{cite xxx}} templates work, not realising the significance of |ref=harv - which I had made sure was provided everywhere necessary.
Right. Rant over. Does anybody mind if I put all those {{citation}} back how they were? Once that is done, I can look at a problem which I've noticed today: at the end of March I'd managed to get all the {{cite book}} (bar one - "Priestley Evans, Evan David (1931). Two papers : entitled ...") down to the "Bibliography" section, with the main text containing {{harvnb}} which link to those (I left the {{cite journal}}, {{cite map}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} in the text). I now see that a number of full refs to books have crept into the main text. I'd like to get those consistent with the other book refs (short note in text, full citation at the bottom). To do that I need to know which ones are books, which {{citation}} does not tell me... --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. The error was probably mine in using citation bot & not checking the output closely enough. The only books I can see which have "crept in" are: Arthur, William (1857) (text). An etymological dictionary of family and Christian names. With an essay on their derivation and import. New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co. p. 213. and Lawrence, J.F. (revised and completed by Lawrence, J.C.) (2005). A History of Bridgwater. Chichester: Phillimore. ISBN1-86077-363-X. Chapter 8: "The Medieval Port of Bridgwater". Hopefully this would also resolve the outstanding issue above about the italicisation of print sources.— Rodtalk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and done - two edits - one to get the citation back to cite xxx - the other to get three inline cite book to be consistent with the rest. These include the "Priestley Evans, Evan David (1931). Two papers : entitled ..." which I had not done last time.
Question Is the last mentioned a single author, last names "Priestley Evans" and forenames "Evan David" - or two authors named "Priestley Evans" and "Evan David"? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that reference, which seems to have been obtained via Google books; however, the British Library catalogue [54] treats him as an single author, surname: Evans. Pyrotec (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment Generally OK, but the Celtic languages used in Wales effectively means Welsh. I don't know of any other Celtic language spoken in Wales then (or now) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally say "the Celtic languages" or Brythonic is more accurate than "Welsh", in this particular case. The Parrett is about halfway between Wales and Cornwall; what's actually claimed is that the name derives from the Celtic language spoken across western Britain before the Saxons reached the Severn and thus split Welsh from Cornish and Breton, not that people in present-day Wales named it. – iridescent 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a footbridge of recent construction (photos here) and here) but I can't find any other sources for information about it.— Rodtalk 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a source for willow cones next to the bridge - so added a sentence & ref.— Rodtalk 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; I know it's a nitpick, but given that it's obviously there it ought to be listed. – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a more reliable source for "Roman Somerset […] lasted until 409"? This dubiously precise to me; the Roman army had certainly been withdrawn from Britain by 410, but that didn't mean Britain (Somerset or otherwise) had left the Empire. At least part of Roman Britain still existed circa 450, when the Groans of the Britons appeal to Rome for reinforcements was made, and geography would suggest that Somerset would have been the last places reached by the Saxons;
I agree this is probably over precise. You have sent me scurrying to my books & I find in the chapter on Romano-British Somerset in Victoria History of the Counties of England vol 1. page 210 says "when about 410 the Roman rule in Britain ended , the so-called 'departure of the Romans' did not mean an emigration of alien officials, soldiers and traders.....It was administrative not racial. Rome ceased to send high military and civil officials... but officials were not numerous.. and we may believe that not many Romans actually departed." How about if I change that to "around the beginning of the 5th century"?— Rodtalk 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes more sense. The fall of the Western Roman Empire wasn't like the British withdrawal from India (or the Turkish conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire), but a gradual breakdown of ties between the provinces and Rome/Constantinople—to set a date where Britannia ends and Britain begins seems overly precise. – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything about what happened when the locks were abandoned? Gut reaction would be that demolition of locks on a canalised river would either have the same effect on whatever was downstream of it as a breached dam, or have led to the sudden appearance of a set of waterfalls, since presumably the water levels on each side of the locks were different. Did the river remain navigable after the closure of the locks, or is the "right of navigation" an in-name-only legal relic like the right to drive sheep over London Bridge?
The water is still managed via sluices. Locks have not actually been demolished. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense—but does that mean boats now need to be ported around the weirs and sluices should they want to exercise that "right to navigate to Oath Lock"? – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a Really Stupid Question; the article says the lock gates to the Bridgwater Docks are disused—however on Google Earth I can see a bunch of boats in there, which presumably got in somehow. Is at least one of the gates still operational? – iridescent 18:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the lock gates still exist they are not currently operational. The canal is effectively landlocked and isolated from the river. The boats have either been crane or slip launched. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) Not quite, Rod. There are two sets of parallel locks between the dock's tidal basin and the River Parrett: the small one for boats (usable anytime) and the large one for ships (usable only at high tide); both were blocked off when the dock was offically closed (and that is what Iridescent is refering to. There is another set of boat locks at the far end between the dock and the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal which (I beleive) are still useable. There was a basin and lock at Huntworth: long filled in; and at the far end of the canal there is a lock into the River Tone. I believe boats can travel from the Tone into the dock, but not into the Parrett. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine—just wanted to check the docks hadn't been reopened since the sources were written. (It does occasionally happen, as with South Dock, Rotherhithe for instance.) – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supportwith a few small suggestions or questions. This is a well-researched, nicely illustrated article about a very interesting river.
Geobox
*The length is given as 50 miles in the geobox but 37 miles in the lead and the Course section.
History
*"An alternative explanation, based on Old English, is a derivation from Pedair or Pedride from pedr meaning four and the Old Cornish Rit meaning flow, which in this case would relate to the four flows or streams: the Tone, Yeo, Isle and Parrett,[24] which is based on the explanation given in Ekwall's 1928 book English River Names." - A bit too complex perhaps. Maybe a terminal period after "Parrett" and then a second sentence attributing this explanation to Ekwall?
*"Whichever derivation is correct, the name Parrett and its spelling variations has been in use... ". - "Have" rather than "has"?
Landscape
*"The 19th-century Industrial Revolution opened up mass markets leading to further expansion of the industry: in particular, from 1850 when the Duty (tax) on bricks was abolished." - Lowercase "duty"?
*"use of the Polden Hills roadway would allow more rapid movement to Ilchester" - "Allowed" rather than "would allow"?
*"The White House Inn, a licensed victualler and part-owner of the ferry, on the Pawlett bank traded from 1655 to 1897;" - How about "traded on the Pawlett bank" instead of "on the Pawlett bank traded"?
Port of Bridgwater
*"Historically, the main port on the river was at Bridgwater; the river being bridged at this point, with the first bridge being constructed in 1200 AD." - Three "bridges" and a "with plus -ing". Maybe "Historically, the main port on the river was at Bridgwater, where a span crossed the river from 1200 AD onwards"?
*"In the 1960s, British Railways the owner of the docks, which were limited by the size of its locks to boats of maximum size 180 by 31 feet (55 by 9.4 m),[82] took the decision that they were commercially non-viable." - Comma after Railways? Replace "took the decision" with "decided"?
Geology
*"The reduction in water levels that resulted put local ecosystems at risk, with peat wastage in pasture fields was occurring at rates of 1–3 ft (0.3–0.8 m) over 100 years." - Something wrong here. Maybe a semicolon after "risk" and delete "with" to make a sentence?
Thank you for your detailed grammar checking. I've made the chances as you have suggested.— Rodtalk 07:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets FA criteria, well done. Dincher (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but I would think that a summary of the history of the bridges, etc. should be included in the History section. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support. Your comment, however, about moving Bridges to the History section worries me somewhat. There is a format for "river" articles and that convention demands discussion of the river from source to mouth. The bridges section is written in reverse sequence from mouth to port because that sequence allows and constraints maritime trade - Bridgwater was (is) a port (and being a single small section it could conveniently "put to one side" the standard format for river articles). How far up a river ships and boats can get is determined by river geometry and enginering structures. The information in Bridges could, obviously, be moved into History; but a more logical ordering of the current information would be by date sequence, not from mouth to port. I would also be somewhat concerned that the article could get out of balance with a large History section. I'm interested, however, to learn whether there is a wider view on this. We can obviously move it, if it is considered desirable. Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the Landscape, Port of Bridgewater sections were separate sections, not subsections. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current organization of the article and in particular how the bridges and structures are handled. While I am sure there are other ways that the article could be organized, this works and works well (in my opinion). If bridges were part of History, I think they would alsmost have to be discussed in chronological order and agree the upstream order now used works better logically (as it relates to use of the river). It may also be that there are bridges that no longer exists that would need to be discussed if this were part of history. On a different note, Landscape and Port of Bridgewater are subsections (look at the header level in edit mode). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because the article just passed a WP:MIL A-class review and I feel it should be able to reach even higher. I eventually plan on making this the main article of a featured topic about these early American battleships. This is my first FAC and I am relatively new to wikipedia, so I would like to ask reviewers to go easy on the jargon. Yoenit (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have wikilinked the description of File:BS_Bismarck.png to File:Bb bismarck.png and removed the top text from the Oregon picture. I left the bottom text alone for now because it is nowhere near as distracting. If it should also be removed please say so. Yoenit (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining text is fine, can you link to the specific instance of File:Bb bismarck.png the image is cropped from, there are many versions of this file, and the current version doesn't have this image in it Fasach Nua (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I don't how to wikilink to an archived version of a file, so I used an external link instead Yoenit (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 32: Not necessary to give the web address and the publishing organisation's name
Fixed
Ref 36: How do we know that this source is reliable? Who is responsible for it? Has any other organisation recommended it?
This also came up during the A class review. The website has a credit page which shows that Patrick McSherry made publications in several (naval) historical magazines and served as an advisor for four different video documentaries about the Spanish-American War. That being said I recently stumbled upon a publication from the Oregon Historical Society which also mentions the nickname, so I will shift it around later today.
Done, ref 36 now refers to an article in the Oregon Historical quarterly, which should be reliable. I left Spanamwar in as an external link, as the site provides a wealth of background information about the Battle of Santiago.
Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- apart from a few missing hyphens, I really couldn't find anything much wrong (on that subject, I was a bit surprised to see Spanish–American War with a dash not a hyphen, but I see it's that way in the article too)... Anyway, as far as this article goes, prose, detail, structure, referencing and supporting materials look good - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All spanish-American war mentions originally used hyphens, but I switched them around when I noticed they hit a redirect page. Yoenit (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
With respect to "...their freeboard was too low to the water to deal well with the waves of the open ocean." Freeboard is a distance, and cannot be "too low". I am not sure of the correct use of the terminology, but this isn't it.
Your problem here seems to be that I can not describe terms freeboard in terms of low and high, but should use short and long instead? At least one source (Reilly & Scheina on p. 60.) talk about a "low freeboard" and I am pretty sure that if I check the others I will find the same description. Also try searching for "short freeboard" on google ("short+freeboard" 450 hits) and "low freeboard" ("low+freeboard" 14,700 hits). If you think "low" is fine but I can simply not refer to it using "too low" it is simply a matter using a different sentence structure, which is no problem with me.
After reading your comment again I think your problem had to do with the "too" instead of the "low". You said a freeboard can not be "too low", well these books [56][57][58][59][60][61] disagree and I am sure you can find dozens more of relevant hits on google books [62].
Numbers of Google hits are not taken seriously as arguments. Per Freeboard (nautical) "In sailing and boating, freeboard[1] means the distance from the waterline to the upper deck level". Note that freeboard is defined as a distance. What you have said is equivalent to "one meter was too low". "The deck was too low to the water" or "The freeboard was too small" are ways of expressing what you mean. Doug (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a native english speaker and the nuances of the language are not easy to understand here. You say that because freeboard is defined as a "distance" it should not be described in terms of "low" and "high" correct? Or am I allowed to talk about a low freeboard, but just not say it was "too low" Yoenit (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for not being clear: I will try to explain better with some examples:
Correct and informal: "The aircraft was low."
Correct but imprecise: "The distance from the aircraft to the water was too low."
Incorrect: "The distance from the aircraft to the water was too low to the water."
Incorrect: "The distance from the deck to the water was too low to the water."
Incorrect: "The freeboard was too low to the water."
Correct and informal: "The deck was too low to the water."
Correct: "The freeboard was too small."
"The freeboard was too low" is okay, since although the sentence mixes "low" as a relative magnitude and an independent metric of height, it will be understood.
In general, it is most precise to use "high" and "low" exclusively in the context of describing height where the endpoints of the measurement are obvious, as in a high or low building. For aircraft, altitude is preferred.
Regardless of the use of high or low in describing freeboard, it cannot be high or low 'to the water' - this is already included in the definition of freeboard. Doug (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about ""...their freeboard was insufficient to deal well with the waves of the open ocean."? Doug (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I will concede. Enough time has been wasted on something trivial. "low freeboard" is common naval terminology, but grammatical improvements have to start somewhere, so why not here. Yoenit (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state that these ships were "equivalent to contemporary European ships", then you state that "Their turrets lacked counterweights, and the main belt armor was placed too low to be effective under most conditions." This is an apparent contradiction.
Equivalent in terms of armor thickness, speed, and fire power, the factors people (and governments) compared battleships on. Yes they had design flaws, but so had most European ships at the time. I don't mind changing the term "equivalent" to something less strong though.
Changed "equivalent" into "comparable", which should convey the meaning that the ships are similar, though not exactly equal. If anybody has a better synonym please replace, but I don't know any.
Thanks Doug, and excellent choice, Yoenit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, but I have made a personal rule of not going further in a review if there are two problems in the first paragraph of the introduction. Please check all possible instances of factual inconsistency or sloppy use of terminology. Doug (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense meant, but I do not think you have pointed out any factual inconsistencies or sloppy use of terminology yet. Thanks for your review and I hope you are willing to continue it once we have reached agreement on these points. Yoenit (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pingback, I'll review in more detail. Doug (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Massachusetts was scuttled off the coast of Pensacola in 1920 and used as an artillery target." Was it used as an artillery target before or after being scuttled - this implies after. Doug (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After being scuttled. Information about it is rather scarce, but if I have to guess some part of the superstructure remained above the water and they fired on that. Yoenit (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Ucucha 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This rice rat from Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador is the closest relative of Transandinomys bolivaris, which just became an FA. It doesn't have whiskers as striking as that species, but for once we do actually know a fair bit about its biology. I am looking forward to all reviews. Ucucha 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for checking. Ucucha 19:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support'comments Comments are all addressed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC) ah, the promised rat with the long whiskers.[reply]
Transandinomys bolivaris is the real long-whiskered rice rat—this is just its slightly less accomplished sister.
Lead. populations, which are now considered synonyms. populations? or names....
Was intended to refer to "names"; now clarified.
first sentence is pretty long
Split.
above, below. Do you mean back and sides are reddish brown, and belly is buff to white?
Yes, clarified a little.
After a gestation period of about 28 days, two to five young are born,... Two to five young are born after a gestation of about 28 days and they reach sexual maturity....? Or, animals reach sexual maturity at ... and after a gestation period of about 28 days, two to five young are born..... (might be chicken and egg argument).
Can't really see the problem here; neither wording seems superior over another.
right. It's a chicken/egg argument.
Taxonomy
The species remained lumped under Oryzomys capito until 1983... wish there was another way to say it was "lumped with miscellaneous rats under Oryzomys capito until...
I don't really see a problem with the current wording here.
Lumped is so inelegant.
should Talamanca Costa Rica be linked?
Talamanca has multiple meanings, and the one intended here (fide Musser et al., 1998, who discuss it) is a village that doesn't seem to be anywhere on Wikipedia.
Question: do these critters interbreed (when geographically possible)?
Not that we know. It has ample opportunity to interbreed with T. bolivaris, but there are no records of it. Hylaeamys megacephalus and Hylaeamys perenensis come close to its range, but are not known to quite reach it, so it's not possible.
Description
They are about as large.... They are similar in size to the...?
Why? The wording there is seems more simple.
but in T. talamancae the tail is longer and the hindfeet shorter... but the T. Talamancae have longer tails and shorter hindfeet?
I can't see how that is better than what is there.
sparsely haired... there's a better way to say that. But I don't know what it is. The tail is almost as long as the head, with little hair; the hair it has is brown on top and white underneath...?
It's not necessarily the hair that gives the color, and I don't see the problem with "sparsely haired"; it's not an unprecedented way to describe rice rat tails (Weksler et al., 2006, p. 3, also use it), and it doesn't seem overly technical to me.
skipping to reproduction, the last sentence before you list all the parasites, where Fleming estimates age, etc. That is reaaallllllly long with a lot of ands.
Changed an "and" into a semicolon.
more later. Oh, I made a couple of minor tweaks. If I messed it up, please forgive me and revert. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Foreign language sources should be identified (Linares? Tinra?)
Wexler: the bulletin number is 296 not 196 (how's that for due diligence?)
Otherwise, all sources look good, no further issues.
Added "in Spanish" for those two. Also fixed the number of Weksler 2006, here and on all other pages with this mistake. Thanks a lot for catching that. Can I blame it on the fact that the copy of the paper I always use has lost the cover page? I also noticed that Weksler's own page in fact has the same mistake. Ucucha 12:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and three comments. You're getting these down to a fine art, but three quibbles
I've been to Talamance, how come I missed this (: ?
except for one record from the far northwest (in Guanacaste Province) — Does one record justify the mapping shown?
Yes; rodents are not like birds which can just get lost while flying about, so when someone finds a rat somewhere, it means the area is part of the distribution. Musser et al. (1998, p. 157) also explicitly say the distribution starts in northwestern Costa Rica.
I don't find that argument totally convincing (I've seen a sea lion off the coast of Cornwall, for example), but for this species I assume that escapes are unlikely, so I'll accept that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marine mammals can swim about, and sea lions in particular are common in captivity; neither is true for rice rats. Thanks for supporting. Ucucha 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specimens that were once captured tend to be captured more frequently than those that have never been captured — Any significance or explanation?
Fixed the tense of that sentence. I recall that it complicated population estimates in Fleming's study, but I think we can just keep it as a fact from their biology. Why it is so, Fleming didn't say. Ucucha 07:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Consider everything struck below. Sasata (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review. Ucucha 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reid 2009 is not listed in "Literature cited"
Added.
" Its habitat consists of lowland forests up to 1525 m (5000 ft) above sea level." What's a lowland forest? Does this refer to its elevation? Is this the Talamancan montane forests?
Well, lowland forests are in the lowlands; isn't that apparent? It doesn't occur in montane forest; there we've got Nephelomys devius.
link braincase; why not use the simpler "whiskers" for the lead (and perhaps pipe a link to vibrissae)?
Done, and glossed "vibrissae" (I prefer to use that term because it occurs more in the sources).
"T. talamancae lives on the ground" avoid abbreviations at start of paragraph
Fixed.
"Males move more and have larger home ranges than females." Do the 1st three words mean the males are less sedentary (just seems a bit odd to me)?
Yes, that's pretty common in animals. Males move around to find females.
worthwhile to link home range, gestation, parasites, sexual maturity, and conservation concern?
Linked everything except the last, which has nothing to link to.
last paragraph of lead is rather choppy, could use a bit of polish prose-wise
Rewrote a little.
link Talamanca
It's unclear what the Talamanca here refers to (discussed in Musser et al. 1998), and it's most likely a village that is apparently not mentioned on Wikipedia, so I kept it unlinked.
Yes, Gardner deserves an article, and I don't know why I didn't link to his article.
"... using morphological and DNA sequence data." based on what gene(s)?
IRBP, added.
"...but is not known to overlap with T. talamancae." overlap in range?
Yes, added.
"The fur is short, dense and soft;" clarify what species we're talking about here; the end of the previous paragraph mentions a bunch of rats
T. talamancae, added.
"... bases of the hairs plumbeous in color." I appreciate the wikt link, but maybe gloss as well so I don't have to open a new page to find out what this word means
lead-colored, added.
link molt
Done.
no-one bothered to measure the Ecuadorian's rat's ears??
Apparently. Measurements are usually taken in the field, because preserved skins may shrink or do other weird things, and the people who collected the sample in Ecuador apparently had a protocol that did not include measuring the ears.
"additional pair of supernumerary ribs is occasionally present." super-what?
Extra pair. In sigmodontines, such supernumerary ribs don't articulate with the vertebrae if I understand correctly.
"Both Robertsonian translocations and pericentric inversions are needed to explain the difference between the two groups." Since there is a fair bit of discussion about differences in karyotype, I don't think it would be out of place to have a sentence or two to explain what these fancy words are
Added.
"It is a forest species and occurs in both evergreen and deciduous forest." If you want, you could pipe these directly to the more specific coniferous forest and deciduous forest (I'm assuming if the reader's made it this far, they know what evergreen and deciduous mean)
Linked to the forest articles (not coniferous, but evergreen forest—tropical forests are often evergreen even though they don't contain a lot of conifers).
"In the laboratory, the gestation period is 28 days;[97] Linares reports that it is 20 to 30 days." 20-30 in the lab or in the wild?
Everyone asks this. :-) The problem is that "Talamanca" has several meanings and the one meant here is a small village that does not appear in Wikipedia. Ucucha 04:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The variation in chromosome count I found intriguing. Is that unusual?
It's strongly suggestive that there are multiple species within what we now call T. talamancae. But polymorphism within a single species is not unusual in rodents. Ucucha 04:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation status section is stubby - if there is anything at all that can be added that'd be very helpful (any confirmation that numbers appear to be constant/increasing etc. no threats from intriduced spp.) if not never mind.
There's nothing else I could find. The only things that could perhaps be added are some further ways from the IUCN to say "it's fine"—the Red List account also says no conservation measures are needed and the population is stable. Ucucha 04:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, just tiny quibbles and a hair's breadth from being over the line. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing; I've answered above. Ucucha 04:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well detailed, not heavy on jargon. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it deserves to have the bronze star back. Prior to this the article was promoted to Featured article when WP:FA itself was not worthy of anything. From that time, it was demoted and was then promoted as a GA. It has gone through numerous Peer reviews (4) and the article has been modelled keeping in mind WP:BIOGRAPHY, referring to present FAs like Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson. Hence, by the consensus of my fellow editors, I would like to promote this article to FA. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its redirected. Replaced with redirect link. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment While copy-editing (which I hope to finish within a week from now) I found a bit of recentism. While in for the early part of her, you use just a year to indicate release date ("Madonna's third album, True Blue (1986)"), for later years you go the whole nine yards even for minor releases ("She released her third live album, Sticky & Sweet Tour, on March 30, 2010"). I suggest you go through the text once more, and review every date you used for level of detail you think is best.
I think her infobox genre should only be "Pop, dance"; dance-pop is a pop subgenre and hence redundant to it. She's not an electronic musician, but merely used electronics on her songs (the article it links to, EDM, is a dance subgenre). Rock is hardly a major style for her; being the focus of just one album or so.
I suggest changing the infobox pic; she hardly looks her best in the current one.—indopug (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments Indopug, however for your point no. 3, I'm afraid this is the recent most best picture that we have for her. Others like those from the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards are poor in quality. You can check Commons:Madonna and may be point out if there are any better images than the one present. I will look to the other points. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of the other concerns. Places like for eg — the date on which the Malawi adoption was finalized, or the divorce, or her R&R Hall of Fame induction — there the full dates have been kept, elsewhere its ambiguous like the rest of the article. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madonna Louise Ciccone --> "Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone"
"1982–85: Madonna, Like a Virgin and marriage to Sean Penn"
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame listed the album as one of the Definitive 200 Albums of All Time.[29] --> Definitive 200 Albums of
All Time should be in quotation marks.
"1986–91: True Blue, Like a Prayer and the Blond Ambition Tour"
Madonna starred in the critically panned film Shanghai Surprise, and made her theatrical debut in a production of David Rabe's Goose and Tom-Tom, both co-starring Penn.[41] In 1987, Madonna starred in Who's That Girl, --> "Madonna starred" twice
In 1990, Madonna starred as "Breathless" Mahoney in the film adaptation of the comic book series Dick Tracy. It starred Warren Beatty --> Synonyms needed
Madonna decided to leave the Jennifer Lynch film Boxing Helena --> Did you mean "Jennifer Lynch's film"?
"1992–96: Maverick, Sex, Erotica, Bedtime Stories and Evita"
contained scenes of S&M and bondage" --> S&M (album)?
Madonna realized that her music career needed some dramatic changes in order to sustain herself in the long run. --> WP:OR?
the reference is present in the next line, but oh well, added to this line also. --Legolas(talk2me) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"1997–2002: Ray of Light, Music and Drowned World Tour"
Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. --> 500 Greatest Allbums of All Time should be in quotation marks.
Slant Magazine described the album as... --> Slant Magazine described the album as...
Slant MAgazine is an online source, hence shouldnot be italicized. --Legolas(talk2me) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter's music video depicted --> of which song, "Music"?
"2003–06: American Life, Confessions on a Dance Floor and adoption case"
a photoshoot in W Magazine --> a photoshoot in W Magazine
called American Life who's theme --> Did you mean "called American Life which theme"?
American Life became the lowest selling album of her career --> As far as I know Hard Candy (Madonna album) has sold over 3.8 million copies.
Hard Candy is the recent most album and has sold 3.8 million in European+Oceanian markets alone, couple that with 725K in US and 300K in Canada, its well over 4 million. Hence AL is the lowest selling album of her career. --Legolas(talk2me) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The album won a Grammy Award for "Best Electronic/Dance Album". --> Consistency needed. In "1997–2002: Ray of Light, Music and Drowned World Tour" section you wrote "It reached number nineteen on the Hot 100 and won a Grammy Award for Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media.[30] (Grammy Award for Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media without quotation mark).
The use of religious symbols, such as the crucifix and Crown of Thorns, in the performance of "Live to Tell", caused the Russian Orthodox Church --> I think that the image File:Madonna-cross.jpg can be used.
I thought so, but later thought that there's no point in giving undue importance in the bio article when "Live to Tell" itself has a live performance paragraph dedicated to it. --Legolas(talk2me) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
surviving malaria and tuberculosis --> Both, malaria and tuberculosis could be wikilinked.
"Legacy"
Throughout her career Madonna, like David Bowie, has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of visual and musical personas. --> WP:OR?
No, the fouz reference after that validates it. --Legolas(talk2me) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my comment, I didn't checked the sources, but I don't think there are prolems with them. TbhotchTalkC. 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your comments. Take a looky? --Legolas(talk2me) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments resolved, links checked, meets FA criteria. TbhotchTalkC. 16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, the term "sophomore album" isn't a term that is widely recognized outside of the United States (and maybe the UK?). This should be changed to "second studio album" or "second album".
The title track "Like a Virgin" reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart for six consecutive weeks. "reached number one... for six consecutive weeks". That sounds a bit odd. Maybe "topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart for six consecutive weeks"?
...adorned with the infamous "Boy Toy" belt buckle, and veil. Infamous how? As a reader not too familiar with Madonna in the 1980s, I have no idea what's infamous about it and there's no explanation as to why the belt buckle was infamous.
Sounds fine to me. — ξxplicit 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of instances of "The same year...", "Same year...", "Later that year...". I tried switching it up a bit, but it still comes off as repetitive.
She debuted her new song...' I don't think "new" should be included in this sentence, considering the song was released 20 years ago. The fact that it was debuted that year should be sufficient enough information to imply it was a new song at the time.
Repetitive use of "U.S. number-X single" prevails here.
In total four now remains. That should be fine? --Legolas(talk2me) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. — ξxplicit 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter's music video depicted Madonna committing murders and involved in accidents with cars... Would that be car accidents?
I notice that in one section, there's information of Madonna's pregnancy with Carlos Leon, while in the next, Guy Ritchie, but there's no information what happened in between with Leon and Madonna.
Yup, it was present, but was hidden
This page is categorized under Category:Michigan Democrats, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of this in the article. — ξxplicit 06:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very well written article, with a well-balanced amount of information and nothing overly detailed. Good work! — ξxplicit 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
In the references list, "Press release" should be written thus, not as "Release, Press" as though it was a person (refs 1 and 3) Other strange inversions include "Press, Associated", "Reporter, Staff", and lots of "Reporter, BBC"
For well-known newspapers and journals it is not necessary to add the name of the publisher (e.g. "The New York Times Company" etc.) The convention is only to include publisher details for relatively obscure publications.
I would suggest you remove unnecessary publisher details from many more of the newspapers and journals - Time, The Daily Telegraph, Chicago Sun-Times, Rolling Stone, Daily Mail, The Times. The Japan Times, etc. Maybe others. Nor is it necessary to give the "publisher" of broadcasting services such as CNN.Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Brian for your comments, I have corrected them. Take a look please? --Legolas(talk2me) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed publisher info for many of them, though the major ventures like Nielsen and Jann Wenner are kept as they demand mention if they are cited. (It's present in their website). --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is sourced by reliable sources, it is comprehensive, neutral, and well written. Good job Legolas! Crystal Clear x3 05:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suggest you to add more info about her highly publicized relationship with Sean Penn, about his abuse and violent habit which caused their divorce. Also, there is no information about her controversy during American Life era regarding the war/political theme of her work. I think it is the same important as her controversy with religious group. Baratayuda (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added the line They filed under irreconciable differences, with Madonna's lawyer citing Penn's drinking problems and abusive nature as the primary case for the divorce paper filing.. Will that do? Also, the American Life video controversy has been addressed. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Madonna embarked on her first concert tour in North America, titled The Virgin Tour, with the Beastie Boys as opening acts." - Is it possible to state around this part what months the tour began and ended?
"By fall 1987, she embarked on the Who's That Girl World Tour." - Can you change 'by' to 'in', and change 'fall' (which varies depending on country) to the month the tour began?
"It was complimented for Madonna's innovative dresses"? - Could you change this to something like "It finished in September 1987 and was complimented for Madonna's innovative dresses"?
"Following year, Madonna was signed to play a violin teacher in the film Music of the Heart but left the project.." - Missing a 'the' at the start of the sentence?
"The song reached number eight on the Billboard Hot 100 and was nominated both for a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song and a Golden Raspberry for Worst Song." - Could you link Golden Raspberry?
"In fall 2003, Madonna provided guest vocals on Spears' single "Me Against the Music"." - Another 'fall' that should be changed.
There are some $ with spaces between the amount, and others without the space. Could you pick one style and make them all consistent?
"Fall 2009, Madonna released Celebration, her third greatest hits album, and the closing release with Warner." - Another 'fall', and should there be an 'in' at the start of the sentence?
"Same year, she released her third live album, Sticky & Sweet Tour. It was her first release under Live Nation, but was distributed by Warner Bros." - Should there be a 'that' or an 'in the' at the start of this sentence?
"Madonna announced plans of directing her second film titled W.E., co-written it with Alek Keshishian, a biopic about the affair between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson." - Could you reword to something like "Madonna announced plans of directing her second film titled W.E., a biopic about the affair between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. It was co-written by her and Alek Keshishian."?
"She later clarified that the film is about a woman's journey and that the duchess as her spiritual guide, but was not going to be about the duchess' life." - Could you reword this? I'm not too sure what is trying to be said.
Changed it to She later clarified that the film is about a woman's journey and was not going to be about the duchess' life. Instead, the duchess would act as the woman's spiritual guide. OK? --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks good. I look forward to supporting when these comments are addressed. Pyrrhus16 13:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed your concerns Pyrrhus16. Thank you for the comments. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Everything looks good now and I have supported the article. Good luck. Pyrrhus16 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments beginning a read-through - notes below.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her recognition was augmented by the film.. - eeww, bit cumbersome-sounding...."Her profile was boosted/raised"? "The film further put her in the spotlight" something.
boosted felt a little to papery word to me as was profile, hence I changed it to Her recognition was further raised by the film Desperately Seeking Susan. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She sang and played drums and guitar for the group, but soon left to form the band Emmy in 1980, with drummer and former boyfriend Stephen Bray. - this gives the impression that she had already separated from Bray when they formed the band. Is that right?
Yes, however to be on the safe side broke the sentence so that it is easier to understand. "She sang and played drums and guitar for the group. But in 1980 she left Breakfast Club and formed the band Emmy, with drummer and her former boyfriend Stephen Bray." --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
with artist Jean-Michel Basquiat and lived with him for a time in his loft - any idea how long? "for a time" can mean alot of things to alot of different people...
Slowly, Madonna's look and manner of dress, her performances and music videos, became influential among young girls and women. - ungainly. I know what you mean and I am trying to think an alternative. "Madonna's look and manner of dress, her performances and music videos, began to influence among young girls and women." or ""Madonna's look and manner of dress, her performances and music videos, began making an impact on fashion." Actually, the more I look at it and the next sentence, the more I feel it is redundant. Remove the sentence and read. I feel the second sentence is sufficient in getting the point across.
If I had removed teh first sentence, the paragaph would have had a very abrupt beginning. Hence, kept the first sentence but tweaked it to read "Slowly, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and music videos, started influencing young girls and women." --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I am reduced to minor nitpicks above. The second half is written better than the first half. I can see where Suomi Finland 2009 is coming from and agree that a less listy and more global structure is better, but concede that at the end of the day an most artist is famous for the material that they produce. I think if any less notable material from the diary-like top half it would make for a better article flow-wise but then would have issues with comprehensiveness if something too notable were left out. I'll have another look at the top half but we're nearly over the line I think. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in part; Oppose, in part. This is an entertaining article. However, it reads much like a diary. When trying to find non-musical biographical information, it is exceedingly painful and difficult to do. I would suggest putting all the musical and acting career information together in a separate section, which can be sub-divided into time periods. Otherwise, the article is difficult to read. Although it is important to meet technical requirements, such as citation format, there is much more to a quality article than meeting format requirements. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns Suomi Finland 2009, but I draw your attention to Talk:Madonna (entertainer), where Pyrrhus16 addressed your concern that it is better to have a single flow of the biography, rather than have section wise analysis. A consensus at Talk:Madonna (entertainer) was that the personal life sections and acting careers should be merged in to the main biography as "Personal Life" sections tend to be hot bed for gossips and fancruft. We do not need an exhaustive who's who list of whom the artist dated. Maybe people like Bray, Benitez and Beatty is notable as they come under her work and is related, but separate sections always have this concern of being a gossip bed. Also, the article was modelled on already existent FAs like Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Kylie Minogue who follow this rule too. I hope I clarified your doubts enough. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand the talk page comments where the diary style is defended. Wikipedia consensus does allow for this kind of writing. Wikipedia consensus and FA status are different things. I do not disagree with someone stating that the consensus is that or this version. What my concerns are is that the article is simply not well written. It is just a massive diary. There are many ways to fix this. Separating her music/film career is possible. The remaining could be her humanitarian and personal life. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you state what you want to do exactly? Because separate personal life and and film career is a big no-no as per the previous consensus. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change the articles style; a lot easier to read when it's all in one and not in different sub-sections. AaroncrickTALK 10:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the fighting type so I have just made the suggestions for improvement. My feeling is if there was a Pulitzer Prize journalist writing this article, they would not write a massive diary style article. WP FA's are supposed to be the best. We can do it! Possibly in 2 days. I am willing to help but will not start the process because people might misunderstand and think that I am a troublemaker. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Binksternet
Why start a sentence with "Same year"? You have "The same year" twice, "That same year" twice, and "Same year" twice as the beginning of sentences. There must be a better way to provide variation than the clipped, staccato "Same year".
Now there's only one instance. Is it fine? --Legolas(talk2me) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, you have Madonna signing a $120 million contract in 2008 in the lead section, but in 2007 in the article body. The relevant source, a story in Billboard, does not have a visible year of publication. It has only a month and day: October 16. A related story at MSNBC establishes the year as 2007, giving the full date October 16, 2007. Your Billboard cite template gives this article the mistaken date of June 9, 2007, which must be fixed.
You are correct. I checked the physical publication, which gave the date as October 16th '07. --Legolas(talk2me) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I blasted through and trimmed a bunch. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why spell out some numbers but not others? Why, for instance, does an album chart "in over 28 countries" but a "title song peaked at number thirty-seven on the Hot 100"?
I'm still seeing some prose problems, one that others are bringing up. I will support when the prose becomes "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", per FA criteria. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you are exactly referring to? Because I'm trying my best to satisfy the "brilliant" criteria. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I get a chance, I will examine the article very closely for specific points. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good: I now support the article as FA. Binksternet (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
That first paragraph has six sentences that do not very flow very well at all. You move from her single to the recording of Madonna to Basquiat and then back to the album. I hope you can rip it up and rewrite the paragraph...
"Rock and Roll Hall of Fame listed the album as one of the "Definitive 200 Albums of All Time"" - that was much later right?? In that case give the year.
"she released a remix album of past hits, entitled You Can Dance.[44] Madonna and Penn filed for divorce in December 1987" - the effect of abruptly going from the sentence about the remix album to one about her divorce is quite jarring. Could you split that second sentence off into a separate para, and add some more details about her relationship with Penn to fill that para out?
As much as I want to, but there is not enough info to fill out an entire para of similar body. Madonna's relationship with Penn was tabloid fodder, without most of the news I found as speculations as to Penn was doing "this and that" and MAdonna was "doing this and that". Basically, it all comes down to Madonna, who was non-compromising for her career, not tolerating Penn's abusive and drinking problems, and Penn continuing to disassociate himself from the marriage, living life as a batchelor (with all the girls and strippers etc). Only concrete matter I found was in the biography by Taraborrelli, who said that these problems were what led to the divorce, followed by some conversation. Hence I am not sure whether that material and tabloid fodder will be appropriate in Wikipedia. What do you say? --Legolas(talk2me) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a more appropriate link for Vatican than 'Holy See'?
The disambiguation page for Vatican has a number of terms, and among them Holy See, seems more appropriate. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"released the album I'm Breathless" - it's a soundtrack album right? Better classify it as such.
The last paragraph of the "1986–91" section - From "In December 1990, Madonna decided" onwards, the sentences aren't really related to each other at all. Especially the one about her quitting that film. Why did she quit? Seems like interesting info that should be there.—indopug (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply above for the film .05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Media copyright review: All items are OK. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments - prose is in need of further polishing, and there are some organization and neutrality issues. A few examples:
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article: it fizzles out at the end of the third paragraph with "The next year, she began her Sticky & Sweet Tour which went on to become the highest-grossing tour ever for a solo artist." This is followed by the usual final-paragraph sales and achievements summary, so we are left with no sense of her present status and creative focus, as detailed in the 2007–present section.
I would argue that major points are always summarised in the lead. Whatever Madonna did after 2008 barely reflects a major point and there is nothing concrete to represent in it. Hence the bio stops at the 09-09 Sticky & Sweet Tour. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*" After performing as a member of the pop musical groups ..." - overlinking, and "pop groups" is the usual term.
*"Gradually, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and music videos, started influencing young girls and women." - clunky. Dubiously punctuated, and possibly another "her" is needed.
User:Binksternet corrected it. I introduced another her before music videos, I believe it doesnot look clunky now. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Still clunky. "Gradually, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and her music videos, started influencing young girls and women." Given your choice of sentence structure, what is the final comma doing there? It's a trivial point, but it's an example of why the prose is not quite there. PL290 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"Madonna had posed for the photographs as she needed money at the time, and was paid as little as $25 a session. But since she had signed the appropriate release forms, she could not take legal action to block them." - second sentence gives an unnecessary explanation, introducing bias by hinting at an unsupported implication that she was taken advantage of; first sentence already makes the facts clear.
*"The photographs were ultimately sold for up to $100,000. She referred to this incident at the outdoor Live Aid charity concert and stated that she would not take her jacket off because "they [the media] might hold it against me ten years from now."' - unlikely that she was referring to the sale. Also, the word "incident" again introduces bias: she attended some sessions, for which she was paid $25 per session, and the other party then acted in accordance with what she had agreed. Events unfolded in consequence thereafter. It was not one incident.PL290 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Comprehensive, well-written article. Her mother, Madonna Louise (née Fortin), was of French Canadian descent, and her father, Silvio Anthony Ciccone, was a first-generation Italian American whose family originated from Pacentro in Italy; he worked as a design engineer for Chrysler and General Motors." Is perhaps a bit long-winded.AaroncrickTALK 08:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. I went ahead and separated the sentence in two parts. --Legolas(talk2me) 08:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to oppose
The responses to my points above have brought some improvement, although some concerns remain, including that of the lead coverage. The above comments were only from a quick scan of the article; scanning again, I find further examples of unpolished prose and other potential issues:
A tendency towards proseline. "In 1999, this happened. In 2000, that happened." Does not make for engaging prose.
I did use other formats, but editors, who have supported above opposed to such additions of "Same year" or other variations of it.
That you are able to reply in these terms forces one to question the depth of consideration given to the charge that the article has a tendency to exhibit proseline. PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually make other changes, but what would you suggest in scenarios like these? --Legolas(talk2me) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For such sentences, work the prose into a narrative thread, engaging the reader with sentences that connect with each other, rather than presenting a list of unrelated statements. (See also Indopug's early comment about one part, "the sentences aren't really related to each other at all".) Sometimes, "In 2000, such-and-such happened" is fine, but when it happens too much it's a sign of problems and makes for boring prose. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried another way. Please see. The total number of sentences beginning with "In ...." is now 6. Does it look fine? --Legolas(talk2me) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those specific changes are certainly improvements. Please see below for general ongoing thoughts about the proseline/diary effect and how it relates to Suomi Finland 2009's point about structure. I will leave this unstruck for now. PL290 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'achieved notoriety for her "unusual" behavior' - there are surely more encyclopedic ways of putting this than using scare quotes.
Erratic?
That means something quite different. Decide what you're trying to say! The use of scare quotes was the issue, but "unusual" didn't say much; perhaps "unconventional", "uninhibited", or whatever you think is the main point (that sources say is the case). PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"particularly for her underwear fetish" - does Taraborrelli say she had/has an underwear fetish? Do a broad range of reliable sources also state this, and has she said as much herself, or is it the opinion of observers? Do they (and she) say her sexual attention seeking in class was because of her underwear fetish? That she had/has such a fetish is quite an extreme statement to make in a WP:BLP. Even if true, it appears to be used in a synthesis here, unless the sources do support its connection with her antics as a girl wanting boys to notice her.
There is a direct quote in Taraborrelli's article about Madonna saying "I used to like all kinds of underwear! Mine was these big red bloopers which were quite ugly, I wanted to have those lace thingies that others wore and had a fetish for different types of panties. [...] I used to be naughty, hanging from those monkey bar thingies, cartwheels and handstands were my favourite for showing in the hallways between classes, hell I even showed them boy my bloopers. I had them in my pockets! " This should explain you. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People are wont to use words like "fetish" colloquially; unless reliable sources use that word, I believe we should limit ourselves to quoting the passage you have just cited (if there is a place in the article where it would be appropriate), and not make statements that treat "fetish" as an established fact, such as "achieved notoriety for her erratic behavior—particularly for her underwear fetish." PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But instead of using such a large quote, I used what she said in a passive voice while removing the word fetish. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds appropriate (but currently it still says the same). PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now it says, "$60 million worth of business recordings." What are business recordings? PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually source says "Madonna, who is 33 years old, will be advanced as much $60 million," I think it is better if I replaced with that. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is accurate. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it still says, "$60 million worth of business recordings." PL290 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, I could have sworn that I added. Sorry. Added now. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It gave Madonna twenty percent royalties from the music proceedings, equal at that time to Michael Jackson's royalty agreement." - royalties are equal to a royalty agreement? Seems like apples and oranges are being compared, or wrong part of speech.
I did not make the change, but Binksternet, revert to the former one. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why Binksternet changed it: what you've changed it back to is worse, because it equates her and Jackson's royalty values instead of percentages. Please consider and resolve the issue comprehensively, rather than reverting to another problem version. PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this version? "The deal was a seven year joint venture with Time Warner and gave Madonna an advance of $60 million. It also gave her 20 percent royalties from the music proceedings, equal at that time to Michael Jackson's royalty rate." ? --Legolas(talk2me) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you added something different, which omits your vital phrase "Jackson's royalty rate". What you had above is accurate. PL290 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"Madonna ended her relationship with Leon in December 1998, with Madonna citing that they were "better off as best friends."" - clunky. Vague linking word "with", and needless repetition of "Madonna".
Changed to Madonna's relationship with Leon ended in December 1998; she declared that they were "better off as best friends." --Legolas(talk2me) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"She followed the success of Ray of Light with the single, "Beautiful Stranger", recorded for the 1999 film Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me's soundtrack." - clunky. The comma after "single" is extraneous, and the unnecessarily complicated possessive at the end is a distraction.
Sorry, but these are again only examples from a quick scan, and I feel thorough copyediting and polishing is required before the article wil be ready for FA status. PL290 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, addressed your concern. I won't say that I am very good in English, but this is a huge article and your inputs are extremely welcome, if somewhere I might have slipped. :) --Legolas(talk2me) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, can I request you to move your commets in a box as resolved comments? Actually it is getting very difficult to read through with all the comments and everything. A humble request. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know some reviewers adopt that practice, but my preference is not to do so except in unusual circumstances, since I consider review comments are relevant to all while the review is ongoing. You have addressed some of my concerns, but not all, and my general impression is, as I said, that a thorough copyedit and polish is needed before this article is ready for FA status. Sorry to have to say that; I know it's disappointing if a nomination doesn't succeed straight away, but it's not the end of the world to take a couple of weeks polishing an article and bring it back for another nomination. (I've been there too.) I have struck resolved comments. PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know PL290, that nominations may not pass in the first attempt. That's why I'm taking all the points you guys are making as constructive criticism. I will give the article a thorough copy edit and make sure that its FAC brilliance, I promise. What I meant was that can you move your resolved comments in a comment box? Then it will be easy to go through the unresolved ones. Just a request. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sound too pessimistic; the nom is listed at FAC urgents, so I assumed it was much closer to the bottom of the list than I now see it actually is. If you hope to fix things during this candidacy, you may be advised to try and get an independent copyeditor, particularly since you say you have trouble with some aspects of English. (I see that at an early stage Indopug mentioned the need for copyediting.) I also feel Suomi Finland 2009 has a point about structure, and that the proseline/diary effect may be reduced if you bring some of the detail out of the chronological Biography section into topic sections; any reorganization would probably need to precede a final copyedit. On resolved comments, I understand what you requested, and I hope you can accept that for the reason I gave, some reviewers prefer not to do that. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I understand your point completely. Of course I approve these points with the hope that I can better the article. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point. Suomi Finland feels now that having a same structure is fine. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by that. As far as I can see, this is the latest thing Suomi Finland 2009 has said on the subject: "My feeling is if there was a Pulitzer Prize journalist writing this article, they would not write a massive diary style article. WP FA's are supposed to be the best. We can do it! Possibly in 2 days. I am willing to help but will not start the process because people might misunderstand and think that I am a troublemaker." Anyway, my current position is as follows. You've been updating, and I've been striking, all my very picky points above, but as I said, those were only examples from a quick scan, seemingly indicative of general prose issues. I now have an opportunity to devote time to reading the whole article, which I will do over the next few hours. I will then comment further here. PL290 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for your prose-related further review before I do my own similar review. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support with comments
EDIT: On further reflection, I think I may be off the mark with my comment about the need for the article to emphasize the artist's current status. I've looked at a few other articles of active artists and they don't seem to do it. I'm therefore striking that as a condition—I'll leave it up to other reviewers to comment further if necessary. My support is now unconditional; the remaining points below are for incorporation if possible. PL290 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very comprehensive, detailed, and well sourced article. As several reviewers have noted, it does exhibit something of the proseline nature of a list of events or diary, making the prose less engaging than it might otherwise be. However, it's difficult to see how that can be avoided for the topic in question. I've now been right through the article, making some copyedits as I went. As I did so, I gave further consideration to Suomi Finland 2009's suggestion about restructuring: my conclusion is that there are no obvious main topics that could be assembled by extracting detail from the chronological Biography section in order to reduce the latter's size and list-like nature. So I no longer entertain the notion that any reorganization would be beneficial. I am listing some specific comments below; my support is not conditional upon these, though they can hopefully be incorporated without difficulty. I will start with one which is an example of unrelated sentences strung together in a list, in this case to humorous effect:
"Life with My Sister Madonna, a book by Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone, debuted at number two on The New York Times Bestseller List. It was not authorized by Madonna, and led to a rift between them. She filed for divorce from Ritchie, finalized in December 2008."
"The adoption raised strong public reaction, because Malawian law requires would-be parents to reside in Malawi for one year before adopting, which Madonna did not do.[129] She refuted the allegations on The Oprah Winfrey Show, saying that there were no written adoption laws in Malawi that regulated foreign adoption." - there's a conflict between these two sentences. The first states what the law is; the second then refers to "allegations" (which is not an appropriate word if the public reaction was simply to her defiance of Malawi law). Further, "refuted" is probably overstating it, if she simply claimed there was no such law. Please straighten out both sentences to make all these facts clear.
There's no indication—either in the lead or the 2007–present section—of Madonna's current status and creative focus. It doesn't need much, probably just a sentence in the lead and one or two in 2007–present, but at the moment we are left hanging in both places with no clue about it.
I'm confused. It is present that she is currently doing her film W.E, and I don't think that is exactly necessary for the lead. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; as I said, I think I was off the mark. I see the latest film is not mentioned in the lead, but in fact that's probably correct, as it's a very specific thing and it would constitute recentism to have it in the lead. Thanks for addressing all the other points. PL290 (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still areas where the prose could benefit from further polishing, but I think it's not a deal-breaker and the article meets the criteria so I am happy to support. PL290 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I'm gradually looking through the article, and I'll say right off that although I'm willing to spend some time looking and commenting, I don't always have a lot of time on any given day. If there's anything that I think needs some rewording or that is easy enough to deal with, I'll do so, and I've already made a couple of edits. I'll just comment here on issues that I think relate more to content.
*Barbra Streisand is mentioned in the lead, but nowhere else. As the lead is supposed to summarize the article and should be made up of the main points, Streisand needs to be either mentioned in the article or removed from the lead. I'd choose the first option.
I added it as part of the LEgacy section. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"There, she was known for her high GPA" - "GPA" is probably not immediately understood by non- Americans (such as myself), so I think it should be linked to something explanatory. I'm not sure what.
*"After her mother died of breast cancer at age 30 on December 1, 1963,[6] her father married the family's housekeeper Joan Gustafson" - I think linking the two in one sentence is not the right approach. Literally, the second marriage could have taken place anytime from later in the day, December 1, 1963 so to give the date for one but not the other, is confusing. I think the points should be dealt with seperately. Also, there's a quote about her treatment of her step-mother which I think is appropriate, but given the impact her mother's death had on her, and how it shaped her determination to succeed, a quote about her mother's death would be a great addition. It would also help separate the death and the second marriage.
I really like what your are saying and made some changes accordingly. Would that work? I looked it up again and it felt really sad. She was a poor kid :( --Legolas(talk2me) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a huge improvement - thanks. I've reworded it a little. We don't need to mention Andrew Morton. That makes it seems that she made the comment specifically for him, and that's probably not the case. I think it's stronger to leave it with just her comment, and Morton cited as the source. I'm sure I've read her quoted as saying that her mother's death fuelled her will to stand out and her ambition to succeed, and if I can find it, I'll add it. It's not crucial, but it would expand the personal reaction, which I think is highly suitable, to place it into the context of her career. Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Regarding "Like a Prayer" - "Since the commercial and music video were nearly identical, Pepsi was unable to convince the public that their commercial was unrelated to the video." I know the FOX article says the two are similar but the commercial is on You Tube. The only similarity I can see is that Madonna is in both. I suggest looking at other sources to see if another point of view is given. I also question that Pepsi was "unable to convince the public" (which is not covered by the FOX source). By my own recollection of the reporting of this episode, they didn't try to convince the public of anything and dropped Madonna like a hot potato. Again, I suggest looking at other sources. If you've already done so, and this is what the consensus opinion is, that's fine, but I have my doubts.
Looked in Andrew Morton's biography of Madonna, there he reports that the commercial was similar to the song, not the video and he did not comment on Pepsi trying to convince the public. Hence removed, and substituted with the fact that religious groups were boycotting their product which made them drop Madonna. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another improvement. I think "caught in the crossfire" is a bit dramatic, but otherwise, I think it's good. Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"Madonna tried to tone down the provocative image, by releasing the ballad single "I'll Remember" (1993) which she recorded for Alek Keshishian's film With Honors.[75] She made a tame appearance with Letterman at an awards show as well as appearing on the The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." Is this all sourced to J. Randy Taraborrelli? (I don't have his book.) I only question the "tone down the provocative" bit, because "Erotica" was the only "provocative" single from Erotica. "I'll Remember" is fairly similar to, for example, "Rain" which had already been released as a single, so I don't understand how "I'll Remember" could be used as a kind of damage control. Also the word "tame" - if this is a quote it needs to be attributed otherwise it reads as original research. "Tame" is not a neutral word and in Madonna's case there is more than one possible connotation. If it's attributed to someone, that's ok, but otherwise it should be made neutral. "Continuing to tone down her image, Madonna released Something to Remember, a collection of her ballads, in May 1995." - repeating the phrase that she's trying to tone down her image so soon after it's first mentioned, is redundant, and because there's no source given, I'm not sure if this is still Taraborrelli talking. Rossrs (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although "I'll Remember" was released after "Rain", it was a bigger hit that the latter, which made the public sit up and notice Madonna the artist once more. "Rain" was simply lost in the Erotica controversy and it did not help that Madonna made the appearance on LEtterman before that. Hence Taraborrelli commented that Madonna had to tone down the provocation, and her last chance was "I'll Remember", a simple love song, and distancing herself as much as possible from the Erotica era. The second part about Something to Remember being used for toning down her image is misleading, hence removed. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but I'm not sure it's there yet. I think "restrained" would be a better word than "tame". Maybe even "subdued". "Tame" could mean "limp", "lifeless" etc. It has a somewhat negative connotation that is at odds with the discussion about her changing direction in a positive way. We're talking about a proactive Madonna seizing control of her career direction, and triumphing, and I don't think there's anything "tame" in that. I would change this sentence - "She realized that her music career needed some dramatic changes in order to sustain herself in the long run." Something like "She realized that she needed to change her musical direction in order to sustain her popularity." I think that would lead more smoothly into the Bedroom Stories section. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think subdued would be a better word, since she technically did not restrain herself, but banked on the negative feedback ("Human Natuer?"). So subdued works fine as it gives the reader the feel that she softened herself and her raunchy image for her musical career. It would also, as you point out, work better for the Bedtime Stories line, which was the time that she turned away from Erotica, nevertheless, remaining as defiant as before. --Legolas(talk2me) 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "restrained"? "Subdued" is pretty good, but "restrained" has more of an implication of self-control, I think. Binksternet (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the opposite. Restrain gives the implication of self-control + the feeling that the subject itself is accepting the change. Whereas subdue can be ambiguous. Madonna did not really felt humbled or anything, just that it was sheer calculation to tone the image. Both can be used, just that I feel restrained gives a little POV type smell. --Legolas(talk2me) 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see either "subdued" or "restrained" as acceptable, so whatever is used is fine with me. Anything but "tame". ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"Throughout her career Madonna, like David Bowie, has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of visual and musical personas." - I'm puzzled by this. This is the only mention of David Bowie and it comes out of the blue, with no discussion of comparison and nothing to suggest she was influenced by him. Is this a theme you wish to build upon, or could we lose "like David Bowie"? It would then read "Throughout her career Madonna has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of visual and musical personas." I think that would suffice. Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Legolas, thank you for the prompt manner in which you've dealt with the issues I've raised. Happy to support this now. Rossrs (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and support Rossrs. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
media Ideally images should alternate left right to balance the article (this is not always possible, but I feel should be attempted). Images with faces should look into the text (or outward), this is particularly true of the info box image. licensing acceptable. I find the preceding table unhelpful this is not a voteFasach Nua (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I have rearranged the images wherever applicable. Care to look once again? The prior table was done because it was getting very difficult to navigate through as the comments filled up the whole page. This is not done for voting, just to show the consensus. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Karanacs. This is a regretful oppose; as I was reading the article through in order to promote it I realized that I couldn't in good conscience do so. I think this article is close to meeting FAC criteria but isn't quite there yet. I agree with the complaint above that this reads more like a timeline, but I don't think that reorganization is necessary. Rewriting and a bit of addition could fix that problem.
One of the larger issues, and what likely led to the complaints that this reads like a diary, is paragraph organization. Both within a paragraph, and from paragraph to paragraph within a section, the focus often completely changes. This makes the reading experience very jumpy. Often, this can be fixed by rewording the sentences. Here's an example of simple changes that can be made to partially fix the problem [65]. Topic sentences can also help. I was going to fix this myself, but it is too widespread.
I felt like I was occasionally drowning in detail. I don't really care, as a reader, to be told that song X is her 7th number one hit in the US and song Y is her 8th number one hit....do we really need to know the "number number one", rather than just be told that this was a number one hit? Do we really need to know in this article that song X was used in a Microsoft commercial? Do we really need to know in this article that she appeared at the VMAs to speak about Michael Jackson?
Agree to this point. Removed and kept it ambiguous. --Legolas(talk2me) 04:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but there's still room for improvement. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that we aren't given more quotes from Madonna. Overall, I don't feel like we are given a good overview of her as a person rather than an overview of her career. Hearing her perspectinve, in her own words, would alleviate some of that. If this can't all be fit in the prose, perhaps quote boxes?
I added quite a few quotes. It went fine I hope. --Legolas(talk2me) 04:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're also missing almost any discussion of motivations. Example 1: At the time, I remember reading about how badly Madonna wanted the part of Evita, and her performance in that movie really floored a lot of critics who thought her casting was a disaster. There's nothing on any of that in here. Example 2: Are there any sources detailing how Madonna's early loss of her mother affected her choices later in life?
Point 1. I believe the chunk I added addresses it. Point 2. User:Rossrs is searching for some info, which he will add. (Edit) I added it instead about how her mother's influence crept in to her music. --Legolas(talk2me) 06:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The early part of the article mentions Madonna's impact on 80s fashion (and not a single picture!!) and later we hear that Madonna has her own clothing line. To me, this is an interesting circle, but we aren't told anything about what types of clothes are sold in her line, or why she or the company chose to enter into this partnership. By this point, Madonna isn't the fashion icon that she was - why her?
Free image could not be found. :( The later reasonings have been justified now. --Legolas(talk2me) 04:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bright, girlish vocal timbre of the early years became passé in Madonna's later works, the change being deliberate - why? why did she make this change?
Because of "Minnie Mouse on Helium". LOL. Added this. --Legolas(talk2me) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's repetition in the structure. We're told in the bio that she became involved in Kabbalah (but not how it effected her), and then told this again in the Influences section. Same type of thing with discussion of Like a Prayer repeated in different areas. That suggests that perhaps a bit more thinking about the structure and division is necessary.
I believe the Like a Prayer quote box can explain that? And the same for the Kabbalah. The influence on her albums like Ray of Light and Music is explained before, but the influence on life and as a whole is discussed later.--Legolas(talk2me) 04:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The influence of the Kaballah was subsequently observed in Madonna's music, especially albums like Ray of Light and Music. " - can this be expanded at all?
Reporter Michael McWilliams commented: "The gripes about Madonna—she's cold, greedy, talentless—conceal both bigotry and the essence of her art, which is among the warmest, the most humane, the most profoundly satisfying in all pop culture."[217] - we haven't really been told that she's "cold, greedy, talentless" - where did this criticism come from?
Is this type of criticism accurately reflected in the article? In my reading, the article seems to portray Madonna in a very good way, and there is limited criticism (beyond the oft-referenced rantings of the religious conservatives, which is necessary to include and amuses me greatly). If there are sources that echo these sentiments, then they need to be given appropriate space and explanation. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. Quite a few business related articles convey how ruthless and shrewd she is, when it comes to matters of money. I added two of them to balance the section. Regarding "the article seems to portray Madonna in a very good way", I don't know which section you are referring to, because Madonna's music and films have been analysed in both the positive and negative way. I don't need others like the tabloidy features of "how much a bad mom Madonna is" can be remotely encyclopedic. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay in my return; real-life got in the way. Overall, excellent work on focusing the paragraphs better. The transitions between topics are much better. I think some of the content additions are also helping to give a more in-depth feel of who Madonna is and why she did some of the things she did.
I like Moni3's proposed lead much better than the current one - I think it gives a better overview of Madonna and her career and the prose flows better.
I think that the expansion of the early life section is overall very helpful, as it gives a much clearer picture of what motivated some of Madonna's later behavior. I think it may stray a tad into unnecessary detail, however - do we need quite so much information on Madonna's attempts to play with her mother or can this be summarized a little more?
I pruned it a little, but keeping the main sentiments of the tremendous loss and the psychology it played. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone specifically checked the copyright status of File:Madonna Ciccone.jpg. This image has both a PD license and a fair use rationale. From my understanding, it is not PD, as it was not published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. I don't think we can justify it as fair use either, but images aren't my specialty.
He seems a bit unsure on whether it's actually PD. Perhaps you could ping User:Elcobbola to verify? Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like from this that Elcobbola is going on a long vacation. Do you have anyone else on your mind? Lemme check around also. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have a citation at the end of a sentence with quotations in it; this may mean duplicating the citation in consecutive sentences, but that's okay.
Took care of this throughout the article. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a lot of overly wordy sentence structure. Example only: The death of her mother had left such deep emotional scars in her, that Madonna was terrified that she would lose her father too. She would crawl beside her father in bed, as she would suffer from recurring nightmares of loneliness; it was only with the assurance that her father was with her could she fall soundly and safely asleep could be distilled down to Terrified that her father could be taken from her as well, Madonna was often unable to sleep unless she was near him. This type of editing could be useful in many areas of the article - there are lots of places where the article uses 2 sentences and 30 words when we could use 1 sentence and 10 words to convey the same meaning. Given the length of the article (justified by her long career), the prose really needs to be as tight as possible.
Do we need to know which artists/musicians she was living with while preparing for her debut album? Unless they had some specific impact on the development of the album or her career in general, this seems more trivial.
Removed Basquiat but kept Jellybean with whom she developed her debut album. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is not so clear on this - did she move in with him because she needed money or help to develop the album (the way it's worded it implies this)? Did he have any influence on the album? Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a little expansion about the background of the album is needed, to justify Madonna's relationship with Jellybean. Tweaked the part as such and introduced small commentary about the album's development. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation in this sentence is off: Mainly created by stylist and jewelry designer Maripol, Madonna's lace tops, skirts over capri pants, fishnet stockings, jewelry bearing the crucifix, multiple bracelets, and bleached hair—became a female fashion trend of the 1980s
LOL. Removed the wrong em-dash. Also, the sentence seemed a little long, hence spruced up the snake. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She eventually achieved global recognition after the release of her second studio album: Like a Virgin (1984). Two issues: a) is there a reason the year is in ( ) instead of saying "in 1984"? b) what do we mean by "eventually"? Is this supposed to mean "got famous after the release of her second album" or "the second album slowly raised her profile until at some point months/years after its release she was recognized globally?"
This issue was already corrected. Don't know how it came in to the picture again. Grrr. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should rework the caption for the Eva Peron picture. At first, this reads like the picture is "Madonna's portrayal of Eva Peron"
The article gives general information on how her movies were received overall, but does not give much specific information on how her acting was received.
It does, in the influences part. Doesnot elaborate on specific acting, but in general, Madonna the actress was always received negatively. Thats what the section says. "Madonna's film career has been largely received negatively by the film critic community. Stephanie Zacharek, critic for Time magazine, stated that, "[Madonna] seems wooden and unnatural as an actress, and it's tough to watch, because she's clearly trying her damnedest." According to biographer Andrew Morton, "Madonna puts a brave face on the criticism, but privately she is deeply hurt." After the 2002 box-office bomb Swept Away, Madonna vowed that she would never act in a film, hoping that her repertoire as a bad actress will never be discussed again." — This justifies the majority of critics panning her acting, which in turn did influence Madonna; she was hurt by their comments to the point that she vowed to never act in films. I think this area shows that although we get Madonna as a "DGAF" kinda woman, she is actually vulnerable." --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote this before I read the influences section and forgot to go back and remove the comment. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the additions to the Influences section describing her mother, but the first two paragraphs are extremely heavy on quotes. Some of these should be paraphrased.
Paraphrased.
I rewrote this a bit; you might want to check to make sure I didn't alter the meaning. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We learn in "musical style" that Madonna is "an exemplary songwriter with a gift for hooks and indelible lyrics, but this is the first we've seen that she writes her own songs (did I miss something?; if so, sorry). Given the sheer number of her songs that have been hits, it might be worthwhile having at least a paragraph to describe her songwriting, or, if some of the rest of this section is directly related to her songs, vs those written by other people, then we might want to make that more clear.
I added a paragraph, where her songwriting ability has been analyzed by Fouz-Hernández. --Legolas(talk2me) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good start, but that needs a thorough copyedit. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edited. And added criticism to balance it out. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did she legally change her name or just ask people to call her that?
I cheked the reference, it says that she adopted the name, much different from changed. --Legolas(talk2me) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did she actually "join the Jewish religion" or just study it?
Update, leaning support- I got lost trying to go through my old comments again. Right now, my biggest sticking point is the image of Madonna's mother, which I'm unconvinced is actually PD. I left a message with User:Jappalang, who is also on a semi-wikibreak. Perhaps you could also leave a message on the Commons village pump? There are a lot more people over there who understand the intricacies of what is PD and what is not. Once the image status is ironed out I'll strike my oppose and support. Thanks for all your hard work!! Karanacs (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone pls ping me when this is resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this pointSupport, subject to the footnote addition mentioned in my last point below, and presuming the additions in response to Karanacs pts have not introduced any probs requiring copyediting ('cos i did find a couple in the additions re Evita :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with some of Karanacs' pts (though i have less of an issue than does she), particularly about the lack of a sense of motivation at times. My main concerns are:
It needs more about Evita. Here we have arguably the most influential solo artist of her generation in her most infuential non-recording moment. But it whizzes by. No quotes of critics; no quotes of Madonna discussing her appearance. I think it deserves a paragraph of its own.
I have expanded the section much, regarding Evita, its reception etc. I believe this suffices enough, without going into WP:UNDUE. --Legolas(talk2me) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's good - almost too much material! I have copyedited. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"After Lourdes' birth, Madonna became involved in Eastern mysticism and Kabbalah." The biography cannot get away with such a passing remark about something so significant. How did she become involved? How did this influence her personally? Professionally? etc etc.
Yes. It is explained later in the part about her influences. In the bio, it just reflects on the timeline and the albums, but the influences has a detailed approach. --Legolas(talk2me) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a more minor note, we do not need to be told the time of her birth, nor does it appear to be in either of the cited sources. Further, one of the sources quotes her as saying of her mother "she was French Canadian but she was born in Bay City." Well, here's the thing. If you're born in Bay City, you're American. Her mother died when Madonna was five, so Madonna must have a limited direct knowledge of her. How do we know her mother was French Canadian: because Madonna tells us that, when it is contradicted in the same sentence? We need a properly researched biography to vouch for this kind of claim. People have all sorts of fallacious understandings about their own ancestry, which is why we try and rely on biographers to sort through these things. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the time. But the French Canadian descent thing was confirmed by Taraborrelli in the Madonna biography, where he quotes, "Fortin was of French Canadian descent with her family moving from Quebec..." Do you suggest to reword it in any way? --Legolas(talk2me) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is in Taraborrelli, then pls add a footnote to it at the end of the relevant sentence. Other than that, fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hamilton. I have added the citation. --Legolas(talk2me) 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments by Gongshow. Overall this is a well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive article. I'm leaning to support but would like to first offer these suggestions:
"Six singles were released from the album, including 'Like a Prayer', and 'Express Yourself' and 'Cherish' both peaking at number two." - The wording of this sentence is awkward, and while it's not necessary to note every song's chart peak, I would prefer knowing that "Like a Prayer" reached number one if it's to be listed with the other singles.
Included Like a prayer peak
:*"'Justify My Love' reached number one in the U.S. and top five worldwide." The reference provided ([66]) does not indicate the song was "top five worldwide."
:*In the first paragraph of the "1992–96: Maverick, Sex, Erotica, Bedtime Stories and Evita" section, no dates are mentioned. While I assume all the action takes place in 1992, it would be helpful to clarify this somewhere, especially since the paragraph contains phrases like "equaled at that time" and "at the same time".
Tricky one. What I did was introduce the year in whihc A League of Their Own was released, making the paragraph happening in the same time. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:*Regarding Music, "The album found her returning to the dance idiom and catered to her gay audience." - I'm a little confused by the wording. Returning from what? I think the sentence could also use a citation stating the album catered to her gay audience.
Actually the reference is present at the end of the block, but nevertheless rephrasd and moved it. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:*I recommend having a smoother transition between the end of the "1997-2002" section and the beginning of the "2003-06" section. For example, the "1992-96" section ends with the birth of Madonna's daughter and the next section begins with "After Lourdes' birth". The end of the "1958–81" section also does a decent job of linking to the beginning of the "1982–85" section. A smooth flow makes for a better read.
:*"Christmas 2003 saw the release of the "extended play" (EP) collection Remixed & Revisited". - I don't think "extended play" needs to be in quotes, and it appears the EP was released in November, not Christmas.
:*"Madonna also signed a contract with Callaway Arts & Entertainment as the author of five books, and published the first one entitled The English Roses. The story was about four English schoolgirls..." - The wording makes it sound like Madonna was the publisher. I would change this to something like, "Madonna also signed a contract with Callaway Arts & Entertainment to write five (children's?) books. The first of these books, entitled The English Roses, was published in (date) and reached the top of The New York Times Best Seller list."
:*"Throughout her career Madonna has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of visual and musical personas. Fouz-Hernández agrees that this reinvention is one of her key cultural achievements." - The first sentence suggests multiple reinventions; the second says "this" reinvention. I assume Fouz-Hernández is referring to the "repeated" reinventions, but this should be clarified.
Absolutely right, corrected the singular-plural of the sentence. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:*"After its establishment, Maverick Records—unusually for such labels—became a major commercial success from her efforts." - What is meant by "such"?
I have also made several minor edits to the article. Feel free to revert anything you feel necessary. Again, other than some small nitpicks here and there, I feel this is a very, very strong article overall. Gongshow Talk 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC) w[reply]
Thank you for the wonderful comments Gongshow. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I'm happy to give the article my support. Gongshow Talk 04:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences should not start with numbers: "1996 saw Madonna play the starring role in the film Evita ... "
I'm noticing a lack of citation and weasle words: "The performance is noted as one of the most iconic in MTV history." " she ended the relationship because of his drug use and late hours." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references are present at the end of the sentences. Corrected the weasel words. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose: I left all my comments on the talk page...enough to cause ClueBot to PMS and suggest it be overturned. I think this article is very close to FA. Legolas and I are in different time zones, so I don't know if he has seen my comments and suggestions. The crux of my commentary is basic stuff, easy reorganization and slight clarifications. It should be simple to do if Legolas agrees. I would like to see his reply to my commentary before this FAC is archived or promoted (Hint Karanacs and Sandy). --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left my comments in the talk page itself. Thanks Moni for your comments, they brought out some new light. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to support. For an article of this size, it's still a bit flawed and awkward in some areas, but for the most part I can appreciate it for being a comprehensive article on one of the most accessed topics on the site. I think there is room for discussion still about streamlining the prose into sections because I think some information is hidden--and I have suspicions this is done more to protect Madonna than it is to present information on Wikipedia--but this seems to be a style issue that is not insurmountable at this time. If articles like Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson also have this structure, it might be worth having a discussion on how to make this more uniform. I'm always willing to give my opinion on improving it. Read this as good job, but you know...better you than me for having to maintain Madonna's article. Jiminy. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<put FAC delegate hat on>It's not necessary, and not encouraged, to maintain these types of lists. Sandy and I don't rely on them because we can't tell if they are up-to-date, and because FAC is not a vote; a "support" comment may still contain information that backs up an "opppose" and a thoughtful "comment" without a declaration either way can be very useful in helping determine consensus.<takes FAC delegate hat off; puts reviewer hat back on> Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful point. I have removed the table. Wasn't my idea anyway. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed comments.
The length and duration of this nomination page suggest that the article was underprepared. Please note that this is not social welfare, doled out on request. Reviewing resources are being sucked in by such nominations.
This process is not a vote, as is suggested by the league table above. And when Karanacs says "Oppose", why is this transformed into a "Withholding full support"?
Nobody here is voting, its just a table that gives a consensus overview. --Legolas(talk2me) 08:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look through the lead. Towards the top, this is a long snake: "Utilizing religious imagery in her fourth studio album Like a Prayer (1989), Madonna was praised by critics for her diverse musical productions while at the same time religious conservatives and the Vatican criticized her." – "Utilizing" is one of the ugliest words in English, and can so easily be replaced by "Using". "critics" and "criticized" within two seconds. The contrastive here suggests that the Vatican (not religiously conservative, it suggests) criticized the diversity of her musical productions. Is that right? Later, we are told that her sexually explicit material caused negative reaction in "conservatives and liberals" (what does "alike" add?). So why are elements of the political spectrum mentioned at all if it didn't matter where you stood on it? I'm confused.
I believe religious groups is better suited here. The contrastive did suggest which political spectrum is making a statement on her work.
"Madonna played the starring role in the film "—"starred in the film"?
Different than starring role, which is generally the top-billed role in a film.
"Madonna is known for continually reinventing both her music and image, and for retaining a standard of autonomy within the recording industry.
I don't see anything wrong in it.
"New York, New York"—It's like a stammer. "New York City" for an international readership, please, unlinked. Why were such obscure terms as "vocals" and "drums" linked? Why was US$ linked? And MOSNUM says US dollars are the default, so just $, please.
Only the first instance of $ is linked to United States dollar, this gives the reader a first-hand knowledge that the dollar signs throughout the article is of US origin.
Ellipsis points—where there's a period in the original, as here, insert the three points unspaced after the period: "confusion. [...] I saw my mother," -> "confusion.... I saw my mother,". I see more of this further down.
"Gradually, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and her music videos started influencing young girls and women."—Both "Gradually" and "started to" are overkill, aren't they?
It's just started in the sentence. Also, Gradually here denotes the present imperfect tense of the situation.
The dash is odd here: "Mainly created by stylist and jewelry designer Maripol, Madonna's lace tops, skirts over capri pants, fishnet stockings, jewelry bearing the crucifix, multiple bracelets, and bleached hair—became a female fashion trend of the 1980s." I'd just remove it and have a space.
Right.
Here's another termporal oddity: "She eventually achieved global recognition after the release of her second studio album: Like a Virgin (1984)." So we were waiting a looooong time for this to happen by 1984, yes?
Lol. no.
I haven't read further, but I suspect there will be issues scattered throughout. Tony(talk) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Her second album, Like a Virgin (1984), foreshadowed several trends in Madonna's later works, including references to classical works (the pizzicato synthesizer line that opens the song "Angel"); potential negative reaction from social groups ("Dress You Up" which was blacklisted by the Parents Music Resource Center); and retro styles ("Shoo-Bee-Doo", Madonna's homage to Motown)." is way too long and convoluted.
Another salute to Mahler in his 150th anniversary year (the centenary of the premiere is on 12 September 2010). This symphony was the greatest success of Mahler's lifetime and has stayed popular with the public, although there is often less enthusiasm from the critics. It is the ultimate combination of symphony and song, and its unofficial subtitle "Symphony of a Thousand" is apt. For once, it was a pleasure to write the article; I hope some readers will likewise enjoy it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had the pleasure of peer reviewing this article. It was top flight then, and is better still now. In my opinion it meets all the FA criteria and is a worthy candidate for the front page. - Tim riley (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too peer reviewed it and found all of my (minor) concerns were addressed in the PR. I also want to note as an Image Review that all of the images are either PD-old, or modern with a free license. Well done, and I think this would be a fitting tribute for the centennial anniversary of the premier. Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
PS I am planning on listening to this symphony just because of reading this article[reply]
Thanks to Tim riley and Ruhrfisch for their patient peer review work, and now for the above supports (though I doubt if Tim will be listening). Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - quite a nice article, with a few points to take care of to make it really great.
The first of these is an irritation. I took a print copy of this article on 20 April, and the link was still working on 18 May when I sent the article to peer review. Andante.com is hosting a series of Mahler tributes, and the article by Henry-Louis de La Grange on the Eighth is part of this. Now this and the other tribute articles all appear to have vanished. If I can't locate the new site within a day or so, I will find other sources for the information cited here. As to the Quebec source, I have switched this to a different and more stable site.
You could also check archive.org or a similar site to see if they have a copy
Checks have proved fruitless, but I have found a BBC source that replicates much of the material. I am using this, with appropriate small changes to the text. The dead link has been removed.Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct spelling of Gut(t)man(n)?
Did Mahler actively disapprove of the nickname, or did he simply not acknowledge it?
Biographer Carr refers to Mahler's "dismay" at the name, which I guess amounts to disapproval (which doesn't of course have to be active; silent disapproval can be equally potent). I believe my choice of wording reflects fairly what the sources say, but I can change "despite Mahler's disapproval" to "without Mahler's approval" if you really think the point important.
My point was that "despite Mahler's disapproval" seemed to contradict with "Mahler did not acknowledge the name" in the lead; if you're satisfied with both wordings I won't insist on changing it
Musikfesthalle or Musik-festhalle?
"it has also been compared to the Beethoven's Ninth Symphony" - revise to reflect intended meaning
I have deleted the superfluous "the", if that is what you were meaning. Otherwise, please clarify.
Yes, that makes sense
Is the second section based on the closing scene or scenes of Faust?
"four trumpets, 4 trombones" - why the different number format?
The "subsequent performances" image is a program, not an advertisement, correct?
Faust is arguably a play, not a poem, and Part II was written entirely in the 19th century
I have rarely seen it referred to as a "play". I have seen many references to it as a "poem" or "dramatic poem", and these are the terms I have employed.
Understandable. Feel free to point that out to the editors of our own article on the subject ;)
Prose is technically correct, but lacks flow in areas - could use another set of eyes
Other eyes have viewed it. If you can indicate where you think that flow is lacking, perhaps attention can be directed to those areas.
More a general point than a specific complaint; I'll see if I can fix this myself.
Be consistent in using "Oxford" vs "Oxford, UK" as the location for Oxford U Press. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments and for the sharpness of eye. Where I have not replied, I have simply corrected the text. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also peer reviewed the article and there were relatively few concerns and they were addressed. Fulfils all FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that one works fine for me...perhaps it's just a site your computer doesn't like? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works again now; the site was probably down for a while. Ucucha 15:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images - The PD-US template is over used, and while acceptable, is less free than desirable. If possible use pd-old, pd-germany or plain pd depending on what is appropriate per FAC3 Fasach Nua (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Pretty much there, but could do with a final polish. Some points:
Underlinked: I'm not one to want Austria, but symphony, sonata form & others should be linked, especially musical terms, but also Strophe.
Of musical terms, I have now linked sonata form and some related terms (exposition, development etc). I am pretty sure that all musical terms (including symphony) are linked at first mention, but if you spot others I'll be happy to deal with them. About "strophe" I am not so sure. First, the word only occurs within a quotation and we don't usually link within a quote; secondly, the "Strophe" article is a mess, with heavy cleanup banners in place. I'm not sure that a direct to this article will be helpful. Instead I have added a parenthetical "verses" to the quote, which is surely all readers need to know.
Since Maiernigg is in the municipality of Maria Wörth (pop. 1357), that should be added (really it should redirect there with a little added)
With all due respect, and thanks for the info, I'm not sure this tells anyone much. From the maps, Maiernigg is several miles east of Maria Worth and the connection between the two places seems entirely administrative. My own view is that mentioning the province, the lake and the place-name is probably enough. But tell me if you feel strongly.
I make them within sight of each other, and just over 3 miles apart by boat, which I'm sure is the best way to travel it. But I wouldn't withhold support for that. Wörthersee is not much use, and has no map. Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've worked the town name in - see what you think, whether it overloads the text? Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up Maiernigg as a redirect, with some text added, so is fine as it is now. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a translation of the singer's "role" titles would be more useful than the now forgotten soloists at the premiere, if there is not room for both.
I think that the premiere soloists' names, if known, should be given, whether they are forgotten or not. This is significant information. As to translations of the role titles, many of them are proper names. Of the others, "Magna peccatrix" might be "Woman of great sins", "Mulier Samaritana" would be "Samarian woman" and "Maria Aegyptica" is "Maria of Egypt". I'll add these.
Thank you very much for your comments. Where I have not replied to points, I have accepted your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As usual, excellent work from this Brian. A few niggles:
Why "The" before the title, first word?
"considerable critical"—a mouthful ... could the first word be dropped?
Remove "more mature", since that is indicated by "middle"?
Characteristic and characterised in the lead; no big deal, though.
"a defining document"—I'd rather think of it in its aural realisation rather than pieces of paper if we're to talk about defining a century.
I do find the use of commas idiosyncratic. I can cope, I guess. Sometimes they appear where you wouldn't think they're necessary ("Throughout this time his practice was to leave Vienna at the close of the Hofoper season for a summer retreat, where he could devote himself to composition.") Most writers would insert a comma after "death" to avoid "death performances". As now, it's "In the period following the composer's death performances were comparatively rare, but from the mid-20th century onwards the symphony has been heard regularly in concert halls all over the world, and has been recorded many times." I'd be inclined to do this: "In the period following the composer's death, performances were comparatively rare; but from the mid-20th century onwards, the symphony has been heard regularly in concert halls all over the world and has been recorded many times."
Deryck Cooke did something wonderful with the 10th, but I find "of utterance" highly pretentious or plain ambiguous in this quotation, to the point of wanting an ellipsis: "more stern and forthright ..., more tautly symphonic, with a". Better rhythm, anyway. I don't find the repetition of the "of" grammar in "of orchestration" convincing, either. Who is uttering? Not the prettiest word in Engish, either. And was he referrring to the lyrics? It's hard to say, which is unsatisfactory from the reader's point of view.
"The first note shows:"—can it be "note is", to avoid the repetition with the previous "show"? Tony(talk) 07:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tony. I've done most of the tweaks you suggest. I queried "The" before the title when I began the article's expansion, but another editor was pretty insistent it should be there (see talkpage discussion), and I didn't feel strongly enough to the contrary to make an issue of this. Cooke use the term "document" in relation To Beethoven's Ninth, but I've altered it to "statement". I will run a comma check to see if I can iron out some idiosyncracies. Pleased to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have nothing to add to this discussion apart from my full support. In a way, such well-prepared candidates can be a little frustrating because there is little positive criticism left to offer. Having said this, I didn't like "redraftings" but I can live with it :-) Graham Colm (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Graham, and I've made it "rewriting". Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources look fine to me. One thing (hard to call it an "issue") I noticed is that British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is used as the publisher for most sources except one, which uses simply BBC. Juliancolton (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I've fixed the errant BBC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article describes the equine participants of World War I and the hardships they endured during the war. It has been through a thorough GA review, a peer review and a MILHIST A-class review, as well as having the eyes of several other editors upon it in the past few weeks. Malleus and Yomangan have been especially helpful in the pre-FAC polishing. All external links were working as of a few minutes ago, and there were no dab links. The article has had a pre-FAC image review by Jappalang. Thanks in advance for all comments and suggestions. Dana boomer (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments WOW!!! I've read this a few times in its development. It was always "good" and then "pretty good", but now it is excellent. I made a few tweaks—one verb construction and a missing comma—and I'll read it through again in the next few days, but it is in fine shape. It has a clear and obviously logical structure, the prose is enormously improved, pictures reflect the prose (although I'd love to see one by the Canadian artist), statistics are all there, etc. So, although I may have additional comments and tweaks to suggest over the next few days, I'll be the first to
SUPPORT. Nice job, Dana and friends. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Ruth! Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem better to link to the DOC document (and use the appropriate marking for that, such as |format=DOC or so in cite templates). Ucucha 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now linked to the DOC document, with the appropriate format marker. Thanks for your comments, Ucucha. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Overall it looks pretty good, and I think it's close to FA quality. However, I have a few concerns that I would like to see addressed first:
"Ultimately, because the Allied blockade prevented the Central Powers from importing horses to replace those lost, a lack of horses contributed to Germany's defeat." This sentence doesn't seem completely logical. Perhaps, "Ultimately, the Allied blockade prevented the Central Powers from importing horses to replace those lost, which contributed to Germany's defeat"?
The sentence that begins "Beginning in 1917, cavalry was deployed..." discusses the battle of Cambrai. The following sentence does not. Thus the successive sentence that begins "During the battle, a..." appears disconnected. Does "the battle" refer to Cambrai here?
Yes, this refers to Cambrai. Specified (I think). Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Western Front in World War I made it clear that cavalry was almost useless against modern artillery..." I am unclear how this is relevant. The prior sentences had noted the ineffectiveness against "trench warfare, barbed wire and machine guns", but artillery was never mentioned. Could this be clarified?
Changed to "modern weaponry". Or would "modern warfare tactics" perhaps work better? Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that reads "In a charge by French lancers in June 1918,..." seems disconnected from the rest of the paragraph. Could you clarify what is it trying to communicate? Perhaps a trend in French tactics? Or that this was an unusual act?
The connector was supposed to be a trend in French tactics. I've added what is hopefully a good connector to clarify this. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Germans stopped using cavalry on the Western Front not long after the beginning of the war, changing in response to the Allied Forces' new, more mechanized, battle tactics." The tank was not introduced until 1917, so this looks incorrect. In fact I'd almost say it looks badly in error. The Allies were notable for their reliance on obsolete tactics, and their main change (prior to 1917) was improvements in artillery fire. But perhaps I'm mistaken.
I've tweaked this sentence a bit to show that it was mainly dependent on improved weaponry. Better? Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the text doesn't correctly fit the main topic of their affiliated sections. The paragraph that begins "Feeding horses was a major issue..." has more to do with logistics than casualties. (There is only one sentence in the paragraph that has to do with the death of horses.) The paragraph that begins, "Animals bolstered morale at the front..." has little to do with Logistical support.
Perhaps the current "casualties" section could be re-entitled "casualties and logistics", or maybe "logistics and casualties"? This way the information on feeding could remain there, and the paragraph on morale and cleanliness could be moved from the logistical support section. One of my major problems with this article was some of the information not fitting neatly into one topic or another. Or would a section just on "logistics" be long enough? And would that be too confusing with the section on "logistical support" that is detailing how horses were used to support the rest of the forces, rather than on how the forces supported the horses? Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Further reply - after sleeping on this for a night, what about "Care and casualties" or "Casualties and care"? This would get us away from the logistics/logistical support issue, while still showing that the section was about a little more than just the horses that died/were injured. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, or perhaps "Casualties and upkeep".–RJH (talk)
Thank you for your work on the article.—RJH (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, RJHall. I have tried to address all of them, but have a few questions, especially on the last point. I look forward to your responses. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and referencing issues
Citations
12: "Centre for First World War Studies" should not be italicised
Done. It was a mixup in the cite template formatting. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15: I can't relate the linked page to the citation details. Is this the right page?
Yes, this is the right page. The cite information was given to me by David Underdown (who commented above), and he has an actual copy of the article, so I think that the National Archives website just gives a garbled transcription of the article title. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the disparities in the title of the cited article, I wonder about the value of citing to a page which merely advertises the mis-named article for sale. Wouldn't a straight cite to the article itself be a better approach? Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was working on the principle of "Say where you got it", I've only viewed via the pdf available from there (you can view it free if you're on-site at The National Archvies at Kew, and potentially via the ATHENS portal, if your institution subscribes to that resource). David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30: The magazine is Undersea Warfare not Underseas Warfare
Oops, fixed. Thanks for catching this. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77: UNESCO is not the publisher of this website - it is the patron of the exhibition which this website describes. The publisher is art-ww1.com. The title should, I believe, be rendered as "Art of the First World War: 15 - Umberto Boccioni"
Actually, I think the publisher is Memorial de Caen, per this page. Please let me know if I'm wrong, though. I've changed the title. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right; Memorial de Caen is the publisher of the art-ww1.com website. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80: perhaps should have a more informative title than "Stories".
Changed to "Stories: 'Goodbye Old Man'". Better? Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise all sources look good, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Brian. I think I have addressed all of them. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article as published in Ancestors magazine was entitled "The unluckiest man", for some reason, on the DoucmetnsOnline page which allows you to download a pdf which includes the article, this has been switched to "The last British soldier to be killed in WW1" (which of course explaions why he might be considered the unluckiest man...). The ability to download the article is essentially a matter of convenience - back copies could probably be obtained from Wharncliffe (though to add a layer of complication, Ancestors magazine has now ceased, and The National Archives will be launching a new magazine later this year). Perhaps the title should be amended to "The unluckiest man (The last British soldier to be killed in WW1)" which covers all bases? David Underdown (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent contribution. Doug (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't resist a last recommendation: please also consider uploading and using Cavalry and Tanks at Arras, 1918 by Lieutenant Alfred Theodore Joseph Bastien. An entirely appropriate painting, comfortably out of copyright. Doug (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I've uploaded the file now at File:TanksandhorsesatArras.jpg; would you mind checking to make sure I added the correct licensing? I've added it to the article under the casualties section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Predictably, I think it looks great. Added the author's date of birth and death to clear up that it's been out of copyright since 2005. Doug (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were no "mechanized armored formations" in WWI.
Then what would you suggest I call something like the Royal Tank Regiment? Would it work better if I changed the sentence in the lead from "and many of the traditional functions of horse cavalry were replaced by mechanized armored formations." to something like "...horse cavalry began to be replaced by mechanized armored formations"? Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RTR was a prototype tank regiment, but did not have the mechanised resources or tactical approach to justify suggesting that there were "mechanized armored formations" in WWI. Prototypes were deployed, intimitely comingled with and in support of a much heavier weight of foot soldiers. Guderian only came up with the concept of using "mechanized armored formations" after the war, so clearly they did not replace cavalry in WWI. I like that they were intended to replace the 'shock attack' function of cavalry, but that is where the similarity ends. The significance of the tank in WWI was largely constructed in the German propoganda and popular consciousness to justify the war's outcome. Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about "...and the shock tactic functions of horse cavalry began to be replaced by mechanized armored formations."? Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the particular term "mechanized armored formations" that has a distinct military meaning and that causes a problem, since they only became a reality two decades after the end of the war and had not been conceived at the time of the phasing out of cavalry. How about something along the lines of "Cavalry units were initially considered essential offensive elements of a military force, but over the course of the war, the manifest vulnerability of the horse to modern machine gun and artillery fire fostered interest in mechanized forces. This led to the development of tanks that would ultimately replace cavalry in the shock attack (ref from Blitzkrieg?)."? Doug (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For referencing of the role of tanks in WWI: Willmott, H.P. (2003), First World War, Dorling Kindersley, ISBN1405300299; ISBN9781405300292 (pulled from tank).
Allright, I've replaced it with your proposed wording. As this is the lead, we don't need references for it. From my reading (anyone, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), this new summary wording is still supported by the information and references given in the introductory paragraphs of the Cavalry section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Many British tacticians realized before the war that advances in technology meant that the era of mounted warfare was coming to an end." Is have to disagree, even post-WWI Liddell-Hart was quite isolated while the cavalry officer class was dominant and obstinate. Let's not sugar-coat their gross misunderstanding of the impact of technology on war pre-WWI, despite the lessons of the Crimean War and the Charge of the Light Brigade.
My sources made it quite clear that cavalry officers were "dominant and obstinate". I tried to convey this in the article without straight-out calling them thick-headed, behind-the-times idiots, but I apparently didn't do that well :) The way my sources described it, the tacticians tried to get the military to realize that cavalry was outmoded, but the cavalry commanders (perhaps older, higher ranking?) completely over-rode them. Would you have a suggestion to make this more clear without my going into the realm of OR? Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said :) I was caught by a perceived mismatch between the initial sentence and your subsequent explanation. This appears to be a common theme. Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to tweak the first two sentences of that paragraph to provide a bit more continuity. Did I make things better or worse? Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" In the years following the war most armies became mechanized, which required many cavalry regiments to be converted to armored units." Firstly, 'most armies' did not become mechanised. Secondly, mechanised units were created (for example in Germany) from scratch, not 'converted' from cavalry units.
Changed to "In the years following the war many major armies became mechanized, and most cavalry regiments were either converted to mechanized units or disbanded." I'm using "major" in the sense that they were major world players, although I'm not sure if this is completely clear. It is any better now, though? Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Following the war, the armies of the world powers initiated a process of mechanization in earnest, and most cavalry regiments were either converted to mechanized units or disbanded."? Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your wording. Changed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a support-oppose relationship with this article. It tends to glorify horses where, although their contribution, nobility and suffering were immense, they were primarily draft animals and, in limited numbers, mounts for scouts in both world wars. There are also a number of questionable assertions regarding tanks and mechanised warfare, some of which I have highlighted above. Other than the accuracy issues, I really love the article: neat, concise, great prose, evocative and interesting. I'd support on FA criterion 1a, but the rest is too open for debate right now. Doug (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Doug, and for the 1a support. I have replied to your specific comments above (although with more questions than answers). If you have further specifics you would like to see changed, I am more than willing to work on them. I don't think, however, that the article has serious accuracy issues. I have tried to follow my sources closely and use only reliable scholarship, without delving into the realm of OR or speculation, and the article has already been reviewed by several military editors who didn't find serious errors in accuracy. That being said, I am interested in seeing further comments from you, and thanks again for your efforts on this article so far. Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your open attitude. I will rereview and try to avoid knee-jerk responses to common misconceptions regarding the military significance (negligible) and use (sparse, as infantry support) of tanks in WWI. Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Doug, the article IS about horses so of course there is an emphasis! Focus is not "glorifiation," IMHO. (Full disclosure: I have been watching this article's evolution for months, am merely an involved copyeditor here, too COI to be part of the FAC, but not the primary researcher or contributor. AND I am diving in uninvited! (grin)) But on review of your comments, I have to express my 100% SUPPORT for this article's FAC and assure you that most of your concerns were already raised by others and addressed during the WP MilHist A-class review, where we had a lot of people wanting to bog the article down with extensive diversions and nuances about other areas of military equipment, tactics, etc., when the article is, as its title suggests, about the horse. The research Dana has done is extensive! Clearly, the verifiable contribution of six million animals with 25% of their losses occurring in battle clearly exceeds the common misperception that they were simply "draft animals and mounts for scouts." While your comments about tank warfare are helpful and Dana has expressed a clear desire to clarify any misperceptions or misinformation, the point of THIS article is the use of the horse and how WWI marked the transitional period between the use of horses and the use of assorted mechanized equipment as instruments of war. (Compare Horses in World War II, for both info on the changes in their use -- i.e. more true then that they were draft animals and mounts for scouts-- and an example of an article that Dana has NOT worked on! LOL!)
Also Doug, I want to encourage you in your own re-review of the article in light of the clarification Dana has provided and encourage you to address Dana's comments and questions with helpful specifics in line with your expertise. BUT - if you want Dana to keep the article as verified and accurate as it is already, can you provide us with appropriate source material to back up your assertions? You must have noticed that virtually every statement in the article has a citation, and Dana worked diligently to make sure that the contents of this article reflected the actual content of the source. (And note, the sources themselves may not have been experts on tank warfare, but still pass WP:V.) She is right that we cannot venture off into the realm of OR at this point in the game! Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I am glad for your expertise and I am doubly glad to see the offer of citations. But don't put words in my mouth -- I at no time claimed that MilHist reviewers were experts, nor did I "insist that improvements are unnecessary". I was merely trying to avoid another round of what I considered to be nitpicking over tangentally related topics that drug out the A-class review for months. I also did not intend to imply that citations trump accuracy, though what I wrote could be construed that way and do apologize to that extent. My intent was simply to explain that experts on horse cavalry may not have been experts on tanks, thus the terms in the article reflect the source material used, which can modified by other source material. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to AGF, despite that fact that you just deleted a good number of my comments. I understand your frustration with the length of the process. Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments that Montana just deleted, Dana, please take check double linking of shock tactics and shock attack. Other edits look good.
Are you meaning the linking of shock tactics both in the lead and in the body? I think this is an acceptable use of linking twice to the same term, but if it's a big deal I can remove the second link. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Battle of Cambrai "...although this plan never came to fruition." is unclear. I gather from Battle of Cambrai that three British cavalry divisions were deployed but the attempted breakthrough by the cavalry was late, and failed. Perhaps a rephrase for clarity? Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I've done some tweaking here to clarify. Let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typo: "only few weeks into the war half of all Austrian cavalry mounts were disabled" should be only "only a few weeks" Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Combination of Canada and the US seems rather arbitrary, is there a reason for this? In the context of both World Wars Canada is more closely associated with the UK than the US. Canada's army was functionally and politically an extension of the British Army. Personally, I'd split them into two sections at the line of the paragraph break. Australia, New Zealand and Canada (as Empire) is also a more logical grouping. Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to go for a geographical theme in the grouping. I also don't want to split it up into too many subsections, because a bunch of one-paragraph section looks really choppy. If you really think that these two need to be split up, what about this: Have a United Kingdom level three header (the same that Great Britain is now), with level four headers for Great Britain, ANZAC and Canada. Then have the US be its own level three header. Would this work? It's still more headers, but they're a lower level, so it would look less chopped up. Just some thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment, and a couple of other editors bringing up the same issue, I have now rearranged the Cavalry section to follow the outline above. Please check and see if this is acceptable to you. Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No other issues, again, a great article. Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa on the comment deletion!!! That was unintentional, I thought the edit conflict was just my own double edit! Yesterday was sort of a suck-egg day for me, I was in a knee-jerk frame of mind myself. Montanabw(talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Doug (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Support – Haven't read all of the article yet, but I have looked at a good piece of it and everything seems fine prose-wise. I did make a couple of little copy-edits, which should be checked, but didn't spot any significant problems. If I get to read the rest of the article, I'll bump this to a full support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the provisional support, Giants. I've looked at your edits and they look good. Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready to be taken through the FA review process and is almost at FA status. TimHAllstr (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
media Images with faces should not point away from the text, the File:Loggerhead_turtle.png should not be political, and if it is political it should not be a UScentric political map Fasach Nua (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the flipped version shouldn't have been uploaded over the original; and "original image reversed" ought to be added to the caption. Or a better image could be used—it's not very good. —innotata 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll revert what I did to the original image and begin my search for another image. Do you have any recommendations on where to look? Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 23:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched Flickr and the commons previously, but I'll look again. Any other sites? Also, I uploaded two images from flickr and they haven't appeared on the commons. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 01:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have got one from Flickr now. More ideas if required can be found at WP:FIT. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with political maps as such, since for land-based species country boundaries make distribution clearer. Country boundaries are unhelpful but harmless here, but having US state boundaries is US-centric Jimfbleak - talk to me?
I may be able to edit the image to remove the country and state boundaries. Would that make it acceptable? Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 10:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my only concern was the US states, so for me, yes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the map appears to contain both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed all country boundaries from the map now. You may have to refresh to get the latest version. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You left the Australian border in, but I can forgive that! FAC3 metFasach Nua (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed three dead links. Were there any particular ones you noticed that linked to the wrong article? Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 20:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was given its scientific name by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758. — worrying that there's an error in line one, Linnaeus named it Testudo caretta — I see you give the correct name later, but the first sentence is still factually incorrect
*In lead The loggerhead is considered an endangered species and is protected under the United States' Endangered Species Act. — US-centric, isn't it protected anywhere else?
In many places during the nesting season, workers and volunteers from organizations such as the Fripp Island, South Carolina, Turtle Patrol search the coastline for nests — is this the only place in the world this occurs? nonono
What would you suggest would be the best way to go about fixing this? I can't imagine it being practical to list every organization that deals with the conservation of sea turtles. Maybe I could list areas that have major organizations for the conservation of loggerheads and sea turtles in general?--TimHAllstr (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: Rather than draw attention to one specific organization or counter with numerous specific organizations - best to generalize here and remove Fripp Island and replace with "volunteers" - perhaps add "around the world" if that is the case.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, this is a widespread activity in almost every breeding area Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Got rid of the Marine Bio source and incorporated the suggested source.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You rely almost exclusively on US sources, so Raccoons are the primary predators of loggerhead nests lacks credibility since these mammals do not occur in most of the turtle's range
I have begun adding info about primary predators in specific locations.--TimHAllstr (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed instead of including every predator of the loggerhead in specific areas, I have instead just included all known predators in general.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 45% of the Mediterranean juvenile population has migrated from the Atlantic — doesn't make sense
What part of that statement is confusing? I'll try to fix it, but it makes sense to me. 45% of the juveniles residing in the Mediterranean came from the Atlantic meaning they weren't born in the Mediterranean but reside there for a portion of their lives. Does that make it clearer? Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any differences between the subspecies other than average size?
The Spotila book resource that is currently in my possession mentioned something about genetic differences, but the book was very vague and confusing in its description. I will work on finding more info regarding this.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed found a source and addressed the question.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Up to 40% of nesting females have been recorded to show wounds believed to come from shark attacks — evidence? The source appears to be just for US and Canada.
The source is named Turtles of the US and Canada. It does not just give information on the sea turtles based only in this area. It gives information on the species as a whole because it is often found around the United States and Canada.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial lighting threatens loggerhead hatchlings, contributing to thousands of deaths per year. — evidence for this outside Florida, the only source given?
Fixed added a new reference that generalizes the information instead of referring only to Florida.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only the US and Australia are quoted as having national conservation laws. Don't South Africa, India or any of the other countries have legislation? A quick search found this for example
Another read through later perhaps, but there seems to be a tendency to generalise from local studies to apparently global claims. This is more like Loggerhead turtles - a US perspective. There's no indication you've even looked at sources like this or thisJimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 25 May
copyedits by Jimmy Butler for style and me for links, I'm sure some of the other scientists have articles too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We apologize for the US based article. Naturally, US-based sources have been the most readily available for us since we are a class from the US. I will work to make the article more worldly.--TimHAllstr (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, in the days of the internet, non-US sources are readily available, even if you restricted yourself to just English language publications. You have to make a conscious effort to write from a global perspective, it's too easy to produce an unbalanced article which looks fine to your compatriots but has glaring omissions to non-Americans. When I wrote Red-billed Chough, I was having to dump masses of UK-based research whilst scouring the remoter corners of the internet to find foreign and non-English sources. Despite the tone of my comments, I'm not unsympathetic to this article, but I'll wait now to see how it develops during FAC before deciding whether or not to support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issues: While the sources themselves seem on the whole to be OK, there are numerous problems relating to formatting and access.
What is the basis for listing some sources under the "Reference" headings, but not others?
Some of the citations in the "Notes" section omit publisher details. See, specifically, 19, 59, 60, 61
Fixed these occurrences. Will screen for more. --TimHAllstr (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that some numbers have changed. For above, read 19, 60, 61 and 62. For 60, the magazine (EcoHealth) and other details (issue, date, ISSN etc) should be added. For 61, the year 2005 should be added to September 18, and Chicago Tribune should be italicised. For 62, add Marine Turtle Newsletter and the year, 2007. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I was unsure to as to what part of the citation I should put Marine Turtle Newsletter. Should it be listed as part of the title?--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some online citations are missing retrieval dates
Ref 64. needs a retrieval date
Fixed, retrieval date added. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The format of citation 41 is non-standard (publisher's name given first).
Fixed. This citation has been deleted and replaced with a more reliable source.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Italics: where the source is a print journal or newspaper the name should be italicised, otherwise not. Check throughout for consistency in this.
39: Is "Marine Ecology" a journal? If so you should give details such as volume and issue number, and a page reference, to enable the article to be traced. Similar point with 47 ("The Journal of Experimental Biology")
Fixed. I made these journal refs.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links to 6, 12, 25 and 31 all seem to be problematic. In each case I got the "could not find" message.
Fixed - 6, 12 and 31 have now been webcited for reliability. Link 25 has been removed. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Access to 33, 53 and 55 appears to be restricted. Do these require subscriptions? If so this should be stated, using the (subscription required) template.
Note 63: the link goes to an unheaded page in handwriting. The internal link marked "Home" does not work, so how can the validity of this source be established?
Fixed Source deleted and replaced.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Spotila book is listed twice in the References section
The Peaker book details include "pp. 231", presumably referring to its pages total. No other books have this information; suggest delete.
Fixed: Page ranges removed from all references in "Bibliography Section" "Notes" reference page numbers.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wynne book details include a page range 104–05, yet in the notes there are citations to pages outside this range. You don't need to include this page range here, and I suggest it is deleted.
Fixed: Page ranges removed from all references in "Bibliography Section" "Notes" reference page numbers.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Valente ref have "Press" as part of the title? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: Review of source indicates "Press" not part of the title; thus deleted.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Was pretty good during the PR, but excellent now. Prose, comprehensiveness, layout all up to FA standard. --mav (reviews needed) 00:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Read through about half of the article, and most of it looks quite good to me, though I'm not that knowledgeable in comprehensiveness or sourcing standards for species articles. I did find the following items, which are all minor:
"with the combination Caretta caretta being first introduced in 1902 by Leonhard Stejneger." The word "being" is making the sentence a bit awkward to read, and can safely be removed without harming the meaning.
"while the Kuroshio Extension Bifurcation region provide important juvenile foraging areas." "provide" → "provides". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Two subspecies are recognized: C. caretta gigas in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and C. caretta caretta in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.[5]"--I'd be interested to see what else the source says about this. What are the differences, do they account for the large range in size and weight, why were two subspecies recognized?
Info was not in the book but I found a good source and cleared it up.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Temperatures from 27–28 °C (81–82 °F) are best suited for nesting females.[12]"--this wording makes it sound like the water changes temperature for the female (I think it should be reworded to most suitable.)
More minor things to follow, nice work.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
"The return journey to the natal beaches in Japan was long suspected, although the trip would cross unproductive clear water with few feeding opportunities.[19]"--awkward wording, I think "was" and "would" may have to be changed.
I think the Evolutionary history section should explain why two subspecies are recognized (or maybe that can be done in the Taxonomy section and here it could be discussed how the subspecies came about).
Included in the taxonomy section because that was where the information originally was. Do you think it would be best to put it under evolutionary history?--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is more of a taxonomic issue, I was just wondering if you could turn up anything about how the differences in the two populations came about.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a comment, just a compliment: I really like the info on sexing juveniles...good stuff.
"Escalation typically follows four steps"--Do the first two steps have specific names? The third and fourth are sparring and separation...right?
"Along the southeastern coast of the United States, the raccoon (Procyon lotor) is the most [...]"--Can't raccoon be linked in the first paragraph of this section?
More to follow later, kinda busy. Sorry this is so broken up (maybe its easier that way...I don't know).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
leaning Having seen the improvements to the article, I'm not far off supporting, but three further comments first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On my browser there is a huge (20+ cm) white space before the map. Can this be fixed?
Strange, for me it appears right after the title. I will see if anyone else seems to have this problem and knows how to fix it.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What browser are you using, this problem has not appeared to me. Are the synonyms in the taxonomy box expanded? I included a clear template before the picture in distribution because the list of synonyms was covered up by it and you couldn't read them. Also, do you have javascript enabled? Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well...I didn't see a big space then or now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done -I think that I fixed this. I have tested it with Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome and it was okay before. I assume the issue was not having javascript enabled which expands the synonymy's on the right column, an issue in all browsers. Anyhow the clears have now been removed from the top of the article so excess spacing cannot appear. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The images seem to be scattered at random. I would suggest either right-aligning all, or alternating left/right
For the most part, the images follow an alternating pattern. There are a few exception to make sure all the images face the text.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The images have now been revamped so they alternated left and right and also comply with this request to not point away from the text. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the red link off Cartagena Convention doesn't actually explain it. Can we have a few words to clarify?
Done A brief explanation and citation have been included.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article has come a long way during FAC, I'm happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the image of the fox be made smaller? It scared the hell out of me the first time I scrolled down past it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Someone did this, I made the image of the turtle hatchling smaller to match. Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
Something's wrong with ref #26.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Female-female aggression is uncommon, especially in marine vertebrates. However, it is common among loggerheads."--can these two sentence be merged?
Merged there may be a better way to do this though.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In Australia, the introduction of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) by English settlers in the 19th century lead to significant reductions in turtle populations. In one coastal section in eastern Australia during the 1970s, predation of turtle eggs destroyed up to 95% of all clutches laid."--are these sentences talking about all turtles, or just the loggerhead?
Fixed Made it more clear that it is referring to loggerheads.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Up to 40% of nesting females have wounds believed to come from shark attacks.[38]"--the sentence before this was talking about loggerheads in the southeast U.S. ... is this sentence referring to those turtles as well?
Fixed Clarified "around the world"--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Trematodes of the family Spirorchiidae inhabit"--can Spirorchiidae be linked (or red-linked if the page doesn't exist)?
"Other food items include sponges, corals, sea pens, polychaete worms, sea anemones, cephalopods, gastropods, barnacles,"--you've already said "gastropods" in the previous sentence.
Fixed deleted second occurence--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" [...]with their large and powerful jaws.[6][37] Large, projecting scale points[...] "--"large" repetitive.
Alright, I'm through "feeding."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed got rid of second "large" to decrease repetitiveness.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's another problem with a ref. The bottom of footnotes has a big, red message (I hate those...).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Separation into subspecies is based on color, body size, number of neural and peripheral bones and number of marginal scutes.[8]"--any info on which subspecies has the different characteristics (i.e. which is larger, what are the differences in color)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This information is from the Marquez reference.
The subspecific status should be re-assessed because the two described subspecies, one for the Pacific, Caretta caretta gigas and the other for the Atlantic, Caretta caretta caretta, are not valid in the light of available information, since they were based on characters showing considerable variation, principally colour, body size, number of neural and peripheral bones and number of marginal scutes (caretta 12-12, gigas 13-13). Most authors now recognize caretta as a single polymorphic species.
Based on this information I don't think it is notable to mention the separate subspecies. Vancemiller (talk·contribs·count·email) 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Than, I would put in that the current taxonomic organization is debatable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done mentioned that it is debatable but most recognize it as a single species.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
more comments
"During this seasonal migration, juvenile loggerheads have the ability to use both magnetic cues and visual cues.[51]"--this sentence is separated by quite a bit of text from the migration its talking about. Any way to rearrange this to make it clearer.
"if one aid is not available, the other suffices.[51] Female loggerheads first reproduce"--these ideas don't seem to flow...perhaps a paragraph reorganization would help.
Sure. I was confused by these sentence in several ways: "Nesting loggerheads have a straight carapace length of 70–109 centimeters (28–43 in). Seventy centimeters is the minimum size for breeding, although not all loggerheads begin breeding at this size. Therefore, carapace length is not a reliable indicator of sexual maturity.[52]" First, you say previously that the loggerhead reaches "a length range of 70 to 95 centimeters (28 to 37 in)," which leads me to believe that nesting loggerheads are somehow bigger than non-nesting loggerheads. Second, the wording of the second sentence may throw some readers off. It seems like your saying that 70 cm is the smallest size at which a loggerhead is ready to breed but that they may be bigger than this when they start breeding. Well...we already knew that because you gave us a range of lengths. Third, its placement (or at least its wording) is somewhat awkward. Are the readers to assume that loggerheads reach this length at "ages 28–33" or at "ages 17–30" or at "unknown" ages?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little better, but why is this phrase even necessary: "however not all loggerheads begin breeding at the minimum size?" Also, I am still unsure if the length correlates to the age in any significant way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple paternity is possible due to sperm storage. The female can store sperm from multiple males in her oviducts until ovulation.[60]"--This needs to be moved next to the other text concerning this.
"They uncover them, count the eggs, and, if necessary, relocate them for protection from threats such as high spring tides and predators. The nests are checked daily for disturbances."--suggest merging
The last section "Conservation efforts" needs a link to the Threatened species and/or Endangered species article. If there already is a link the this/these in another part of this article, ignore this comment.
Great work guys. Fix these last few things and I'm a supporter.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all support and comments.--TimHAllstr (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article needs a MOS review (perhaps Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) will do it?). I also wonder about WP:OVERLINKing-- do we really need links to commonly known places like South Africa or Central America? Pls ping me when MOS has been checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Helgoland was a German battleship built before World War I, the ship saw extensive service throughout the war and played a central role in the Wilhelmshaven mutiny. This article is comprehensive; it includes information from a widely known (at least in the field) diary of a sailor from the ship as well as the recently published book (Feb. 2010) by Gary Staff. The article was thoroughly copyedited by Dank during the A-class review in March of this year. I look forward to any and all comments aimed at improving the article and helping me to ensure it meets the criteria for a featured article. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than likely German, hence why it's uploaded here on en.wiki and not Commons, because it cannot be verified to be PD in Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a better source than "Behind the German Veil, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, 1917"? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem with this source is; it establishes that it's PD in the United States, which is all we need. I have not come across the image anywhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wp has a clear m:mission, the FAC requires appropriate licensing of media, the description implies it was first published in the US, yet the licensing does not, and I would like this contradiction removed. 21:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the 1923 cut-off. The 1923 cut-off doesn't require a document to be published first in the United States before anywhere else in the world, just that it be published at some point before 1923 in the US. This image demonstrably meets that requirement. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the image was deemed fine by Jappalang when the class article went to FAC back in July 2009. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing and sourcing are correct. Pre-1.1.1923 publication applies to both works first published in the US and abroad (see here). I don't see anything contradictory in the description or license. Эlcobbolatalk 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no external links. Ucucha 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From other A-class reviews, we know that not everyone is on board (aboard?) with "(SMS is the German equivalent of the British HMS.)" That was my addition; I didn't think we should expect the general reader to know what SMS means, but there were no objections to the way it was done in SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand: "SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand (German: "His Majesty's ship Archduke Franz Ferdinand") was ...". We don't have to translate the ship name here, but most readers won't know the reference (and may stumble on the alternative spelling of the archipelago), so we could take the opportunity to link it, if this is agreeable to everyone: "SMS Helgoland (German: "His Majesty's ship Helgoland"), the lead ship ...". - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"On 17 January, Ingenohl ordered Helgoland to go back to the docks for more maintenance. It wasn't until 20 January that the ship successfully entered the drydock, owing to difficulties ...": I'm not making the edit because it's just a personal preference, but I recommend something tighter, maybe "... for more maintenance, but she didn't enter the drydock until three days later ...". - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did they arrive in Kiel on 1 Mar? - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Herr Stumpf is pretty sketchy on dates; a lot of the time he'll just say a day of the week for something. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that begins "At 20:15" needs some attention to the units. In particular, I just don't see "in" as a unit very often because it looks like, well, "in"; please use "inch" unless it's the second unit in a conversion. - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm too involved to support here, but I gave it another run-through and I'm happy. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per usual disclaimer; I prefer not to wear so many hats (it gives me a big head!), but the reviews aren't exactly piling in. Authoritatively referenced, doesn't seem to me to omit anything, an interesting narrative, and adequately copyedited (grin). - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding File:War Ensign of Germany 1903-1918.svg: I very much doubt R-41 was alive in 1903 and designing flags for Wilhelm II. As the creator of a mere derivative, R-41 is not the rights holder and cannot, therefore, release it into the public domain. That's not to say this isn't public domain, only that the license information needs to be corrected accordingly (e.g. {{PD-Flag-Germany}} - not a redlink on the Commons). Эlcobbolatalk 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've been through about a dozen German warship FACs that all used that image over the past year and a half or so, and that has never been caught. That deserves a barnstar or something. I've replaced the license tag on the image per your suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that a couple of quite old books (Herwig, 1980 and Schwarz, 1986) have 13-digit ISBNs. The 13-digit format was introduced in 2007 which suggests you are using more recent editions of these books. The dates should be adjusted accordingly.
Scheer book: "Ltd" requires a capital
What is the function of the (1) after the title of the Staff (2010) book?
But... Non-sources issue. The parenthetical note (German: "His Majesty's Ship Helgoland") is extremely confusing because, I believe, the wording is English. It is the English rendering of the ship's German title and therefore should read "(English: His Majesty's Ship Helgoland)"Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on the locations and ISBNs tomorrow. As to the Staff book, it's the first volume of a pair. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Osborne book still requires publisher's location (presumably Bloomington); "Ltd" still requires a capital L. The meaning of the parenthetical (1) would be clear if you wrote (Volume 1).Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed everything as you suggested; a check to Worldcat confirms Bloomington. As for the (1), I left it as that originally because that's how it is on the book cover; I didn't think we could alter the title for clarity. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the crews mutiny? I know very little about WWI, and I'd never heard of the mutiny. From reading this blurb, it sounds like the Armistice was planned, and the sailors mutineed - did they not want the war to end?
They wanted to survive to the end of the war; their commanders wanted to use them as cannon fodder in the hope that it would weaken England after the war. I'll add something to make this a little clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The following day, a sailors' council took control of the base. That same day," - Just a bit confused, was "that same day" the 5th or 6th?
My bad, fixed. Thanks; none of us is as smart as all of us. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're tripping over each other ;) I added a line to clarify why the sailors revolted, which was namely that they thought the operation would sabotage the peace process. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guys, for being so responsive! Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Viewed one way, Peter Halkett was a visionary genius a hundred years ahead of his time who was one of the first to see the implications of the newly-invented invention of rubberised fabric, and had his designs gained wider acceptance Titanic would have had a happy ending as Jack ferried Rose to safety on one of the cheap and tightly-stacked collapsible lifeboats stored on every ship. Viewed the other way, Peter Halkett was an English eccentric of the type the 19th century produced so many of, with a crackpot vision of top-hatted Victorian gentlemen and their trusty flat-capped servants navigating their way up the Northwest Passage on a flotilla of umbrella-propelled cloaks.
This one's short, but as far as I'm aware it covers everything that has been written on the topic. The Arctic expeditions of the early 19th century are an unfashionable and almost forgotten piece of history today; while a lot of books on the period mention Halkett boats in passing, to the best of my knowledge Stephanie Pain's 2009 paper and the 1955 Beaver article are the only pieces published in reliable sources that cover Halkett's designs in detail. Credit to Malleus for a lot of thankless chopping and cleaning of the original article. – iridescent 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-emptive responses: (1) I'm aware that Canadian Arctic is slightly inaccurate as some of these territories hadn't yet been formally incorporated into Canada, but I assume people will understand what's meant. I really don't want to go down the "Northern Lower Canada, Rupert's Land, the British Arctic Islands and the undefined territory between present-day Nunavut and Alaska" route. (2) No, there's no way to write a "legacy" section. Modern inflatable boats were introduced in the Second World War, but there's nothing to suggest that their designers on either side were aware of Halkett. (3) No, I can't find a source for how much they cost and how many were made; I can find catalogue entries for them but nothing giving a price, and I suspect they were built to order and priced according to specifications. – iridescent 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments (but looking to support as its a fascinating article):Parrotof Doom 22:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Spurred on by the successful testing of the boat-cloak" - before this the article states that testing had to be abandoned?
It was successfully tested in the Thames. The seaworthiness tests in the Bay of Biscay were abandoned due to the calm weather, but those were just Halkett testing its limits—it was never intended to be used in open seas (see the footnote). – iridescent 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"John Franklin bought one to take on the ill-fated 1845 expedition in which the entire expedition party of 129 men and two ships vanished.[11] Franklin saw the boats as so essential to travel in Canada that he gave this boat to Sir George Simpson, Governor-in-Chief of Rupert's Land, for use in his travels in the region.[12][note 2]" - did Franklin not go on the first expedition, or did he change his mind and give the boat away before he went?
Franklin was planning his forthcoming expedition, and had the boat in readiness. Simpson had been appointed Governor of Rupert's Land (modern central Canada), and Franklin gave him the boat to make it easier to get around between the isolated outposts of his territory. Franklin ordered a replacement from Halkett, which was delivered in time for the Franklin expedition. – iridescent 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to clarify that then. I had to read the sentence a few times to work out what I thought was happening, and I still wasn't clear until I read the above. Parrotof Doom 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Keen to find out what had become of the ships and men of Franklin's expedition, in 1848 the Royal Navy sent an expedition led by John Richardson and John Rae to search for the party, equipped with a Halkett boat provided by the government" - this makes it appear as though "the party" was equipped with a Halkett boat.
Not sure how to word it. (Both parties were in fact equipped with Halkett boats.) "An expedition led by John Richardson and John Rae, equipped with a Halkett boat, to search for the party" to me reads like the boat was going to do the searching, not Richardson and Rae. – iridescent 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the Stromness Museum?Parrotof Doom 22:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stromness, astonishingly enough. I don't want to say "The Stromness Museum in Stromness" if I can help it, it looks daft. – iridescent 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images The article seems overloaded with images, perhaps File:Franklin's_canoes_in_gale.jpg could be dropped, I don't think it conveys any information, and the text would not be drowned in a sea of images if it was dropped. (licensing of images is fine) Fasach Nua (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one's disposable if anyone else objects to its being there—if removed, it will leave a long stretch with no images (which is part of the reason I added it). I'd vehemently object to removing any of Halkett's drawings, all of which show things I'd consider essential to understanding the concept of Halkett boats and how they differ from both the standard rubber dinghy and the traditional kayak. – iridescent 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I really don't want this to look like a pile-on fan support, but when I reviewed this recently at GAN my first thought was "Why is this here? Why isn't it at FAC?" MalleusFatuorum 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment. Generally looks good. It certainly is extremely concise. You mention that several sources refer to them "in passing". I looked at one - Arctic hell-ship (2007), and it indicates their use in the 1850-52 voyage of the HMS Enterprise, and some comments about them leaking (i agree - in passing). This would seem a higher quality source than the New Scientist article and perhaps slightly more detailed in some respects. It also gives a different name to the leader (richard Collinson) to the 1848 expedition (John Richardson and John Rae), suggesting these are two separate expeditions that used the boats, and could then be covered separately in the article. In terms of its reception by coleagues and the Inuit, the remarks by Sherard Osborn in The Polar regions: or a search after Sir John Franklin's expedition might be worth considering. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic Hell-ship does mention them, but it seems all to be fairly trivial mentions, other than the brief anecdote about one capsizing in a storm—I can't see anything that adds any technical detail as to the design. I was aiming for a concise narrative arc (Peter Halkett grows up listening to tales of Franklin's 1819–22 disaster from his father → he resolves to think of a way to stop it happening again → he invents the inflatable boat → Franklin uses it and dies anyway → Rae uses them successfully and proves the concept is viable). I don't really want it to go down the List of expeditions that were equipped with Halkett boats route if it can be avoided; there were quite a lot of expeditions in this period, many of which would have taken one, and thus I've tried to limit it to those (Franklin, Rae, Bellot) who fit into that broader narrative. There's also an issue in that in the 1850s Thomas Hancock and Charles Goodyear invented the rubber dinghy (they seem to have come up with the idea independently), which although it differs from the fabric-based and sharp-prowed Halkett boat is the same basic concept; thus, unless it specifically mentions Halkett's name it's impossible to say whether "Foo was equipped with an inflatable boat" refers to a Halkett boat or not.
I think the Sherard Osborn quote has a period charm, and if there were space I'd definitely include it in a quote-box to provide background colour (I don't think it adds enough to make it worth sacrificing one of Halkett's drawings to free up space, though), but I'm not sure there's really anything usable in it as a source, other than as another source for the fact that yes, people really did use the things.
I've no concerns about Stephanie Pain as a reliable source; she's a respected writer on the history of science and engineering (and Associate Editor of New Scientist). NS isn't always reliable at the time of printing—because they're a weekly when all the other major science periodicals are monthly, they sometimes cut corners to be first with the news—but they're scrupulous about corrections, and their broad cross-disciplinary readership means that errors generally get spotted and fixed very quickly. – iridescent 09:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pts in reverse: 1. sorry, i didn't want to suggest i had any issues with NS as a source, only that a scholarly book if available is perhaps superior. 2. Agree about the period charm, but that the pictures are more important. 3. While a long "List of expeditions that were equipped with Halkett boats" would be undesirable, i think you are in no danger of succumbing to that problem :-) But I do think mentioning their repeated use in hte post-Franklin voyages is worth half a sentence or so. In this particular csae there's no danger of dinghy / Halkett confusion as they are identified by that particular name in the text. I'll have a shot perhaps. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me – iridescent 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links (and no dashes to fix either, you leave me nothing to do). Ucucha 07:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing and referencing: An irritating feature of the "cite journal" template is that, unlike "cite book", it reveals page numbers unadorned, without explanation as to what they are - as for example, in refs 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. To overcome this, and to achieve consistency with other formats, it is necessary to enter the page field in the cite journal as "page= p. xxx". That way, page numbers are properly identified. I have done this with the Dickens ref, perhaps you could do the rest?
Otherwise, sources look good, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images okay: all verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Another short and interesting read that covers most of the bases on this little innovation, and what an innovation! The sight of the umbrella held tightly in the boater's hand to catch the wind is hilarious! Yet it worked. I have to wonder now why special forces have to lug around inflatable boats when they could be wearing these (heh). Jappalang (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is something I've wondered as well. Halkett was working with canvas and rubber; with modern synthetic fabrics, I'm not sure why one couldn't make boats small enough to fit into a pocket. The principles are still sound; Halkett would certainly recognise the Sevylor boats still in use today. – iridescent 11:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice read, which seems to cover the ground fully. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Halkett boatrefers to two types of lightweight inflatable boat designed by Lt Peter Halkett (1820–1885) during the 1840s."—possible use-mention problem. The replacements I can think of, however, seem worse, and I think it's less of a biggie here because the article is about two boat types so named.
"Peter Halkett was in the 1840s a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy."—feels like it lacks commas ("Halkett, in the 1840s, a ...") or like in the 1840s belongs at the end of the sentence.
Dates are consistent Day Month Year in text. There's Day Month Year accessdates and ISO style publish dates in the refs. It's good and consistent, but I think just using one format for all the refs would be even better (and I think just using Day Month Year all around the article would be ideal).
I'm not a big fan of "whilst" (as opposed to "while"). I'm motivated there by Tony1's 1a userpages, though, and don't think it's wrong in any way.
Otherwise, article looks good. I'm simply not familiar enough with the boats to speak for the article's completeness or accuracy. However, the body and lead look crisp and good, the subject is explained deeply and quite well (especially for the length), and new people are briefly and nicely introduced, so I'll partial-support as above. If I ever made a product, I'd take "although in constant use for upwards of six weeks on a rocky coast it never required the slightest repair" and "ought to form part of the equipment of every expedition" as one hell of a compliment; given that, it's a shame the boats were ultimately just abandoned. --anoddname 03:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Answering in order:
Regarding the lead, I think "Halkett boat refers to" is correct (as opposed to "Halkett boats refer to"). They refer to two different designs, both called "Halkett boat". As there are other boats of a similar design (most obviously the Sevylor boats I mention above) it needs to be clear that it refers to the specific designs of Halkett, not the general type.
I can see no obvious way to reword "Peter Halkett was in the 1840s a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy". "Peter Halkett, a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy in the 1840s, was…" would merge two already-long sentences. It needs to get across the specific point that he designed them during his service in the Navy.
I always use ISO-style dates in refs, and one of the user-friendly ones in the text itself. My think is (and always has been) that the references are one of the few things in an non-list article which someone could conceivably want to sort, and the ISO format dates make it much easier. It also makes it easier for bots to cope with; Wikipedia's bots can generally cope with varying date formats, but not necessarily our mirrors—and everything I do is done with at least half an eye on whether it will survive a migration to a possible Wikipedia II. (Both the MediaWiki interface and the WMF itself are clumsy botch-jobs handling a task they were never designed to cope with, and sooner or later one or the other will be replaced.)
I disagree with Tony over "whilst" (and with a lot of his misplaced formality section—utilize, for instance, is most certainly not a synonym of use). This is an article in British English on a British topic, and "whilst" is perfectly ordinary British English usage, not any kind of archaism or pretentiousness. – iridescent 19:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 1840s Peter Halkett was a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy..." ? Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to start that particular section with his name if at all possible; its purpose is to show why an English sailor who'd never lived in Canada should have (a) have an interest in the Arctic, and (b) be so interested in the design of portable boats. – iridescent 19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A spiffing-eh-what-chap! footnote in the history of aviation, all reviewers are required to listen to "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" while reading this article. Parrotof Doom 14:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: All sources look OK. It would be best to standardise the format of the ("Registration required") tag which is located differently in ref. 3 than elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's much I can do about that, all citations use templates. Parrotof Doom 16:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most enjoyable reads I've had lately. Structure, referencing and detail look fine. I get the subtlety about the format of the 'race' so fair enough about going back to the original wording in the lead.
As for "take-off", I'm still a bit dubious about the action being the same format as the noun, e.g. "take-off and landing" looks right but "He planned to take-off" doesn't. Can you just double-check the OED on that?
Quite correct, in my haste using WikEd I forgot to check each instance. The OED uses gives several variations as examples, but take-off seems the most appropriate. A search for "takeoff" just redirects to "take off" or "take-off". Parrotof Doom 13:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given you seem to be using words for figures under 10 elsewhere, "5 miles" should probably be "five miles"...
My one suggestion re. the excellent supporting materials is that the images could stand to be rendered larger, plus you could alternate left and right with the quote boxes, i.e. since you have Paulhan's quote on the left following his image on the right, why not do the same for Grahame-White? Anyway, jolly good show all round -- rather! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I've rearranged the quote boxes. For images however, I prefer to use the standard thumb size, for small screens large images can create havoc. Thanks for the support. Parrotof Doom 13:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the portraits of the aviators are okay at the default size from where I sit. However I notice the lead image size is forced now to something much greater than default; the new one at night on the other hand looks really tiny as a standard thumb... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that happened as the result of a discussion about the image licences, I uploaded a full size one and it rescaled accordingly. I think a slightly larger image is probably ok at the top as the contents box breaks things up, but lower down the text and quote boxes will end up squashing together. I'm not fussed about the nighttime image though, if anyone wants to make it bigger I don't mind. Parrotof Doom 08:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images okay: the two portraits of the aviators are from the Bain Collection, which Commons have accepted to be in the public domain so far. The photo of the flight (and all Flight-copyrighted images in that issue) is in the public domain by virtue of publishing before 1923 (US) and corporate authorship (UK). A Commons gallery or category about this event could be generated from the drawings/photos in this issue of the magazine if anyone is willing to do so. Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Pip, pip, tallyho, and all that. A fine read of these chaps' flights, as they flit into the wide blue yonder and outrace cars. Short but comprehensive and enjoyable article, nothing substantial to gripe about or to oppose on. Cheerio! Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very well written and nice to see 'aeroplane' being used ('aircraft' is the neutral international term that the aviation project has mainly settled on to avoid arguments, 'aeroplane' is entirely acceptable and that is indeed what they were called back then, it's the word 'plane' that causes the problems). Only one thing that I noticed, the site of Hendon is mentioned as 'what is now Hendon Aerodrome' if I read the context correctly. Hendon aerodrome is now the site of the Royal Air Force Museum London which has a hangar display dedicated to Grahame-White. You could probably squeeze that in somewhere ('See also' section?). Nice job. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting the Hendon thing, I'll change it to "what is now Royal Air Force Museum London" or similar. I think the factory is probably best slotted into Grahame-White's article. Parrotof Doom 22:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a concious decision to use aeroplane instead of aircraft, it suits the article more I think. Interestingly enough, lots of the sources used the term "airship", but I thought that would be a bit confusing :) Parrotof Doom 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hendon was my father's first RAF posting, probably not far off closing the station at that time. Airship?! These things were so new that they didn't know what to call them! I agree that the museum stuff should go in CGW's article if it is not there already (have not looked), the museum article does need expanding, too much to do! There is a standard template Template:Infobox aviation that could be used for the top of the article, it would make the image smaller but repeats the title, I was going to add it but saw the alt text which the template doesn't support, would like some clarification on the policy of alt text from the FA team, quite confusing at the moment (it's still in the check toolbox for instance). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be too much trouble to add an alt text parameter to the aviation infobox template if you guys want to make use of it. I managed to add it myself to the aviator infobox template when I put Lester Brain up for FAC recently, and I gave up coding for a living years ago.... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are lacking a template coder and updater in the av project at the moment, I am fairly clueless with them sadly. My understanding is that alt text is no longer an FA requirement, it appears from recent discussions that it never was, one editor slipped a line unnoticed into the guidelines somewhere and there you go. I'm all for accessibility and even thought of trying to produce some spoken articles, just need clarification on the matter. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a grey area in practice; whether its adoption as a guideline was really legit or not, it seems enough of us have accepted or agreed with it to make it a de facto requirement. My suggestion is that if Parrot adds the aviation infobox here, that's impetus to add the requisite parameter to it so all images in the article consistently have alt text as they do now. When/if I have time I may just update the template anyway; having the parameter doesn't mean one is forced to use it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That infobox doesn't seem to be a particularly well fleshed-out example, and wouldn't really add much at present. Perhaps there ought to be a new infobox, for pioneering achievements across the board? I may return to the subject of aviation, I'm sure I can find more things that these two got up to, however, I started this because it contained Manchester in the title :) Parrotof Doom 08:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No long essay this time, as I've been watching this one during its gestation and any issues have been resolved along the way. The one thing I'd change is "The event marked the first long-distance race in England" – presumably it was actually the first long-distance aircraft race. – iridescent 14:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great read from start to finish, to the point where I wished the article was longer so there would be more to read. Well done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments, I'm hoping to add a bit more at some point about the two aeroplanes used (both Farman III's but slightly different). Parrotof Doom 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello everyone. I am here today in the sincere hope that the old adage "third time is the charm" proves true. This is the third trip to FAC for No Line on the Horizon, an album released by God Bono and the rest of the U2 gang just over a year ago. Both previous FAC nominations seemed to fail primarily as a result of the lack of reviews; what was brought up at those times (as well as the GAN and three peer reviews) has been addressed as well as my editing schedule on Wikipedia permits. In recent days it has undergone some copyediting (many thanks to Steve for his continual assistance to me on this), which I believe now means that the article meets all of the FAC criteria. Do you agree? Disagree? Just felt like dropping by to laugh at a badly written nomination? Whatever your reason for stopping by and reading this, I hope that the article proves an interesting and thorough read on the topic at hand. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the cover art; kind of necessary for it to be included in the article. It qualifies as fair use since it is being used to illustrate the album. The rationale for its use is covered on the file page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 13:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Featured article criteria - Inappropriate use of non free content Fasach Nua (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how it is an inappropriate usage of the image, and how it fails the FAC criteria. It meets the guideline regarding Non-free images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". Critical commentary on the cover art is present. So tell me: how is the use inappropriate, and how does it fail the FAC criteria? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are nothing more than advice on how to do things, the policy is much more important, the guideline refers to criteria one of the policy only. The image can be easily be described with text, and the reference you have given is more than an adequate description Fasach Nua (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of any pop album that doesn't contain a FU low res image of the album cover, whether they are featured articles or not. However, I've never done a survey so I'd be happy to have them pointed out. Have you had this discussion before on album covers, either about a specific album, or more generally? I'd say it's fair to assume there's broad acceptance on their use. --Merbabu (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? In a FAC nomination for a music album, someone is objecting to an image of the album cover? If someone is going to review an album FAC nomination, the least they can do is review previous music FA articles to familiarize themselves with standards/things that are acceptable. The album cover is used to identify the subject of the article, just like in every other FA album article. The argument that the cover could be removed and simply be described with prose in its place can be made for any image ever made. These types of objections are not constructive to passing/failing this article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't like Fair Use, but I do not see this as a reason to fail an FAC as fair use in this context has broad acceptance. Agree with Y2kcrazyjoker that this FAC is not the place to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of fair use images on album pages as it has wikipedia wide implications. There might be a relevant project page to do so. --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After conversing with a few other users I can see the reasoning behind Fasach Nua's stance a bit more clearly, but I do (and will continue) to disagree with it. Yes, non-free content should be kept to a minimum, but there is a fine balance between reaching that minimum and going beyond it. I do not know of any FA article on a song or album which does not contain cover artwork. The common sense consensus appears to be that album artwork is an instance where fair-use images are acceptable, and I would say that their removal is definitely reaching well past that fine balance. I do not plan on removing the image on the article, but will leave it up to all of the other reviewers to determine for themselves if the inclusion of the album artwork in the article is acceptable or not. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another voice in support of fair use of album covers for album articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 11:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Hello from your neighbor FAC to the north. :) I took a quick peek at this article, and although it is well-referenced and the prose is readable, I have some concerns:
"In July 2006, U2.com confirmed that the band were collaborating with producer Rick Rubin, in southern France and Abbey Road Studios"
Sort of strange phrasing here. One place they were recording was a studio, the other was the southern half of a country. If the source gives a more detailed location for where they were recording, you should probably include it here. (If it doesn't, there's not much you can do).
Yes, this was something that I'd looked at before the last peer review. None of the sources that I could find said what the exact recording location in France was, so I think that we're unfortunately stuck on this point. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"An interview with Q revealed that will.i.am had worked with the band "
I suggest adding the word "rapper" in front of will.i.am so readers don't have to click on will.i.am to figure out who he is. Possibly most people interested in U2 will not have heard of him.
"The band reworked it with Steve Lillywhite during a break in the recording with Eno and Lanois."
Is it explained earlier in the article who Steve Lillywhite is? Producer? Musician? The curious reader wonders.
At the end of the Rick Rubin section the article reads "[U2] subsequently employed Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois as principal producers and co-writers. Steve Lillywhite was also brought in to produce a few of the tracks." Do you think producer be slipped in there to clarify? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Get on Your Boots" stemmed from a guitar riff The Edge created and recorded at his home."
I know who The Edge is, and you know who The Edge is, but please pity the poor reader who doesn't know, and explain who he is. "U2 guitarist" will do.
The Edge is introduced as the guitarist earlier in the article, during the Eno/Lanois sessions section ("In November 2008, guitarist The Edge noted that the band were scrambling..."); is the next mention far enough down that a second introduction is needed, or is it fine as is? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice opening, but does a band have a career? Perhaps that's just for musicians, but I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong. "since U2's inception in [year]"?
WP:OVERLINK: "producer" (which is a chain-link from his name, anyway).
", but" twice in two sentences (one without the comma).
"The band had planned"—rhyming jingle. "intended"?
re-scheduled has a hyphen? Unsure.
"many noted"—ah, see our new WP:Words to avoid guideline. Did they note it inside their heads or in public? Not sure. "Observed" is no good, since it's a kind of subjective call.
How about a comma instead of "titled". Same later on.
I haven't looked further than the lead. It's not bad, but probably needs an independent copy-edit.
PS Over at the constabulary, they're a little jittery about 30 s sound-bites (WP:NFCC#2) when the album is still selling well. I've put on a turn there over their utter inflexibility, but beware of this fair-use claim. In any case, could you put it on the right-side under the quote-box? Tony(talk) 12:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments thus far; I've made changes to all of the points you've brought up about the lead. I did ask a few people if they would be able to do a copyedit before I nominated, but they seemed to think that the current prose is acceptable (and my eyes are so saturated from this article that I doubt I'd see anything no matter how hard I looked!). I think I'll leave the "Moment of Surrender" sound sample as is for the moment since it does comply with the length standards; if the length does become an issue then it shouldn't be too difficult to reduce it by a couple of seconds. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think Tony is probably right in that certain sections will need a polish. All I really did was smooth out some of the bumpier parts, hopefully leaving few enough passages-with-issues that anything specific could be resolved during the FAC. I still stand by that, but if no-one's chipped in with a detailed prose review by the middle of the week—with specific, easily-actionable comments—I'll try to have another run through. One thing: I disagree with Tony's comment about the opening passage; IMO, it's more idiomatic to say "of U2's career" than "since U2's inception". Plus, the latter (very, very faintly) implies there was a longer gap, way back when. So whom do you listen to? Rock, meet hard place. :-D (I'll have a think on it and try to come up with a third way.) SteveT • C 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
There are an overwhelming number of (sometimes complex) tables and infoboxes in this article:
A too-long album infobox. You can make this shorter and simpler just by replacing those recording studios (which should be dealt with in the prose) with "June 2007 – December 2008 at various location".
Formats table—I suggest removing this entirely. Albums are normally released in a variety of formats; the way you have them listed here is like a shopping catalogue that would interest only the avid collector. At best it can be summarised in two more sentences of prose
Review infobox—can also go, because the format of the table is such that you have to include to less-prestigious sources (Blender, RTE) at the expense of highly respected publications such as Time and The New York Times, due to the presence/absence of star ratings in the reviews. Ultimately, the infobox fails to summarise the critical opinion sufficiently.
I'm a little leery about removing this. The New York Times may be well known in America, but in the UK people will be much more likely to look at a source such as Blender when looking for reviews. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing—jeez this is complicated. But I guess there is no other way. However, I can't say I've seen too many rock album tracklistings with a producer column...
Charts—Fine, but two things—what year did the singles chart? And certifications does not equate no of copies sold. It indicates no of copies shipped. So unless you have sources that explicitly mention "the album sold [so many] copies", don't include that column.
I've added the year to the singles table; when the fourth single is released, I'll add a year column to the left-side to make it easier. I disagree with your point on the certifications though. Most album articles I've looked at have them, and I think they are an important component relating to their reception. I will remove the Sales thresholds though if you think that it's addition is mistaken. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Succession boxes—And this improves the article how? (I generally have never seen the point of succession boxes—why the focus on #1 albums only, for one.) Also, unreferenced. Strongly suggest removal.
Whoah, wait... succession boxes are part of a chain. If all other #1 albums have them this will be a broken link. So the argument shouldn't be whether there's a succession box on this article but whether either they should ALL go or whether they should ALL stay which is outside the scope of this review. Personally I like those boxes because they put an album in its immediate historical context. But, as I say, you have to argue for them all or for none at all. If the adjacent albums had succession boxes I would strongly argue that this album should have one too, otherwise we're messing with people who want to navigate through a chronological procession of album articles. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not a lover of all succession boxes either, I oppose removing these, because it breaks the chain. It has to be a project-wide decision at WP:WikiProject Music or some such similar project to either do this or not do this everywhere. It can't be done on an article-by-article basis. Also, I don't think referencing should be an issue – it's up to each individual article to cite that it was a number one album on a given chart, and the boxes just link these 'distributed references' together. The maintainers just need to ensure that no album gets skipped, but they are pretty good at that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a Project-wide decision for them to be included and needs a Project-wide consensus to be removed then it seems that it is bigger than this one article. As a result I've restored it for now. Melicans (talk, contributions) 11:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ovelinking—street sign, stadium, set designer, limited editions. Audit throughout.
I've done a check and delinked a lot of stuff, but you may want to give it another quick sweep and see if there's anything else that should go. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff that should be linked, if possible—Jewish music, Hindu music, Sufi singing.
Linked Jewish and Hindu music. No article exists on Sufi singing that I can find. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Deupree blasted the band"—I doubt blasted is formal language here.
Replace a few of the "band"s with "group" to add variety.
I've combed the article and changed quite a few of "the band"s into "the group"s or "U2"s. Melicans (talk, contributions) 11:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Main article tags are unnecessary for the tour and Linear; just link their first instance in the prose of the section.—indopug (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the "Reception" section, I have several concerns. The box's review ratings are very U.S.-UK centric – 9 from them and 1 from Ireland. U2 is a band with global appeal, so what about the rest of the world? Continental Europe, Asia, South America? Even if you don't translate a review article, the stars graphics (or their equivalent) are easy to see.
I've added one or two reviews, but it's proving very difficult to find any in continental Europe and Asia with a star system. One that I did add from Spain was removed just a few minutes ago for that reason. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a few days of searching I haven't found anything from continental Europe, Asia, or Oceania (foreign or English language) which assigns a star rating that can be included. I'm afraid it looks like we're stuck with what we've got. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the MTV Asia and Herald Sun reviews and removed the Entertainment Weekly and The Guardian accordingly. I'm a little leery about adding in any others at the behest of major music publications like Rolling Stone, Q, or Mojo though. It's noted on the talk page (I think in the archives) that the present breakdown of reviews reflects the Metcritic average (72) fairly closely, and I'm hesitant about adding in lower ratings from less known sources at the expense of higher ratings from well known sources for that reason. There's now one review from Canada (Toronto Star), one from Australia (Herald Sun), one from Ireland ( RTE), one from Asia (MTV Asia), three from the United States (AllMusic, Blender, Rolling Stone) and three from the United Kingdom (Mojo, NME, Q). I think that is a fair breakdown given where the majority of reviews and music publications are based. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same for the text, very U.S. and UK centric.
Another review aggregation effort with a long history is the Pazz & Jop poll, long run by Robert Christgau. You can find the 2009 results for albums here (No Line finishes 32nd with 26 mentions out of some number of reviewers that I didn't quite see) and the results for singles here (a scattering of U2 mentions).
The article doesn't say how many copies have been sold in the U.S. so far; if you give first week sales, you should give the rest (artists with devoted followings often get big initial sales but then tail off quickly).
I'll do another search, but despite my best efforts previous this is one thing I've never been able to find. It seems near impossible to find sales data released by the companies. We can assume it's at least 1,000,000 since it was certified Platinum, but those figures are as of late last year. The only source I know of is mediatraffic.de, but that is considered unreliable. Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent statistics I can find are an Associated Press report from October 2009 (one million copies); the only other I've seen is a Billboard article from September (991,000 copies). Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This statement needs a source: "First-week sales in the United States were over 484,000, the band's second highest figures after How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." (And not that Reuters story, see next item.)
I'll do a search, but as far as I'm aware Reuters is considered to be a reliable source. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of this statement is not correct, despite whatever that sloppy Reuters story says: "It was their seventh number one album in the United States, placing them third behind The Beatles and the Rolling Stones for the most number one albums in the country.[81]" See Billboard 200#Most number-one albums which has U2 in a tie for 8th. I don't know where a good source is for the full ranking, but third cannot be correct; there were plenty of news outlets, including Billboard here, that mentioned Jay-Z getting his 11th and passing Elvis Presley's 10 for most by a solo act.
I've removed it from "placing them third" on; hopefully that will solve the problem. One error does not an unreliable source make. Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd double check the assertion about #1's ranking on the UK Album Chart as well.
In terms of the album's commercial appeal, the article seems to be overweighing the positive (stressing initial sales and chart placements) and underweighing the negative (overall sales and lack of a hit single). As a result, the last paragraph about low album sales, is jarring to read after all this touting of debut figures. It looks like this part of the article was written as the album was released and not revised. With albums, the race goes to the tortoise not the hare!
I've expanded the paragraph and moved it a bit further up so it flows right after the sales figures and such (also making it a bit more chronological); hopefully this makes it less jaring. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely more people than just Bono were disappointed by the sales. What about the record company? What did Paul McGuinness say? What did other industry observers say?
Added in viewpoints of Clayton and expanded that of Edge. In the process of looking for quotes by McGuinness and industry observers. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any metrics for how much radio airplay the songs from the album got?
In the tour section, I strongly disagree with the use of 'supporting', in both the section title (just call it "360° Tour") and in the text. As the article alludes to briefly, the notion of a tour supporting an album is a vestige of an industry era gone by. Nowadays for established acts it's almost always the reverse: the artist will make a lot more money off the tour than they will off the album. If anything, making an album gives an artist an excuse to stage a big tour. Unless there's a source saying that when the tour visited certain countries there was a significant spike in album sales, this term should go.
In the tour section, you should briefly mention what role the album's songs play in the show. A block of new songs opened the show in Europe, but that was broken up somewhat in the U.S., was it due to audience restlessness? Was the total number of 'new album' songs comparable to previous tours or were they de-emphasized a bit? And maybe mention "Moment of Surrender"'s role as the show finale.
As far as I've seen from building the Tour article the reason for this was never discussed by the band, but I will do another search (can't promise I'll find anything though).Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more at the Tour section (I'd omit the "U2" in the section title, it's kind of redundant given the context), it should be focused on the tour's relationship to the album, not be a summary of the tour. Thus this sentence is irrelevant here: "The idea for the stage, with some initial design suggestions, had been proposed to the group by the set designer, Willie Williams, at the end of the Vertigo Tour in 2006.[95]" Instead, see if you can incorporate tour show reviews that assessed the role of the No Line songs, good bad or indifferent. Also, bring the section up-to-date: the tour grosses for 2009 are available, and how it ranked for the year. How many HD cameras were used for the Rose Bowl shoot is irrelevant here; instead focus on how many No Line songs are included on the DVD, and what role they played in this show (a somewhat diminished one, as I read the song listing and sequencing). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But U2 is part of the tour's full name; if we omit it from the section heading, then isn't that using an abbreviated name instead of the proper? Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading this idea, I think it is bordering a bit too far on the optimistic scale for the simple reason that so much of it seems to require a great deal of original research. I've been searching since this was posted close to a week ago, but I have found absolutely nothing on why the setlist order was changed, what role the songs play, or comparisons with previous tours. Any major adjustments that I could make along the lines suggested would be so far up the OR lane that it would be unreasonable to make them; the only exceptions are the current tour gross and the number of songs on the DVD. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to integrate the position of the songs during the concerts in both legs (though it required the use of a primary source; see Steve's comments below). I can't see how I can do any more on this front without delving into OR. 2009 gross has also been added. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked much at the other sections, but this is something. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on referencing: I'm a bit nonplussed by the citations style, which consist in most cases of a deadlink on the title, followed by an archive link to the item in question. I have not encountered this method before. What is the purpose of retaining the deadlink? I notice, incidentally, that the live link in Ref. 1 goes to a subscription service, which should be noted. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previously the link on the title was removed, leaving only the archive link. However, we were told to reinstate them (can't find where now) because there are times when the archive website has problems/goes down (such as is occuring today as a result of maintenance on the website), and so the links were reinstated. The subscription link is now noted. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen this method of linking employed anywhere else; I wonder who told you it had to be done this way? I'm not making an issue of this, but I am curious. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't remember where it was, just that it hppened; it was a half-year ago at least, but I can't find it on my talk or in the previous FACs/PRs/GAN. It may have been on another user's talk page, but I can't recall where. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from SteveT • CLeaning support, pending resolution of source questions/issues (below). This is another nicely done album article from the nominator. Any comments, suggestions, prose and content issues I've covered in edit summaries and hidden comments while performing a light copyedit over the last week or so. All that remain from me are sourcing questions.EDIT: All subsequent strikes here were from me at 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC), SteveT • C
Image review:
File:NoLineU2Promo.jpg—album cover in infoxbox. Although I'm sympathetic to Fasach Nua's view above—indeed, I respect his/her position a lot—current consensus is that non-free album artwork is suitable for identification of the subject where a free version is unavailable. Wider community consultation is needed to overturn that seeming consensus; as such, individual FACs are not the place to have this discussion.
File:Riad Fez 1.JPG—claimed free CC licence by uploader/photographer; tagged appropriately.
File:U2 Way.jpg—uploaded with free CC licence from Flickr source; checked by Commons review bot and confirmed as tagged appropriately.
The way the {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} templates render the references means that where the author= field is missing, they display the information in a different order (especially dates) to how they do when the field is filled. Where news and journal articles don't have an author, and where possible, I tend to fill the field with "Staff" to produce a consistent output. This isn't a deal-breaker, by the way, just a suggestion to make it more uniform.
Comment: This is a characteristic of the templates. The whole idea of using them is to just put in the relevant information about a cite and let the template writers worry about formatting them consistently. Even if the writers aren't doing the job well at the moment (to which I agree), inserting filler values like this distorts that process. And some news outlets will run an uncredited wire service report, which means inserting "Staff" is not always correct. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I only suggested it might be useful for some of them. Like I say, not a deal breaker. SteveT • C
My error on that; I copy-pasted the entire citation instead of just the ref name. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Named ref "rs032309" (current no. 100) shows archiveurl error, and the original link redirects to Rolling Stone's homepage.
Very strange; for some reason the archiveurl is missing from the template, but it is there in a previous revision from 9 May. I am having no difficulty in opening the page and displaying the content, so I have restored the archive. I believe that the reason it went down (and is continuing to do so on a second check) is because the Web Citation Archive is currently undergoing maintenance. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper and magazine names, e.g. The New York Times and Billboard should be italicised. Some are, some aren't.
I think I've gotten all of these now. Looks like there were only three of them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 8, "Calder, Simon (2007-11-10)": has no publication details.
That was the result of using the wrong parameter. I've corrected my oversight. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To aid verification, it's worth going through the references to link to publications' first instances, instead of their second or third. Some examples: Hot Press, National Post, Mojo. Q. There are others.
Comment: This approach is very hard to maintain on an ongoing basis, since even a slight movement of text will often change what the first instance is. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but after it's done, and once an article's structure is more stable (usually closer to the end of the FAC), it's very easy to keep on top of it. Post-FAC, the content won't be changing anywhere near enough to make it an annoyance to update. SteveT • C
Current ref no. 24, "The Superleague of Extraordinary Gentlemen, NME, 2009-02-23": what is it? A special edition of the magazine? A separate book?
Just the title of the article inside the magazine. It was incorrectly put in italics. I've fixed that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 27, the film Brothers, isn't very useful for verifying that the song "Winter" appeared on the soundtrack. Is there anything better? If not, at least use the time= parameter to indicate "end credits" or something.
How about the list of nominations and winners? I've substituted the ref for that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 29, "Exclusive interview with U2. NRJ. Canal+. 2009-02-23": what is it? A radio interview? Magazine pull out?
Feel free to tweak to whatever your preferences are, obviously, but for me that rough format gives the reader enough information to work with. We can just live with the italics. SteveT • C
Current ref no. 30, "Long, Drawn Out Confession": the note about the subscription implies this is a video interview; it should probably say outright, and also include the names of the interviewer and interviewees.
It is a video, but I'm unsure of what you mean by "say outright". Do you mean a switch from {{cite web}} to {{cite video}}? If so, the title will then be in italics (which you noted concerns about above). Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I think in the interests of giving the reader enough information, we can live with the italics (indeed, I'm not even sure that would be incorrect in this case). So, you could format it as:
Bono; The Edge; Clayton, Adam; Mullen Jr, Larry (2009-11-27). Long, Drawn Out Confession (Video). U2.com. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2009-12-05. Note: Subscription required for access.
Obviously, I can't access it, so I don't know who's in it, so tweak the people= parameter accordingly (and that "Video" in the medium= parameter is just a suggestion too). SteveT • C
Current ref no. 42, "Absolute Radio interview with U2": not sure that should be italicised.
I don't understand why it is. The name uses the title field, which defaults to italics. I thought using |title led to plain text? I changed the template from {{cite episode}} to {{cite news}} and this led to the correction of the italics, but every other detail then being excluded. Any suggestions about which is the right one to use? Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For output consistency, perhaps go with {{cite video}} in the same manner as the two suggestions above? SteveT • C
Current ref no. 51, "Download 'No Line'": why is there a [sic] template in there?
I have absolutely no idea. Another user stuck it in there for whatever reason when I wasn't looking. Removed. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 54, "Le Grand Journal": what is it? A video?
You've got a lot of cites to primary sources to verify information such as when the album was released on particular formats; although these are (generally) accepted, it would preferable to find secondary sources where possible for as many as you can, especially the YouTube link that's used to confirm the band streamed one of their concerts over the service.
I went through in a previous FAC and substituted all of the primary sources I was able to then. I'll do another search now to replace ones that have been added in since that time, such as the YouTube cite. In some cases though, such as the "Long, Drawn out Confession" page, the "U2ube" videos by Clayton, and the development of Linear, this is impossible to avoid since other reliable sources simply don't cover the information mentioned. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Subsequent reviewers might want to look at it, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. SteveT • C
Are we happy with radioandmusic.com as a reliable source?
Since it may prove to be contentious and I can't find any demonstration of reliability, I have removed it. This also unfortunately means that I have had to remove the certifications for Ireland and Italy, since neither IRMA or FIMI provide searchable databases that I can find. As a result I've switched out the Italy field in the charts for Mexico. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I spotted that after I originally left these comments, but felt it prudent not to remove the question, just so we had something on this page. SteveT • C
No comment on the webcite issue already raised by Brian; will await a response.
On second thoughts, it doesn't bother me one jot. SteveT • C
I won’t pretend this is a comprehensive list of source questions/issues; however, successful resolution (or rebuttal!) of these will make further examination easier, and hopefully all that'll I'll spot is the odd typo. Best, SteveT • C 10:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some and left some replies. SteveT • C 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I switched to support above; all that remains are some minor points still in those hidden comments I left (renewed here). Otherwise, nice work. SteveT • C 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your contributions and for your support; I'll try to address the hidden comments on the morrow if I can find anything for them (as it's close to midnight right now and I need to be up fairly early). Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've addressed all of the hidden questions now. They were definitely limited editions according to the source, so I've removed the word 'considered'. I've done several searches but haven't found any updated sales numbers as of yet that can be included. All that I've seen are forum posts, lists with it as one of the top-selling albums (albeit minus sales figures, even in the original press release by the IFPI), and stats by mediatraffic.de (which as part of the United World Chart is considered unreliable according to KWW, who has done a ton of work on WP:GOODCHARTS in the past). I was a bit confused by your last question regarding the size of the tour's stage; I've tried to clarify the sentence as best I can by explicitly referring to it as a concert stage and providing a reason for the design. Anything else that I could put in (such as the sound systems in each of the four legs, each individual system alone powerful enough for an arena concert, etc.) would probably be overly technical for an article on the album and is easily found on the Tour page. I hope this clarifies all three of your questions. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. Nice work. SteveT • C 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be worth noting some of the common musical motifs (however few) that appear throughout the record. For example, the electronic flourishes that Eno contributed to the record and were much ballyhooed prior to release. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Have to admit I've read over it a few times because of past mentions on certain talk pages, and I think it's finally at a level where it's ready for FA. I applaud the efforts of MelicansMatkin for sticking with it and writing an excellent article. ceranthor 19:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Read the article from beginning to end, and I'm satisfied with most of what I saw, prose-wise. Did find a few minor issues, which I detail below:
Recording and production: "In January 2007, lead singer Bono said U2 intended to take their next album in a different musical direction to their previous few releases." Not saying that the grammar here is wrong, but a more common way of putting it would be "in a different direction from their previous few releases." Which should it be?
I think that "from" does make more sense and it sounds a bit better than to, so I've made the adjustment. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Winter" appears in the accompanying Anton Corbijn film, Linear and the 2009 war film Brothers." Hate to be pedantic on the punctuation, but there should either be another comma after "Linear" or none at all in the sentence. Personally, I don't know if one is needed.
In the Songs of Ascent section, I doubt if the Achtung Baby link is necessary, considering there's already one just a little bit up in the text. Interested readers will have likely already clicked on that one.
Formats: Some hyphens would be useful here in areas with "## page", such as "24 page".
I've added in some hyphens, but someone may want to check to see if I have used the correct format (there seems to be so many different varieties, and I'm always confusing them! ^^;) Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple have unneeded spaces, but I'll get them when I'm done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reception: Not a big deal at all, but I found it a bit odd that How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb has a link at the start of the fourth paragraph of this section when it's unlinked toward the end of the third. I would consider moving that one.
Oops, I think that happened when I shifted the paragraphs in the section around a couple of weeks ago. I've made the switch as suggested. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"had become well-known to the public from to its use in iPod commercials." Drop "to".Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I've gotten rid of that pesky "to". Thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, I appreciate it! Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – After the fixes, I think this is there. Quite a nice article overall. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Support - I have not yet read the whole article, but what I've read is very good. Nice, tight prose and a wealth of information combined to produce an engaging and comprehensive read. Thanks for addressing all my concerns. Some specific comments so far:
In the lead: "Prior to the album's release, U2 said that Eno's and Lanois's involvement, as well as the band's time in Fez, Morocco, resulted in a more experimental record than their previous two albums. Upon its release, No Line on the Horizon received generally favourable reviews, although many critics noted that the album was not as experimental as previously suggested." Can U2's original statement be brought out more clearly? It seems like an incidental remark, so the connection is not immediate when we arrive at what the critics note at the end. The specific term that applied in this case (pre-release publicity, announcement or whatever) rather than "said" would help.
I've reworded it to the following: "Prior to the album's release, U2 announced that Eno's and Lanois's involvement, as well as the band's time in Fez, Morocco, had resulted in a more experimental record than their previous two albums in an attempt to revisit the transition between The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Upon its release..." Is this a bit clearer? It's supported by ref 17, which references this statement in the "Sessions with Eno and Lanois" section. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'At the end of the sessions, the band chose to include "White as Snow" to balance out the earlier, rockier tunes.[25] With the exception of this track, U2 had tried to keep the theme of war out of the album.' - we aren't told that "White as Snow" has a war theme until the later Composition section, so some context is needed here for the second sentence to be meaningful.
I think that's a byproduct from when that sentence in Composition was in Sessions. I've reworded it to "At the end of the sessions, the band chose to include "White as Snow", a song about a dying soldier in Afghanistan, to balance out the earlier, rockier tunes", though I know this now means there is some repetition. Since it is sourced below, I haven't bothered to use the ref again. Do you think the change helps to provide the needed context? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The film originated from a U2 video shoot in June 2007, during which Corbijn asked the band to remain still while he filmed them to create a "photograph on film"; the band did not move but the objects around them did.[37] Impressed, the band believed that the online album listening experience could be enhanced with moving imagery. In May 2008, they commissioned Corbijn to create the film." - I found this confusing; the film originated in June 2007, yet it was not commissioned until May 2008. Would it be accurate to begin instead, "The idea for the film originated ..."?
Yes, that's actually a much better wording! Thanks for the suggestion; I've implemented it now. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In February 2009, Bono stated that by the end of the year U2 would release an album consisting of discarded material from the No Line on the Horizon sessions. Bono labelled it "a more meditative album on the theme of pilgrimage".[9] Provisionally titled Songs of Ascent, it will be a sister release ..." - confusing, because we start the sentence with the impression that this is something that happened over a year ago, yet we segue into "it will be" and so forth.
Hmm, I'm not quite sure what to do with this one, since it's something that is still slated for the future and, I admit, is on the verge of WP:CRYSTAL depending on what alterations are made. Do you have any suggestions? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work better? SteveT • C 10:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works a bit better. Thanks. What do you think PL290? Is the wording less confusing? Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback thus far. I'll be fairly busy with work over the next week or so, so it may take me a bit longer than usual to respond to any further comments or concerns (though I'll do my best to get to them as quickly as possible). Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my initial points. I've now read the whole article, and my remaining comments follow.
"'"No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Mullen's experiments with different drum beats; Eno sampled and manipulated the patterns, and the rest of the band began to play over it.' - "it"?
"It" refers to the pattern of drum beats. I've altered "it" to "the beats". Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Reception, we're initially given the impression of terrific sales: "No Line on the Horizon debuted at number one in 30 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[82][83] As of June 2009 over five million copies had been sold worldwide.[84] Within one week of release, the album was certified platinum in Brazil, a record for the country.[85] In the United Kingdom, the album became U2's tenth number-one album, making them the fifth-most-successful act on the UK Albums Chart.[86] In the United States, it was U2's seventh number-one album; first-week sales exceeded 484,000, the band's second-highest figures after How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." But suddenly the next sentence, which ends the paragraph, surprisingly and blandly states, "By October 2009, sales had increased to just over one million copies, the group's lowest in more than a decade." We then have a large paragraph about disappointing sales, ending with, "McGuinness believed that the conditions of the music market were more responsible for the low sales than any decline in U2's popularity." Can these two paragraphs be balanced out (or perhaps simply introduced by a summary sentence) to give the right overall impression from the start.
I've introduced a summary sentence which reads "No Line on the Horizon opened with strong sales numbers, although these declined very quickly", though this probably needs a bit of polishing. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Conflicting tenses: switches from past to present part way through "U2 staged a worldwide stadium tour ... the tour included ... concerts feature ... audience surrounds ... the concert stage is". It's akin to the forthcoming album problem (which has now been addressed above): planned in the past, but ongoing now. The switch surprises the reader with the realization that it's not something in the past being discussed after all. Probably needs recasting one way or the other.
I've switched it all to past tense (I think), since a good chunk of it can be spoken of in that way. The only exceptions are the mentions of which No Line songs are on the Tour DVD; I'm not sure whether to switch to the past tense here too, or if the current present tense is better. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Within the Promotion section, you have a lone subsection, Singles. I share the author of that manual's dislike of these, but believe MoS is silent on the matter, so I will leave it with you to decide whether to do anything about it; if so, the choices appear to be (a) make Singles a bolded heading (which would exclude it from the TOC), (b) add an initial subsection heading to Promotion (if there is a meaningful one), or (c) just drop the Singles heading. I suspect you want it to appear in the TOC. As I say, I'll leave it with you to take any or no action on this point.
There isn't a great deal of information under the singles heading anyways so what I have done is removed the heading and renamed the subsection to "Promotion and singles". I considered "Singles and promotion", but given that there is a great deal more info on the promotional aspect than the singles one, I figured Promotion probably has priority. I hope that this addresses all of your concerns! Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Note: I've left a note on PL290's talk page informing them that I have addressed their comments as it's been a few days since then, but the user has not edited Wikipedia since 25 May, a few minutes after leaving the above feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only niggle is whether the lead is an adequate summary of the article - feel free to make it a little longer, perhaps with a sentence or two more on critical reception / charting / commercial outcome. The article looks comprehensive, though, and well-sourced. Haven't heard this album - thought Moment of Surrender was lame - but can't fault the WP article! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and for the suggestion. I've added the sentence "The record was not a commercial success for U2, and the group expressed disappointment at the low sales" after the critical reception part in the lead. If you disliked "Moment of Surrender", why not give "Breathe" or "Fez - Being Born" a shot? =P Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done, and done - two edits - one to get the citation back to cite xxx - the other to get three inline cite book to be consistent with the rest. These include the "Priestley Evans, Evan David (1931). Two papers : entitled ..." which I had not done last time.
![[14]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/cdmp/dvd0188-jpg/1974/atlantic/carmen/tropdisc/tcd022100z.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ninja_Gaiden_NES_Duel.png&diff=prev&oldid=364530587){kind=link}
![[40]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ninja_Gaiden_(NES)_gameplay.png&diff=prev&oldid=364530801){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=364904750&oldid=336123817){kind=link}
