Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2011

May 2011

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:42, 30 May 2011 [1].

---

William Brill

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This article focusses on a country boy who became a World War II bomber pilot, eventually commanding No. 467 Squadron RAAF. He managed to get out of all manner of scrapes in the air war over Europe, survive the conflict, and play a part in the post-war RAAF, but still died quite young. Recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews -- any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why cite the RAAF sources using the volume number and the Herington using the volume name?
  • Heh, good point, what was I thinking?
• Herington sources appear to be out of order
  • I was sorting alphabetically on title but with the volume name in there as well, it looks better reversed.
• Compare formatting for notes 17 and 38
  • Thanks, that was a typo stuffing up the newspaper name.
• Even if the original source gives the title in all-caps, we should still use normal capitalization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've had the opposite suggested to me as well in the past but I prefer normal caps myself so no prob with that. Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't make it back to the A-class review because my laptop's buggered, but I looked at the article in some detail then and didn't see any issues. It's a high-quality, engaging article with an interesting story to tell and worthy of FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, HJ -- glad to see you back on the air. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Images - File:SUK11562BrillPortrait1943.jpg: since this photo includes a painting, you also need to indicate the copyright/licensing status of that painting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure why this question arises. If you check the source file, it's marked as public domain by the Australian War Memorial, an Australian Government agency, so I don't know how that proclamation could be leaving out the painting. It's not my interpetation of Australian copyright, it's the Government (which would incidentally have owned copyright on painting and photo if copyright was still in force). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Our most experienced image reviewers are long departed, but we need another read on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I hate to be the spanenr in the works, but I agree with Nikki. We need to know who owns the copyright for the painting and what its copyright status is. I'd be surprised if it was usable, because I think paitings don't enter the public domain until 70 years after the artist has died. Put simply, we have to treat it as two images, thus we need copyright information on the second (the painting). Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to support HJ Mitchell on this one. The picture isn't incidental to the photo (e.g. coincidentally in the background). Its not covered by right of panorama, as its a 2D, not 3D object. The Australian Government can release the copyright on their rights to the photo, but unfortunately that doesn't mean they can release the original artist's rights to the painting. If the Australian Government owned the rights to the painting as well, of course, that would be different - but we'd need to take into account the difference between owning the physical painting, and owning the rights to its reproduction (which can be separate). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm still curious as to why people are second-guessing the explicit declaration of copyright expiry by the govenment. Why would you assume that the Australian government did not own all rights to a painting sitting in the overseas headquarters of its air force? By the way, HJ, I think you'll find an Australian artistic work enters public domain if the author died before 1955, not 70 years after they died. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
          • If you could argue that UK law didn't apply in this circumstance, then you could perhaps fall back on Australian law, which is partially quite helpful. The relevant bit here in the Australian Copyright Council website notes that "The generally accepted interpretation of the relevant provision in the Copyright Act is that you may photograph a “sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship” which is publicly displayed “other than temporarily” without permission. There is, however, a technical argument that neither underlying works in such sculptures and craft works nor pre-existing design drawings are covered under that provision, and that permission is still required for the indirect reproduction of these works in a photograph of the sculpture or craft work. We are not aware of any cases in which this argument has been raised in court." UK law, if it covered the headquarters, would differentiate (unhelpfully in this case) between 2D and 3D artwork though.
          • On the issue of owning copyright and physical paintings, though, the Australian ACC notes the presumption that "You are not usually entitled to make copies of an artwork you have bought, unless copyright in that artwork has expired. A transfer of ownership of copyright must be in writing and signed by the copyright owner. In most cases, an artist who sells a piece of art keeps the copyright, and the purchaser needs the artist’s permission to reproduce the artwork." One could argue that the Australian War Memorial agency will have checked this paperwork themselves before releasing the photograph, but, speaking personally, I'd be very surprised if they had. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
            • The problem is that the photograph is in the public domain, but there's no statement that the painting's copyright is owned by the Australian Government. There's a statement that it was made by a third party, and that third party died after 1955 (1987 according to the AWM) so, much as I hate to say it, I think we have to assume that the painting is still in copyright. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Bit of an anomoly that we accept the AWM as a reliable source as far as its text goes but not its declarations regarding image copyright... ;-) Still, I genuinely appreciate you guys responding to my request for further comment, and in the interests of wrapping this FAC up I'll just substitute a more conventional photo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
                • A certain delegate is appreciative :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It mentions 'feet' and 'lb'. I recommend that conversions are provided to make it widely accessible. Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair point -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support:
  • I believe that the article is well written, well referenced, comprehensive, is neutral, stable and comprehensive. It is supported with appropriate images and is an appropriate length;
  • there are no dab links, ext links work and alt text is present;
  • the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations;
  • spot checks of the online sources didn't reveal any violations to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Appreciate that, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, a bacon-flavored waffle manufacturer.

• "a member of the Australian Militia" I find this linking format to be somewhat odd. How about "a member of the Australian Militia" instead?
• "Following a spell as an instructor" This language is too informal. I suggest replacing "spell" with a word that is not "spell".
• "Brill's leadership and determination to always press home his attacks despite damage to his aircraft—on one occasion inflicted by another Lancaster's bombs from above..." The purpose of the lead is to given an informative summary of subject, not to declare how amazing he is and why we should all go back in time to give him a high-five. I suggest dropping the intriguing but largely irrelevant anecdote and rewriting as follows: "Brill's leadership and ability to consistently finish his attacks despite damage to his aircraft".

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• First two points no issue, will do. Re. the last one, I don't think I'm using langauage different in tone to what the sources employ, and this wording has stood GAR and ACR, but will think about how it might be modified without becoming too pedestrian -- FA writing is supposed to be engaging after all... Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Modified last-mentioned to replace "always press home his attacks" with "complete his missions" but "determination" seems more appropriate than "ability", and the sortie involving being hit by friendly fire was one of those for which the DSO was awarded so I think it's relevant as well as interesting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a happy clam! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• In the immortal words of Blackadder's firing squad, we aim to please...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks needs legacy sectionrm2dance (talk)

Thanks, but what would you suggest for the new section's content? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with Rm2dance, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this for GA status and found it to be a compelling read then. Since it's undergone an A-class review and FAC since then, I can only assume the article is in even better shape now. (As a caveat, I have not re-read the article since my GA passage.) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:42, 30 May 2011 [2].

---

Sack of Amorium

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the most memorable events of the Byzantine-Arab Wars, and one with major religious consequences. The article passed thorough GA and MILHIST A-class reviews with positive comments. I added a few more details since then, and believe that it is ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• Anatolic or Anatolian? Be consistent between captions and article text

Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 done, I've elaborated the captions a bit. On point 2, they are two completely different things: "Anatolian" refers to Anatolia, aka Asia Minor, while "Anatolic" refers to the Anatolic Theme, a province in central Anatolia. I have added "(Anatolia)" next to Asia Minor in a few places to try and make this clear to readers unfamiliar with the geographical context. Constantine ✍ 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Is Whittow 1997 or 1996?
• When using citation templates, make sure you're consistent in which type you use - you're currently mixing "citation" and "cite book", and it's causing some formatting inconsistencies
• Be consistent in providing or not providing publisher location
• Consider bundling some of your citations
• Publisher for Kiapidou?

Sources look appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, I standardized citation format and content, and corrected Whittow's date. I'll try to find some time to do the citation bundling. On comprehensiveness, Bury and Treadgold are the only relatively detailed accounts of the period in English. There's also Alexander Vasiliev in French, but he too is dated and largely tells the same story as Bury (the primary sources, Byzantine or Arab, are the same after all). Treadgold is virtually the only detailed recent synthesis. The other sources have been used for corroboration and for specific details or for showing the wider picture. Constantine ✍ 09:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Quoting my review: "Holy $!@$%$, this is good writing." - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Theophilos reportedly fell ill upon learning of the humiliating disaster, and his death three years later before the age of thirty was attributed by Byzantine writers to his sorrow over the city's loss. This sentence is not awesome, especiallythree years later before the age of thirty - how about a year and a number? Also I understand you've cited two historians and they like to use weasel words like Byzantine writers but its not appropriate for an encyclopedia; honestly, I'd leave out everything after the comma!
  • If I can butt in ... it's not true that "Byzantine writers" is always bad; many history FAs are full of things like "according to chroniclers of the time" and "authorities were divided"; the alternative would be to list all the writers and what they said ... and really, for ancient history, almost no one cares for this level of detail, readers just want to get an accurate sense of what was said at the time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm...this is a FA criteria 1d concern; citation 36 actually reviewed some 'Byzantine sources', described the story, then says explicitly it was probably a legend; Constantine reworded that to "Byzantine writers" which I assumed he didn't review, cites the secondary source(s) and leaves out the legend part. Another way to resolve this is to transform the sentence into a note: "A Byzantine legend says shortly after the battle Theophilos fell ill and ultimately died of sorrow in 841 over the loss of the city." leaving the mysterious 'writers/sources' out of it and giving the reader some clue to the veracity of this story but then we just have a probably false story mixed in with a bunch of facts. I was just giving my opinion I don't see the point of including it at all.
      • I included it as an example of how the Byzantines themselves viewed the impact o the city's fall, or at least how they felt it should have been received. Later interpolations by historians are always indicative of the way an event is viewed by them. and the importance later generations attach to it. A military defeat due to which the emperor falls ill and dies is indicative of its influence in later minds. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm switching to oppose on this point; its simply not factual the emperor died of sorrow as an impact of the battle. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Do you get what he's saying here, Constantine? I can't help much with this point; you might ask for help at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I really am at a loss here: I rephrased the relevant passage to make explicit that this is a later tradition, and not a factual account. I have yet again rephrased it, please re-check it. Constantine ✍ 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • My preference is you delete both sentences but if you really want this in your article you have to make it clear its not true. A better beginning to me is 'A Byzantine legend says Theophilos' etc. Kirk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
          • The sentences stay, per my reasoning above, and because Theophilos' health most likely did suffer from the psychological impact (see poor Samuel of Bulgaria for instance). At least Treadgold agrees with this. I have yet again rewritten it and added an explicit reference to his death being "most likely" a legend. I really cannot make anything else here, the statement "Byzantine historians attribute his death" is factual. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
            • It still bothers me your sources put a trivia item without any facts or analysis, but its at least better. I don't get the Samuel of Bulgaria comparison; these kinds of trivia or rumors don't really fly with modern historical writing. Anyways, if some other uninvolved editors think the current wording is ok I'll strike my oppose. Kirk (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Another potentially troubling section was the second paragraph of the Impact section - its just the opinion of one historian, and without his opinions you really don't have much evidence the battle had anything to do with iconoclasm vs. iconolatry. I assumed he was a reliable source and it doesn't sound like a legend or fringe theory to me so i didn't say anything. But I think you could wikilink iconolatry/iconophiles and maybe define the two since neither are exactly everyday words. Kirk (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Treadgold is in this case used to summarize the prevailing scholarly opinion on this issue. I could likewise add Bury or other writers as refs, but IMO Treadgold is more than adequately established as a scholarly authority in the field. If it is felt necessary, I will add more sources. I have linked the relevant terms, and tried to give a short explanation on iconoclasm per Ealdgyth's advice below. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • BTW, Whittow too makes the connection between Amorium and iconoclasm, since he is available online, you can check this easily. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, I second toning down the opinion and aim for WP:NPOV (i.e.:brutal sack made me chuckle...see below).
• You need to work on describing the strength and casualties in the infobox with more detail; the numbers don't match up to the numbers in the text and it doesn't make sense to the average reader that an army of 30,000 could lose 70,000 men. There are additional parameters (casualties3) which are occasionally used for civilian casualties. Kirk (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On this issue, I clarified that the casualty numbers refer to a total count, including civilians. AFAIK, there is no separate estimate between military and civilian casualties, so separating them doesn't seem a good idea. I'll respond on the concerns above tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 22:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Its at least less confusing now; weren't there 6,000 captured and sent into slavery?
• What's a Khurramite? Needs at least a link but since Emperor T over-relied on them I think it needs a little description.
• I think the instances of Sack of X is ok but I would suggest eliminating as many instances of sack as you can; use some synonyms.
• The city was thoroughly plundered, with the spoils and the surviving population divided among the army, except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph. - what does surviving population divided among the (Army/Caliph) mean? Slavery? Kirk (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Explained the Khurramites a little without going into too much detail, and clarified the issue of the captive population (they indeed became slaves). On their numbers, Mu'tasim executed some 6,000, others (unknown how many) escaped, still others (again of unknown number) were carried with the Arab army into captivity. Because of this, and since there is AFAIK no even an estimate on their number, I have therefore refrained from mentioning a total number of captives. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This section still needs some work I think:
    • The city was completely sacked and thoroughly plundered... I don't think the adjectives help here - what would an incomplete sack or a sloppy plundering look like? Just describe the extent the plundering and sacking & you don't need this sentence. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • ...except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph. Reserved isn't the best verb maybe enslaved? Active voice with Caliph as the subject?
      • On the first, I replaced both with thoroughly, on the second, I rephrased it slightly, but IMO there isn't any apparent problem. Treadgold uses almost the same phrasing. Constantine ✍ 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not a fan of Treadgold's writing; you work with the sources in English you have I guess. Did they take any treasure as plunder before destroying the city or were the slaves the plunder? Kirk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
          • The Arabs took everything they could from the city, which is why I have retained "thoroughly plundered". I've rephrased the sentence combining "spoils and slaves" to make it clearer. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Words like 'sack', 'plunder', 'spoils' with nice adjectives attached sound good but I think you could just delete the lead sentence, describe what happened and let the reader decide if this was a thorough plundering of spoils or not. Your sources substitute POV terms for facts so I don't know if you should use them as role models & maybe that's just the way Byzantine historians all write. Kirk (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
              • I really don't understand where you see the problem. "thoroughly sacked and plundered" isn't POV as far as I can tell, neither the words themselves nor the phrase as a whole. This is not a subjective statement, but a description of fact, a summary of the paragraph. How is this statement biased, or how do I mislead the reader towards a wrong or one-sided conclusion here? I could substitute a direct quote, but I'd rather avoid it if possible. Anyhow, as I suggested, in your talk page, if it is a phrasing issue, by all means please propose an alternative that makes the same point in a more neutral fashion. Other than this instance, do you have any other objections? Especially re the issue of the legend surrounding Theophilos' death. Regards, Constantine ✍ 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Plunder, sack & spoil are all subjective terms which make it more interesting to read but don't really have a meaning without describing what happened; without the description they are POV; now they are just unnecessary fluff. Since it appears there's a consensus for promotion, I'll just get out of your hair; good luck!Kirk (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concerns were addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 16:21, May 6, 2011

Comments

• The opinions about the size of the armies seem dubious: an "exceptionally large" army of 80,000; "huge army" of 70,000; "vast army" of 80,000. These seem like fairly typical numbers to me. It should be sufficient to just list the size of the army and let the reader decide. Alternatively, comparisons can be used showing the typical manpower of the time.
• I was struck by the considerable amount of strong opinion expressed in this article; sometimes bordering on hyperbole. Per WP:NPV, I question whether the tone is sufficiently impartial and ask whether a quoted source shouldn't be provided for the more excessive remarks. (Alternatively, comparisons could be used to clarify why these are so.) Examples:
  • "reinstated harsh suppression of the iconophiles"; "outraged by the brazenness and brutality of the raids"; "city was subjected to a brutal sack"; "sack of Amorium was one of the most devastating events"; "humiliating disaster"; "disaster of this magnitude"; "brutal sack"; "major military disaster"; "traumatic event"; "heavy personal blow"
• "Looting and devastating the countryside": how does one devastate the countryside after one has looted it?
• How can this event be termed "devastating" and a "major military disaster" if there so little impact?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk)

I have tried to answer the first concern with a footnote. I have tried to tone down the article, although frankly, a sack where 30-70,000 people are killed qualifies as "brutal" in my book. On the third concern, I tried to convey not only the plundering, but also active destruction, i.e. setting fire to fields etc. However, since looting does contain that, I removed "and devastating". On the last issue, the impact was ideological: it put an end to Theophilos' pretensions of an iconoclast revival, and directly contributed to its abandonment. Given the importance of religion especially in the Middle Ages, I wouldn't say that it had "little impact". Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As a general note on the tone issue, the "hyperbolic" language is very much the language used by the secondary sources. As an example, I inserted a verbatim quote of Whittow's (generally much less given to hyperbole or accepting inflated accounts than Bury or Treadgold) at the end of the article. It should give a good idea why terms like "humiliating", "devastating" and "disaster" are present in the text. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I can't support this. I'm going to abstain from further judgment and let others decide. Thank you for the reply.—RJH(talk) 17:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain why you won't support? Is it the tone alone or are your other concerns unaddressed as well? The object of the review is first and foremost to improve the article, after all. Constantine ✍ 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, you just caught me on a particularly bad day. I read the article again and it looks much improved. Thank you for the updates. :-) Regards, RJH (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and again sorry for the pestering. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments

• Lead:
  • Ouch. "The Sack of Amorium by the Abbasids in mid-August 838 represents one of the major events in the long history of the Byzantine–Arab Wars." "represents one of the major events"... while I"m not a passive voice Nazi, this is a bit much. Perhaps "The Sack of Amorium by the Abbasids in mid-August 838 was a major/definitive/turning point in the long Byzantine-Arab Wars. Also, can we state where Amorium is and who the Abbasids are?
  • Why "exceptionally large"? And "eager to avenge"?
  • "The city fell after a short siege, probably by treason, and a large part of its inhabitants were slaughtered, with the remainder driven off as slaves." Do not like the construction of "probably by treason" here, it's awkward in my reading. Perhaps "After a short siege, the city fell - probably due to treason - and ..."?
• Background -
  • you need to explain iconoclast and iconophile more than just links.
  • "...some 14,000 Khurramite refugees under Nasr..." Should we know who Nasr is? I see you link his baptised name, but a short explication about why Nasr was in charge of 14,000 folks might be good...
  • "His successes in these years were not spectacular..." Theophobos/Nasr or Theophilos? Context isn't clear here.
  • "In this spirit, he issued a new follis..." should explain briefly this is a coin. Yes, you've linked it, but you lose readers when you force them to click to something else to gain a basic understanding of things.
  • Who's army gathered at Tarsus? I THINK it's the Caliphates, since they are the ones who sacked Amorium, but the previous paragraph is all about Byzantine forces, so I'm not sure. Needs clarification. And WHEN did it gather?
• Opening stages:
  • "His army included the men from the Anatolian and possibly..." this sounds like ALL the men in the theme went, which is surely not the case...
  • "The Byzantines expected the Arab army to advance through the Cilician Gates and then to Ancyra, but it was also possible that the Arabs would march directly onto Amorium." I'm unclear what the second part of this sentence has to do with anything..
  • Honestly, "...the surviving population divided among the army, except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph." sounds like it came from a Victorian-era history - I'm assuming you mean that the survivors were made slaves by the army except for the leaders, who were prisoners of the Caliph, but this sort of phrasing isn't usual in historical writing any more. Better to make it clear.
• Aftermath -
  • "al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun" linkage for him?
  • "..and offering to ransom the high-ranking prisoners for 20,000 pounds of gold and to release all his Arab captives." The "his Arab captives" is somewhat ambigous here, as the last "him" mentioned was Basil, the one before is the Caliph, and Theophilos is at two person's remove here - suggest "to release all Arab captives of the Byzantines."
  • "...and is thought to have executed Aetios in retaliation." Is thought? Surely there is some controversy over this, which needs explication.
• General -
  • Definitely a few too many "weasel" words "brutal sack" "throughly plundered" "vast army" "major campaign". Some of these may indeed be justified, but you need to state more conclusively why they are justified, rather than just using them.
  • "6 March 845" but "July 22" and "August 1"... pick one and stick with it.
  • Images appear to be correctly licensed and tagged.
  • Earwig's tool showed no copyright issues.
• I have some concerns about prose and with jargon/not giving enough context for those not familiar with the subject, but it's close to gaining my support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my absence during the past few days, but things have been hectic in RL and my own laptop picked the most inopportune time to have a disk malfunction... I'll be taking care of the voiced concerns gradually over the next few days. Thanks a lot for the input from everyone. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth. I think that I have corrected most of the issues you raised. Again, for the adjectives qualifying the opposing armies, see the comment on army sizes. On Aetios, I'll check my sources tomorrow to see how this can be clarified. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "20,000 pounds of gold". Many readers have no idea what that amount is and will benefit from a kg value. It may be worth going back to the sources to check if it is avoirdupois, troy, roman, or other pound.
• It says "impact" in more than one place. I think this would be better as 'effect'. Not a big deal.

Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, I think. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now that it says "20,000 pounds of gold (about 9,000 kg)".

• If it is avoirdupois, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 pounds (9,000 kg) of gold'
• If it is troy, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 troy pounds (7,500 kg) of gold'
• If it is roman, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 roman pounds (6,500 kg) of gold'

There are other pounds in use. It may well be that the source meant troy or roman pounds. Can this be resolved from the source? Lightmouse (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. You are right, I forgot to take into account that the Byzantines used a different pound measurement for gold. It derived from, but was not identical to the Roman pound. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a slight adjustment, hope it works for you. If not, just change it. I also went and added your definition of Byzantine litra to the 'pound' article. Please take a look and amend it as you think best. All my comments resolved now. Good luck. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I notice that some of the books in the Sources section include external links to Google books when no view of the actual text is allowed. When adding references I do not include this type of link (although I can see some advantages in doing so) and wonder whether there is a Wikipedia guideline. Also, Bury (1912) is not viewable from London on Google books – but the same book is viewable on the Internet Archive. Would this be a better link? Aa77zz (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am not aware of any guideline, but I find it useful to link books to Google Books: some of the books that are currently not viewable sometimes become preview-able (or a preview-able edition is uploaded), and generally, I find Google Books as a good starting point for searching for related reference works. You are right on Bury however, the Internet Archive link is better. I have replaced it. Constantine ✍ 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead looks good. After a quick review of the article's lead, the details of which have been moved to the FAC talk page, I am happy with the lead. --23:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)

• Support comments - beginning a read-through now - I will post queries below. Please revert any copyediting I do which inadvertently changes the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In 829, when the young emperor Theophilos ascended the Byzantine throne, the Byzantines and Arabs had been fighting on and off for almost two centuries - not thrilled with this - I do think "By" is a better preposition than "In" to start with as it relates to how long the Byzantines and Arabs had been fighting up to that date (the ascent is a subordinate clause).

Arab attacks continued unabated both in the East, where Caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833) launched several large-scale raids, and in the West, where the Muslim conquest of Sicily was making headway - I think the tense would be better thus: " Arab attacks were continuing unabated both in the East, where Caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833) had launched several large-scale raids, and in the West, where the Muslim conquest of Sicily had been making headway"

link "siege engines"

I think that some form of image in the infobox would be good. I hadn't a clue where Amorium is, so maybe a map with the paths of the relevant armies? I can do a map if I have an image of the original schematics to work on if you want.

Other than that, looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Made the suggested changes, and reverted only one of your copyedits, where the emphasis was changed. I have already been working on a campaign map based on the one already in the article, expect it in a couple of days. Constantine ✍ 07:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. all goodCasliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments - leaning support - this is an interesting article, but I need to do another read through. For now, I'll start adding comments and more will be on the way.

• Lead: "The Abbasids penetrated deep into Byzantine-held Asia Minor" > it's not clear that one part of the split army were the Abbasids - perhaps say that the Caliph split the army into the Abbasids and whatever the second portion was called.
  • I see the point, but I went with a minimal change: and -> while. I think that will divide them into 2 mutually exclusive piles for most readers, with a mimimum of words. - Dank (push to talk)
• This sentence is too long and roundabout - needs to be split or shortened somehow: "An ambitious man and a convinced adherent of Byzantine Iconoclasm, which prohibited the depiction of divine figures and the veneration of icons, Theophilos sought to bolster his regime and support his religious policies by military success against the Abbasid Caliphate, the Empire's major antagonist"
  • Broken up.
• In the "Siege and fall of Amorium" section some repetition: the wall was "badly damaged as a result of heavy rainfall" & the next sentence begins with "As a result"
  • as a result of -> by
• In the "Impact" section more repetition of poor health occurring in close proximity
  • shortened
• Why a legend that Theophilos died because of his reaction to these events? According to whom? Perhaps mention or attribute that sentence to a scholar or historian.
  • It says "Later Byzantine historians attribute ...". Most of Milhist's writers don't say "he said this, this other historian said that", although a few do.
• Same sentence > "sorrow felt" should be reworded somehow
  • Ack, if I missed that, I suck. Fixed.
• Last sentence in the same paragraph, I think "other side of the hill" is idiomatic and should be reworded
  • Okay, I know I didn't see that :) rewritten.
• Last paragraph > brackets not necessary for ellipses. See MOS:ELLIPSIS for formatting.
  • Fixed.
• I want to re-read the lead - it feels a little heavy to me. I was quite confused at the first reading, though less confused after reading through the article.
  • Okay, it looks like you copyedited this.
• I also want to re-read the sections regarding iconoclasm. It seems iconoclasm was at the heart of this series of events and if that's true then I think the controversy about iconoclasm and schism it caused needs more clarification for the lay reader.
  • Replied to this below. - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will return later. Sorry for taking such a long time to get to this. TK (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding more:

• Regarding iconoclasm, this sentence: "Seeking divine favour, and responding to iconophile plots against him, Theophilos reinstated active suppression of the iconophiles and other perceived "heretics" in June 833, including mass arrests and exiles, beatings and confiscations of property" I think needs clarification to explain why Theophilos believed he would receive divine favor by moving against the iconophiles. I think a smallish paragraph explaining iconoclasm and Theophilos' philosophy regarding the schism is necessary. I think that would create a better context for the events.
• The prose is a bit stiff in a few places but nothing overwhelming. Do you mind if a make a few copyedits?

I think that's all. Thanks. TK (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking the time to review! You can copyedit as you see fit, if you change the meaning too much, I'll just correct it myself. I'll go through the text clarifying the issues raised later today. Constantine ✍ 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note ... Sandy's time is going to be limited for the next few weeks, and I know she's going through seeing what she can promote tonight. It would be nice if we could get this one finished. Truthkeeper, I've reviewed your edits ... great work. I'm going through now trying to respond to your questions. On the question of adding a paragraph about iconoclasm ... iconoclasm is linked in the lead, and at some point in the copyediting process, I start to think that if that link was good enough for the first 10 copyeditors (many of whom were exceedingly thorough), then it's probably good enough. I'm not an expert, but IMO a discussion of the significance of iconoclasm could lead us far afield, and invite NPOV edits ... better to have those fights in the iconoclasm article than here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that this has been sitting here for a long time and that Sandy will be promoting tonight so there's a reason to get it wrapped up. I wouldn't have bothered to review if I'd been more careful and realized there were already four supports. That said, I do think that a short blurb about iconoclasm is important. Given the manner in which the article is written, it suggests that iconoclasm was the cause for Theophilos' first campaign and the retaliatory campaign against Amorium. Any dogma that causes such a loss of life and destruction deserves a bit of description. As it happens I do know a bit about iconoloclasm and unfortunately was the last person to land here. Anyway, I think it's a nice page and the absence of the explanation won't keep me from supporting. Thanks for making the suggested fixes. TK(88) 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. I'm happy with however you and Constantine want to handle it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dank for your edits, you handled the issues better than I would have... On the Iconoclasm issue, in short, like most state-supported religions/ideologies it relied on military success for legitimization, particularly since it was always a sort of imperial pet-project and in the Roman-Byzantine culture the main secular aspect of the emperor is that of a triumphant general. Iconoclasm by itself was neither more nor less militant than other forms of Christianity, but it had become associated with military success during the time of Leo III and Constantine V who beat back the Arabs and Bulgars. The essential points of this argument are I think already mentioned in the article. However it would be wrong to say that Iconoclasm was the cause of these campaigns. The Byzantine-Arab wars were older than Iconoclasm, and Iconoclasm did not produce a perceptible change in their pattern. Even if Iconoclasm had been a non-issue, Theophilos as a Byzantine ruler would still have acted in pretty much the same way for the usual raisons d'État. The main difference is that Theophilos was more eager to up the stakes and risk a full-blown military confrontation than his predecessors. The 837 raid was almost unprecedented in size and geographical scope since Constantine V and a clear provocation to the Caliph to respond. On the other hand it is hard to tell in which measure Theophilos's actions were dictated by the need to prop up Iconoclasm or by his own rather extravagant character and apparent over-confidence. I could elaborate on the lines of this, but it enters the realm of historical speculation and it would derail the subject, which is first and foremost a description of the events of 838. Whatever Theophilos's set of motivations, it was Iconoclasm that was state doctrine, Iconoclasm that promised divine assistance and victory and Iconoclasm that suffered due to the emperor's failure. I am prepared to add more detail in the background section, but I won't have time today. Truthkeeper, could you tell me what exactly you'd like to see covered in more detail? Constantine ✍ 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've explained well above. Given the explanation, I think it's fine as is. I'll strike the comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the relevant articles that could provide more details are rather superficial. Byzantine Iconoclasm for instance focuses mostly on the religious aspects and events and completely ignores the socio-political aspects that first raised and later doomed Iconoclasm. Anyhow, my thanks for a thorough review. Constantine ✍ 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given up trying to keep up with MOS; WP:BOLDTITLE has been edited to distraction and is no longer clear. It used to say we shouldn't include links in the bold title-- now I can't tell what it's trying to say, so ... anyway, fine article, but I don't see a spot check for WP:V or close paraphrasing or accurate representation of sources. Has that been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been done yet. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Bury 1912: are you using the original pagination or that applied by the host site?
• Ref 12: note 3 seems to be about the position of Theognostos, not about the size of the Arab army
• Spotchecked a few of the other Bury refs, and none of them seem to support the material they're citing. I'm not sure whether this is a pagination issue, but this needs to be checked
• Very limited spotchecks of other sources found no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bury references refer to the original book page numbers, not the versions of the Internet Archive, which for some reason are truncated. The actual book has some 550 pages, not 297... I included the Internet Archive link at the suggestion of another reviewer, because Google has apparently taken its version entirely off. Constantine ✍ 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is no ISBN listed for this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-History-610-867-Aikaterina-Christophilopoulou/dp/9025610447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1306791234&sr=8-3

Amazon shows one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, I'd read it in the Greek edition and found its English-language equivalent on Google Books, which did not include an ISBN. Also corrected the date, volume 2 was published in 1993. Constantine ✍ 00:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:10, 30 May 2011 [3].

---

Halifax Gibbet

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the popular imagination guillotines are associated with the French Revolution, named after the eponymous Dr Guillotin. But in reality similar decapitation devices were in use long before then, including this one in the English town of Halifax, now on display near the town centre, a warning to all petty thieves tempted to steal anything worth more than £5. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Query From an ignorant Canadian, is "13½ pence" the same as "13½d"? Canada Hky (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the same, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review: 3 pictures all okay—2 PD in US and source country, 1 appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've just read the first paragraph and see that the link from the word "pence" goes to "£sd". Shouldn't it go to something more precise? Tunnelling down through the links from there, I found Penny, British one penny coin, Penny (British pre-decimal coin), History of the British penny, Penny (English coin), History of the English penny (1154-1485) (other periods and no doubt other articles availble!). All rather confusing (not your fault, of course), but they are all specifically about the penny or pennies rather than the £ and s as well as the d. (I look forward to going through the rest later.) --GuillaumeTell 10:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the link to Penny (English coin) as being the most relevant. Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Minded to support, a few small issues: — Wehwalt 17:42, May 21, 2011 — continues after insertion below

• Lede

"or decapitating machine" Don't people know what a guillotine is?

"13½ pence" Perhaps put in a Lsd reckoning so that people are reminded this is "old money?"

"victim" to my mind, victim implies a crime or injustice. Perhaps "subject" or "condemned"? I like the latter more.

"petty theft". As a lawyer (who just did a little quick and dirty research into larceny at common law) suggest [[larceny|petty larceny]] (or petit larceny if you like law French).

I suspect that Fifelfoo may object to your attempt to try to get a present value off of pre-Restoration money, but personally, I don't get that excited over it. Just letting you know.

• Replies

• Well, strictly it wasn't a guillotine, as that wasn't invented until towards the end of the 18th century.
• I think that the conversion to new money already makes it clear that 13½d is old money.
• As far as I'm concerned theft and larceny are synonymous, and "theft" is what the source uses.
• My dictionary defines victim as "a person or thing that suffers harm, death, etc., from another or from some adverse act, circumstance, etc", which I think sums up the plight of those being decapitated perfectly. There's no implication of crime or injustice.
• I'm aware that Fifelfoo has made such objections in the past, which is why the basis for the calculation is explained in a note. I am firmly of the opinion that not giving some idea of the equivalent value of 13½d is more misleading than giving one.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• History

"Halifax Gibbet Law" Do we have some idea when this law was passed? Is there a citation to the law books (something that looks like 6 Henry VIII, c. 8)?

"rather unwisely" Under the circumstances, I'd delete "rather", rather.

"victim" Same argument as before.

" Local weavers specialised ..." I'm guessing these sentences are in here to explain the unfamiliar word "tenter" in the Defoe quote. Why not put it in a note, and hang it off the word tenter?

"Eighteenth-century historians ..." this paragraph seems mildly out of place, in the middle of the history. Perhaps it would be better as the last paragraph of the section?

• Replies

• There was no such law ever passed; it was simply a right claimed "from time immemorial" by the lords of the manor of Wakefield.
• As above re "victim".
• I quite like "rather unwisely", but if others object I'll quite happily remove it..
• I think it's necessary to explain the process in the text, at least in outline, as many historians see the gibbet law as an efficient way of dealing with thefts from the all too tempting tenterframes.
• I think the sentence beginning "Eighteenth-century historians" is in the right place, as the argument is that these "wild and ungovernable" people were the ones that the gibbet was intended to dissuade from stealing from the tenters.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mechanism

but it may not have been until some time in the 16th century" A bit awkward, perhaps end the previous clause with a semicolon and substitute for the remainder of the sentence, "it may have been as late as the 16th century."

" allowing it to be raised" it is uncertain to what "it' refers, I'm betting on the block but I could be wrong.

"In Thomas Deloney's ballad ..." This sentence seems a bit out of place, perhaps move it to the first paragraph of this section as second sentence? I would include the paragraph beginning "Although the guillotine ..." immediately following in the paragraph, splitting the paragraph at the end of that text. So the discussion of the actual mechanism would be in its own paragraph. Frankly, I think what would now be a paragraph on the introduction of the gibbet to the History section.

"Dr Guillotin" I would mention that he invented the guillotine. So that the reader can guess on who copied who, I would mention the date of introduction of the Scottish device.

While an image caption says the gibbet stood in Gibbet Street, perhaps that should be mentioned in the article and supported with a reference, as well as the subsequent site.

This reference seems to discount the idea that the Gibbet Law was pre-Conquest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Replies

• I've clarified what the "it" refers to: "A rope attached to the top of the wooden block holding the axe ran over a pulley at the top of the structure, allowing the block to be raised. The rope was then fastened by a pin to the structure's stone base."
• Actually, Dr Guillotin didn't invent the guillotine. :-)
• I'll add a citation to the image caption confirming that the gibbet is in Gibbet Street.

• Actually the local council's register of historic monuments says that the gibbet was moved in 1645, and that the replica is in its final site now known as Bedford Street North, so I've removed Gibbet Street from the image caption. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I discussed that source with Ealdgyth, and we agreed that it couldn't be considered to be high-quality and reliable, as required by the FA criteria. James Holt, one of the authorities on the period, suggests quite unambiguously that the claimed right of decapitation was a vestige of the Anglo-Saxon custom of infangtheof.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support These are matters of editorial judgment in my view, which the nominator has ably defended. It's a fine article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review Wehwalt. I'll address the few remaining issues asap. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Np. One more thing, you have "fourth psalm", aren't psalms usually rendered something like "Psalms 4" (or less commonly, like the Twenty-third Psalm)?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably a question better addressed to a Christian, but my understanding is that the name of the psalm would be rendered as "Psalm 4", and that as "fourth psalm" isn't its name then it wouldn't be capitalised. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Christian myself. I fear that "fourth psalm" would be confused as meaning that 2+2 psalms were read during the execution service. You are right, there is actually a stub Psalm 4.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue though is that the source uses the term "fourth psalm", not "Psalm 4", and that's what's the note is elaborating on. It would seem a little bit patronising to me to add a "[Psalm 4]" note after "fourth psalm". Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - I'll hopefully get a chance to look at prose and related issues later. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Formatting on FN 9
• Missing bibliographic information on Watson 1775
• FN 5: is it possible to include the original publication and pagination info as well as the archive version?
• FN 7: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look, I think I've got those now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Further comments - I've read it through and made a few copy-edits in the History section. Two other points, not major ones:

• Neither was the decapitation of convicted felons unusual to Halifax; the earls of Chester amongst others also exercised the right to "behead any malefactor or thief, who was apprehended in the action, or against whom it was made apparent by sufficient witness, or confession, before four inhabitants of the place", recorded as the Custom of Cheshire.
  • "unusual to Halifax" is a rather odd expression. I'd say "Neither was Halifax the only town which decapitated convicted felons" or some such; also, "recorded as the Custom of Cheshire" also sounds odd. How about "This was known as the Custom of Cheshire"?
  • The word "tenters" makes an appearance in a quote from Defoe. I'd be inclined to pipe this as [[Fulling|tenter]]s - the fulling link does appear, but several lines further down. Alternatively, there could be mention of tenters first and the Defoe quote later.
• Support - Leaving the above aside, support: a good read! --GuillaumeTell 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking. I've changed "unusual" for "unique" and moved the explanation of tenters before the quote from Defoe. I really don't like to put links in quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't want to go too far beyond what the source says by changing to "known as the Custom of Cheshire"'; there appears to be only one reference to it, so to say it was known as anything seems too strong to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • On the Custom of Cheshire, it's the grammar that bothered me. One more thing: there are two red links, neither of them linked from any mainspace articles: Beggar's Litany and The Imperial Magazine. The former apparently relates to John Taylor (poet), but this well-known (to me, anyway) phrase or saying isn't mentioned in his article, and it would be nice to see a ref there and a better ref here. On the latter, there's no reason, AFAICS, why it should be redlinked, unless you have an article on it up your sleeve. --GuillaumeTell 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see a problem with the grammar. So far as the redlinks are concerned I have an article about every 19th-century magazine up my sleeve, and every 20th-century comic, but a redlink may encourage someone else to get there before I do. So far as John Taylor and the Beggar's Litany is concerned, well, it's a recurring theme that what ought to be supporting articles are often so poor, or as in the case of the Litany don't exist at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: Nice, compact, yet comprehensive article about a deadly device. I understand and support the idea of conveying the value of old currency to the reader, but "equivalent to about £5.40 as of 2008" (most particularly in the lede) still strikes me as a bit off. I would have thought (could be totally wrong) that the 13½d was some medieval value that a peasant could not raise readily; £5.40 seems to be something panhandlers could receive in one day in these times(?). As the article mentions the cost of two horses, perhaps those values ("two horses stolen in 1650 were worth 9 and 48 shillings.") could be used in the lede instead, letting the reader to draw his or her own inference on what 13½d is worth now? Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• On the basis that decapitations are known to have been carried out for almost 400 years, and that the value of 13½d would obviously have varied considerably over that period, I've removed the conversion from the lead. The important point I wanted to get across was the value of 13½d in 1650, when public opinion turned against capital punishment for what was then seen as petty theft. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Approval of the use of inflation (goes to 1c) As the resident inflation disciplinarian, the inflation used here is sensible and reasonable. Purchasing power represents small petty goods, much like those goods people who'd steal 13½d would steal. England's rural economy had suffered from proletarianisation and enclosures by the 1650s. A large rural proletariat and lumpen-proletariat were in existence. Halifax is sufficiently "South" for the Officer time series to be reasonably relevant. The note and citation adequately describe the method of calculation and the source used. The method of calculation chosen was a good one. Further context is provided later with the execution for the theft of goods with a good "modern" commodity equivalent worth 9/- and 48/-. (I like this article, and will be happy when it is featured). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your observations, much appreciated Fifelfoo. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with yet more comments, some of which are probably unanswerable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• "allowed landowners to execute summary justice" - this is technically correct, but given the subject of the article you might use a synonym for "execute"
• Lord of the Manor of Wakefield or lord of the manor of Wakefield
• "The jury had only two questions to decide on: were the stolen goods found in the possession of the accused, and were they worth at least 13½d" - so if the theft is witnessed or confessed (as you mention earlier) but the stolen goods are not found in the thief's possession, what happens?
• Wikilink assizes?
• Could someone who purchased the stolen goods (knowingly or unknowingly) also face execution?
• Who threatened the bailiff? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Replies

• I've changed "execute summary justice" to "enforce summary justice".
• I've gone for a (hopefully) consistent "Lord of the Manor of Wakefield" and "lord of the manor".
• If the thief confessed then there was nothing for the jury to decide on; the confession was accepted at face value and the malefactor was executed. There was no cross-examination, prosecution, or defence as in a modern court of law. Perhaps I ought to add a sentence elaborating on that aspect of the proceedings.

• Now done. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Assizes now wikilinked.
• The law only applied to those who took part in the theft, and who either were found with the stolen goods in their possession or confessed to having stolen them, as the case of the last executions demonstrates. The two stolen horses had been sold on by the time the thief was apprehended, but the purchasers weren't prosecuted.
• Unfortunately the source doesn't say who threatened the bailiff, but judging by the fact that Oliver Cromwell clamped down on the use of the gibbet one might speculate that it was either local Puritans or the local Parliamentary forces.

Thanks once again for taking the time to read through the article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – despite its off-putting subject it is finely written, and is (as we would expect from this editor) authoritative and thoroughly referenced. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. – Tim riley (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Malleus Fatuorum 10:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's significantrm2dance (talk)

No it doesn't. Its significance is explained in the text. Malleus Fatuorum 11:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of minor comments I've just had a glance through the Toolbox up at the top here and find that the Dashboard seems to be up the spout - anyone know how to fix it (not that it's of any great importance)? The slightly more important other thing is that if you click the Toolbox's External links section there's a missing access date for one of the refs. I tried to fix it from there, but everything is so confusing (i.e. it's written by computer people for computer people rather than ordinary mortals) that it's far from clear how it should be done, so I gave up. Probably easier to fix by other means, but I'll leave that to you. --GuillaumeTell 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re the Dashboard, it looks like the external site is down. So far as the "missing" access date is concerned I don't think that one is needed for a book, only for a web page, and even then only if the publication date is unknown. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

access dates for books are pointless. Its web addresses thats concerned with. They change or are taken down. Ceoil 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with cmts.

1. once part of the Manor of Wakefield. - The guillotine or Halifax
2. 'the authority to summarily execute by decapitation any thief caught' - presumably he was alowed to choke or shoot them if he so wished. If not, 'summarily decapitate any thief'
3. between the time of the first recorded execution in 1286 and bla
4. 'The Halifax Gibbet's final two victims were Abraham Wilkinson and Anthony Mitchell'
5. 'use of the gibbet was forbidden by Oliver Cromwell'. [New sentence] After the use of gibbets were outlawed
6. Eighteenth-century historians - 18th c?
7. 'could be operated either? by cutting the rope supporting the blade or by pulling'
8. 'An article in The Imperial Magazine of 1832' - An 1832 article in

These are quibbles only. The sources are all good, the ref formatting consistent. The images are free or PD old. Nice work. Ceoil 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Replies

1. Halifax. I've rejigged to make that clearer.
2. The authority was specifically to execute by decapitation.
3. Removed the redundancy in "between the time of".
4. Similarly with "final two victims".
5. The Halifax Gibbet was unique in England, and it was specifically the Halifax Gibbet that Oliver Cromwell forbade the use of, so I think "the gibbet" is correct.
6. Needs to be "Eighteenth-century historians" as it begins a sentence.
7. I've removed the arguably redundant "either".
8. I think that changing the wording to "An 1832 article in ..." subtly changes the meaning, as it opens up the possibility that although the article was dated 1832 the magazine in which it appeared could have been later, e.g., 1835 ... but thinking about it what I'd written is slightly misleading as well. The present wording suggests that it was published only once a year, whereas in reality it was a monthly magazine, so now changed to "An article in the September 1832 edition of The Imperial Magazine ...".

Thanks for taking a look and for your observations. Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All good, though 'specifically to execute by decapitation' is chilling. What bastards. Where I grew up, in that period, shooting people on the spot, if you were gentry and so inclined, was considered fine, but decapitation bad form. Ceoil 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Execution by decapitation wasn't uncommon in England, although usually reserved for the toffs. Halifax was only unusual in two respects: they invented a machine to do it, and it went on for so long. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Put those two facts (the 2nd with dates) in the opening paragraph, would have very stong impact. Ceoil 23:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, nice hook. Can I support twice I wonder. Ceoil 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I have. </JOKE> Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandy is more clever than that. I think I'll have to go the sock route. PS the next redlinked user/usertalk support is me, wink wink Ceoil 23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You get caught, she reactivates the gibbet.Hi, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the internet, its not Halifax. We're grand. Ceoil 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Off with their heads, both of 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:10, 30 May 2011 [4].

---

Appaloosa

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC), User: Ealdgyth, User:Montanabw

A breed of spotted horses originally developed by the Nez Perce Indian tribe, named after a river in the northwestern United States, and now registered by the third-largest breed registry in the world - this is the Appaloosa. This article has been a long-term collaboration among many from the Equine WikiProject, although Ealdgyth, Montanabw and myself have been the driving forces on bringing the article to this point. A GA review back in 2008, two peer reviews with comments from multiple editors, more comments from many editors on the talk page, and a wonderful copyedit from Malleus have also made a huge difference in the article. We have put a lot of work into this article, and look forward to all of your comments (and hopefully your support). Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Domesticated horses with leopard complex spotting patterns have been depicted in the art of Ancient Persia, Ancient Greece, the "Celestial horses" of the T'ang Dynasty in China, and 11th-century France.": nonparallel. There are several fixes, take your pick; for instance, you could put the "Celestial horses" in parentheses after "China".

  I'll take a tweak on this, noting that according to the best of our online sources, we had the wrong Chinese dynasty too, so I shall fix all. --Montanabw

• Some second commas are needed; I'll fill them in unless it gets tiresome. (See WT:Checklist for support in the style guides.)
• I won't change unbeknownst because there's plenty of support for it, but be aware that quite a few writers consider it (and unbeknown) "colloquial".
• I won't change "The battle—and the war—was over." because I like it in context, but WP:EMDASH recommends commas.
• "new horse breeding program ... tradition of selective breeding": It's not clear to me in which ways it's new and in which ways it's traditional. Depending on what you're saying, you might be able to omit "tradition of selective breeding".

• I've tweaked this a bit. The new program is the breeding of the Nez Perce Horse, a new cross between the Appaloosa and the Akhal-Teke. The part about selective breeding being a tradition is important, IMO, because it shows a continuation of the selective breeding they did with the Appaloosa, brought into the 21st century with the NPH. However, I could be wrong... - DB

• Yep, that's the deal, the Nez Perce want to bring back their traditional animal, as opposed to the spotted quarter horse look that's more common today. I'll play with that a bit more. I think Dana got the rest --MTBW

• "color pattern/characteristics": WP:SLASH recommends against slashes.

• Changed to "and" - DB

• "distances between 350 yards and a half mile; an Appaloosa holds the record for the 4.5 furlong distance ...": some conversions needed.

• Done - DB

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've made a few changes per your comments above. Please let us know if further work is needed, and thanks for the support! Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Can Footnotes be two columns?

• Done - DB

• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs

  I think we got them (?) I added pp to the HYPP testing (it was only two pages, all relevant), board motions and registration fees, updated the FEI link. The only one not paginated (that I can now find) was the Appaloosa Horse Club Rule book, which is updated yearly and sometimes repaginated in the process, there it makes a lot more sense to cite to the rule rather than the page number because we need to change the url annually ... was that the problem child? --Montanabw

• Equine Color Genetics or Equine color genetics? Appaloosa Horse Club or Appaloosa horse Club Inc? Check for small inconsistencies

• These two done. Didn't see any others, but will keep my eye out - DB

• FN 15: why cite by year here?

• Fixed - DB

• FN 16: check authors

• Think I fixed this? - DB

• FN 20: the lab is part of the publisher, not the work

• Done - DB

• FN 23, 67, 69: repetition

• Done - DB

• FN 25, 37, 64: volume/issue?

• AFAIK, no volume/issue # for any of these, just dates and page numbers. A lot of horse magazines don't use volume/issue numbers. - DB

• FN 36: et al for only 3 authors?

• Fixed - DB

• Use a consistent formatting for retrieval dates

• Think I got them all - DB

• FN 94: the association is a publisher, not a work

• Done - DB

• Use a consistent formatting for editions

• Done - DB

• Be consistent in providing or not providing publisher locations, and if you do be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or spelled out

• Fixed, although a couple are listed as "No location given" Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Found a location for one per ISBN to WorldCat, noted on talk page, not sure if I should fix, or...?

• External links could stand to be culled - don't repeat cited sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Culled some. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have begun work on the above issues; more later. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It says "350 yards", "half mile", "4.5 furlong". These need conversions.

Lightmouse (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking good for me now. Lightmouse (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Breed characteristics: Two breed horse links is probably one too many here.

• Where? I'm missing what was double-linked? (Can fix if we know what you spotted) --MTBW

• Sorry; that was meant to be draft horse. Fixed it myself here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Color and spotting patterns: "The coat color of an Appaloosa is a combination of a base color with a overlaid sporting pattern." *I believe that the third "a" should be "an".

• Fixed. --MTBW

• History: "Domesticated horses with leopard complex spotting patterns have been depicted art dating as far back as Ancient Greece, Ancient Persia, the Han Dynasty in China". Could use "in" before "art" and "and" before "the Han Dynasty".

• Fixed. --MTBW

• Nez Perce War: In a very minor style point, numbers like 2000 should usually have a comma in them when used this way.
• Drug rules: "considered drug maskers and as diuretics that can be used to make it difficult to detect the presence of other drugs in the horse's system." Something's weird about this sentence, and I think it has to do with "as". Either it shouldn't be there, or some form of connection is missing ("act", maybe?).

• Will tweak, see what you think --MTBW

• Note 3: Another very minor thing, but does Acepromazine need the capitalization?

• Dana fixed that -- MTBW (for Dana)

• Reference 78 is missing the PDF indication that the other similar cites have. Again minor, but worthwhile anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like Dana fixed that too. --MTBW

• I actually didn't see it, so I did this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Re your point about "2000", the modern convention is that 4-digit numbers are not separated by commas. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I'll let you two fight that one out, whatever the wikigods decree, we shall humbly obey ;-) --MTBW

• • Support. Says here that commas are optional for four-digit numbers. Never noticed that before. Oh, and I support since everything up there is done, and this is a fine article overall. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments Just a few quibbles from a non-horseman Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Equine Recurrent Uveitis and congenital stationary night blindness — Why is the first capped, and the second lower case. Is this inconsistency, or is there a reason?

• I'm taking a stab here, but "congenital stationary night blindness" is probably a generic term for a number of complexes, and ERU is probably one defined disorder/disease. My understanding is you capitalize single diseases, but I could be wrong here. Better to check with MTBW though, as they are the expert on the blindness thing in horses, not me. I do bloodlines and history, the others do the usage/diseases stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I like Ealdgyth's explanation, but the main reason it's probably really that way is that it's capitalized in the Wikipedia article on that topic!  :-) We can do whatever the wiki MOS wants us to do, just someone let us know which is preferred. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Skin mottling is "a basic and decisive indicator of an Appaloosa" and is usually seen around the muzzle, eyes, anus, and genitalia. — I'm unclear, the photos seem to show much more wide-spread spotting than just those areas

• Skin mottling is different than spotting, and can be seen in Appaloosas with solid coat color (no difference in hair color). This is discussed further in the "Color rule controversy" section, but basically, a horse with leopard complex genetics won't always have a spotted coat, but will almost always have skin mottling in the locations listed. This last fact is what makes it one of the secondary characteristics that is looked for when registering a non-spotted Appaloosa. - DB

• Yes, like Dana said, and the registry states it that way in their standards. Also, the mottling isn't quite the same as the "halo" effect seen under the hair coat spots, in fact the body skin isn't mottled the way the "bare" skin is around the genitals, eyes and muzzle. Weird, but there it is. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• King Louis XIV of France — Is "king" necessary, there can't be many other Louis XIV of Frances?

• Done. - DB

• (Autumn, 2010). — Looks odd and inconsistent having only one ref with a month/season. If it's needed to avoid ambiguity, can it be moved to the title?

• This is a quarterly publication where the date of publication is given by the season (spring, summer, autumn, fall). So, IMO, it actually is consistent with the other references; it's just that we have used no other quarterly publications, so this one instance stands out a bit. I'm not sure why we would move the "autumn" to the title? - DB
• Verified what Dana said. I have the hardcopy; this is a quarterly publication. I believe that the "date" parameter is correct, though "issue" might work? (I don't really get template syntax very well). But definitely not part of the title. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Follow up: per online cite, http://mhs.mt.gov/pub/magazine/autumn2010.asp added Volume and issue number to template (someone fix it if I got it formatted wrong??). Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can US states be written in full in the cited texts for the benefit of us poor limeys?

• Done - DB

I've replied to most of the above comments, but am leaving the first one because I'm really not sure. Hopefully my co-noms have a better idea on this than I do. Thanks for the comments, Jim! Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the ERU capitalization is probably one of these things that's all over the place on wiki. Whatever the wiki MOS says for diseases with specific names in general, we shall do. (But if we go lower case, we will need to rename the other article too, probably) Even the horse articles are all over the place on this, so not a huge deal for us. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the caps issue needs resolution, but it looks as if it's beyond the scope of this FAC, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment I'll do some spot-checking and probably a spot of copyediting, and jot points down below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"SPOT?" Ohhhh baaaad pun for this article! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In mid-18th century Europe, there was a great demand for horses with the Appaloosa coat pattern among the nobility and royalty. - strictly speaking I suspect this is anomalous as this predates the development of the breed and the name. Can we just say "spotted" here?

Went with "...there was a great demand for horses with the leopard complex spotting pattern among the nobility and royalty." as we'd just used "spotted coat" in the previous sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed

and thus were notable as horse breeders by the early 19th century - erm, well anyone who keeps horses breeds them? I guess I'd tweak to "and thus were highly regarded as horse breeders by the early 19th century" or "and thus were notable as able/canny/good horse breeders by the early 19th century" or something....

No, actually, not everyone who keeps horses breeds them. Lots of Native American tribes sorta kinda bred horses, but only the NP were really noted as breeders. Kinda like how a lot of noblemen in England had horses but only a few were noted breeders. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Like E said... Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

is a very basic and decisive indication --> "confirms" (?) or "is proof positive" (??)

(I assumed you didn't mean to change the direct quote) now reads "...therefore this characteristic is proof positive of membership in the breed." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to depart from the quotation -- we have no clue WHAT this means, I'm going to fiddle with that a bit, open to further suggestions. Can't "prove" anything until they release a DNA test for LP. (Which is in the works but not out yet). Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand teh need for care here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking good otherwise (dang, forgot I reviewed this for GAN! Looks much improved since then :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

• "few spot" or "fewspot" leopard?

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• Think I got all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:Nezperceindians1895ish.jpg - if the author is unknown, you can't say with certainty that he or she died more than 70 years ago. Same issue with File:Barnesspottedhorsephoto.jpg

• I just removed these - we're still trying to figure out where the author of the book we got them from originally got the photos from. Easier to just remove. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• And I put one back; I don't care about the circus image, though it's cool. But for the two men with the Appy, I have scraped the bottom of the barrel on this image. I also fixed the tag. The copyright status of the book (Appaloosa: The Spotted Horse in Art and History) is public domain, because it was published in 1963 and the rights were never renewed on it. There's no doubt about that. As for the original photographer, I personally contacted the Amon Carter Museum, the University of Texas Press (both involved in publishing the Haines book), Elliot West, and the Montana Historical Society (MHS), which used the image in the West article (scanned from the Haines book) and they were, likewise, unable to track it to any place other than the Haines book. Essentially, the MHS staff did an extensive search and they couldn't locate the original anywhere (they commented that if the original it still exists, it's probably in a box in someone's attic). The person who took the photo was "Mary Himes of Cayuse, Oregon", I did find here a Mary Himes born in 1877, but no clue if the same person. If push comes to shove, we can put this under a fair use designation, I suppose. I mean, I don't intend to derail the FA over one image, but it seems that there has got to be a way to salvage this image, which I consider a pretty critical image for the article, showing the people most responsible for the breed with a typical representative. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:AppyPlate.jpg has two different FURs for this article and two different licensing tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  I took off the Fair Use tag for the article where it is no longer being used. On the licensing tags, I thought I needed both, but if not, just tell me which one to use. FYI, I personally took that image, edited it to take off the actual number (it was a cousin's car) and uploaded it, so just let me know what needs to be fixed. Whatever we need to do, I won't derail the FA over the image, so whatever the policy is this week, I shall humbly obey. Montanabw^(talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar ?? "Domesticated horses with leopard spotting patterns have been depicted in art as far back as Ancient Greece ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My eyes have fried on that one, I've seen it too many times, but am open to ideas to fix. All the nuances are needed, domesticated, leopard spotting, ancient Greece -- evidence of how far back the pattern has been desired by humans is the point. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Follow up: I took a whack at this, not sure I improved matters, am still open to any way to say it better. Montanabw^(talk) 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How ?? "The Appaloosa has influenced many other horse breeds, ... " This is explained in the body of the article, but is unclear in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. Open to suggestions if there is a better way to say that. :-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Inline query left in the lead. I am not sure all of those External links to different clubs is a good idea-- could tend to become a farm, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Can't those be added via a DMOZ link instead? See the Open Directory Project links at the bottom of Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed inline inquiry. Not sure DMOZ is a solution to the External links, part of me just says toss 'em all. But thoughts, everyone? Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy! Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:10, 30 May 2011 [5].

---

Water Rail

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My previous Rallidae FAC was for a species, the Zapata Rail, about which virtually nothing is known, including whether it still exists. It was good to be in the position with this nomination of being able to decide what to leave out, rather than scratching around for any crumbs of info. Thanks to Shyamal for help with the eastern indicus subspecies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources comment: Sources and citations appear impeccable. Spotchecks difficult because of the technical nature of the material, but no problems indicated. Exemplary. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for checking Brian, I'm blushing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• How do the two bacterial infections mentioned affect the Water Rail? If more could be said about these infections, then the bacteria theme could form a small paragraph and therefore be separated from the paragraph on the larger parasites. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• On checking, the rail was not a species carrying C. psittaci, so removed now. The research just has the Water Rail as one of many affected species, but Borellia is described as rare, and wasn't present in throat swabs, so there is no indication that any of the birds very obviously ill. There is nothing anywhere I can find about the effects of this Borrelia bacterium specifically on water rails Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps some details of the life cycle of the nematode, Gnathostoma spinigerum, with specific reference to the Water Rail should be included to avoid over simplification. There are other species of the genus Gnathostoma. Can I presume from the article that there is only one of these species that relevant to the Water Rail. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've added the first and third stage hosts to the text. The article only mentions Gnathostoma spinigerum, and I haven't found any mention of other species, so I don't know if they are relevant or not. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do Water Rails contribute to the infestation of freshwater cyclopses with Gnathostoma spinigerum, and therefore provide a possible route for infected cyclopses to be consumed in untreated drinking water by humans? Could infected cyclopses be consumed by small fish which are in turn eaten by ducks and mammals that could go into the human food chain. With this in mind, I am not sure if this line of the article is logical; "The rail is unlikely to be a source of human gnathostomiasis, because ..." . Snowman (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• To get infected you have to consume the live nematode, either, as you say, by drinking water contaminated with the cyclops first host, or by a eating raw or insufficiently cooked secondary host, especially freshwater fish, which is often eaten raw in the two main countries for this disease. You would have to eat near-raw water rail to get infected by that bird, which is unlikely to say the least. Water rails do not contribute to infecting the cyclopses, which is only done via the final carnivora host Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Water Rail is omnivorous and eats fish, possibly fish infested with the nematode. Does this make the Water Rail a final host of the nematode? Snowman (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, the nematode remains in its larval form irrespective of host until it gets to a carnivore, usually a cat or dog. Only then doe it mature in the stomach and release eggs in the faeces to start the cycle again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see. The parasite is fastidious. I think that a little more explanation of some of the key stages of the parasite would make the section more readable. I would probably be able to find my orientation on these nematodes as soon as I have found my main parasitology book. Snowman (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've tweaked a bit to make the life cycle clearer,I wouldn't want much more detail, since the article is about the bird, and the nematode has its own page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• How does the Water Rail become infected with Borrelia burgdorferi? In mammals it is a tick-borne infection, so I wonder if the Water Rail's ticks infect birds. Is there a Water Rail tick that can bite humans to cause Lyme disease? I would like the article to quantify the risk of Water Rails directly or indirectly transmitting Lyme disease to humans. Can I presume that Water Rail contribute to maintaining a population of wild Borrelia in birds and mammals? Snowman (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've clarified that it's a tick-borne infection in the rail too. The only Ixoides tick that I know bites water rails is I. frontalis, which I think is a largely avian tick that is unlikely to bite humans, and I don't know if it's a carrier of Borrelia anyway. The source makes it clear that there is little information about this bacterium in birds, although Mallards deliberately infected with the disease remained unsymptomatic. The listed reservoir species are pheasants, seabirds and migratory passerines. Only three individual rails were involved in the research, and only one was positive,, so not much to go on Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for image review, Nikkimaria, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It says "25.8mm". There should be a space before the unit name. It also looks like excessive precision to me. I'd recommend '26 mm'.
• It says "15.6 million km² (6 million mi²)". A million expressed as a fraction requires a mental calculation to work out what 0.1 of a million is. I'd rather just have the plain numeric value. I'd also be inclined to use the convert template to sort out all the formatting as follows (look at this in edit mode): '15,600,000 km² (6,000,000 sq mi)'. It's not a big issue, feel free to disagree.

Lightmouse (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for comments, I've inserted the missing nbsp and rounded as suggested. I'm less convinced by the "millions" comment, I've used that style in many facs without problems, but no big deal, so changed that too. For reasons I won't bore you with, I dislike the convert template. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The space isn't a big deal for me, but is mentioned at the official SI website, in 'ISO 31-0', and in MOS.

Precision is part art, part science so 25.8 mm versus 26 mm was just my opinion.

There are fractional millions in Wikipedia like "0.10 million" and "0.358 million" and they look so weird that I question it's use. The '15.6 million' isn't so bad, particularly because of the two significant figures to the left of the decimal. Use million if you prefer.

I opposed the convert template for a long time. I then drank from the poisoned well (parable of poisoned well at [6]) and now think it's faults are worth tolerating. But it's only a tool. If the reader sees the right thing, it doesn't matter so much how it's achieved.

Keep up the good work Lightmouse (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally great. A couple of thoughts:

• "The binomial name is, of course, the Latin equivalent of the English "Water Rail"." Yep, it's obvious, but I am not certain "of course" is so Wikipedia.

OK, done

• Para 2 of taxonomy could be smoothed. Not wild about the bold, and the tenses are a little funny.

Tweaked, any better?

• "the dark barring on the undertail undertail of this species is"

Sigh... how did I miss that?

• Perhaps a map showing the ranges of the subspecies? Perhaps I am spoilt after seeing the likes of File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg, but it would be interesting.

I thought about that, but decided against. The three main breeding ranges are fairly obvious, and adding subspecies dividing lines, and text or a key, makes the map cluttered. It aslo gives an illusion of accuracy which is unwarranted given the the lack of detailed knowledge of the Asian breeding ranges. My sources do not show the ssp on their maps either

• Is R. a. hibernans completely extinct? It's not clear. (See para 2 of the distribution section)

• Clarified, the birds outside Iceland came from that breeding population, so all gone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I will read the rest of the article later. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for review so far, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more thoughts-

• "A Welsh study suggested that winter territories overlap" What does that mean?

• changed to individual winter territories overlap, with each bird using a significant proportion of the reed bed — is that clearer?

• "in the lava" Not actual lava, presumably?

• Well, yes actually, lava refers to the solid as well as the liquid, but changed to solidified lava for clarity

• In the predators and parasites section, don't be scared to link to articles on species. Redlinks are not a bad thing.

• redlinked, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to turn blue

• "The louse Philopterus ralli and a nematode Strongyloides avium, have been found on the subspecies R. a. indicus." Lose the comma?

• lost

• "Water Rails have been eaten for thousands of years" Specify by humans?

• added

• Seems to be a bit too much details about the minks- are they of particular note in relation to Water Rails? If so, it's not clear.

• the introduced mink exterminated an entire subspecies, and came close to clearing the Hebrides. It's a particularly potent threat to wetland creatures in Europe (eg 90% losses of Water Voles in the UK) since the only native predator so well adapted to wetlands is the otter, which specialises in fish. As opposed to the harriers etc, losses to mink, which kills more than it can eat, place an unsustainable burden on this and other marsh species. I thought it was worth explaining how it spread through the Scottish islands, but if you think the history is unnecessary, it could go.

Generally looking great. J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• thanks again for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support (providing everything else checks out, which I am sure it will). Nice work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for support and kind words

• Support (moral or otherwise) as birds wikiproject co-member. I read through it and nothing jumped out as needing improvement prose-wise. It looks like this one came together really well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for review, kind words and support, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, with a few comments:

• If it is so closely related to the African and Madagascar rails, how can it be more closely related to Gallirallus than to other Rallus?

• I don't think that's what I said, the text states that it is the most closely related of its genus to the Pacific Gallirallus rails

• If the genus is monophyletic, how can it be more closely related to Gallirallus than the other species are? Ucucha 12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I read the source as meaning that the whole Gallirallus genus diverged from an ancestral Water Rail that spread from Asia into the Pacific, presumably changing enough to become a different genus. I'm no geneticist, if what Taylor says is wrong/unclear/misleading, I'll take out that non-essential comment.

• Why do you use the Catalan "Eivissa" instead of the common English form "Ibiza"?

• Its the version used in the (English language) source, so I've followed their usage, but it's linked to Ibiza

• "vagrants have been found in the Azores, Madeira, Mauritania, the Arctic, Greenland and Southeast Asia"—the text previously says parts of Southeast Asia (e.g., Borneo) are within its normal range

• Good point, changed to south of the normal range in Southeast Asia

• In Indonesia, that is? That seems the only part of Southeast Asia that is south of its normal range on Borneo. Ucucha 12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, on checking, it's just Malaysia and Vietnam, so changed to that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 29 May 2011 (

Ucucha 11:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC) UTC)

• Thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:10, 30 May 2011 [7].

---

RAF Northolt

Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has come a long way in recent months and I feel it meets the featured article critera. It was recently promoted as a good article, has been peer reviewed and had copy edit. In my opinion it is well referenced and covers the history of the station well. Harrison49 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - it's not perfect, but it's much improved, and I now feel it meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Comments - issues adequately addressed to remove opposition. I'll try to offer further comments later. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose at this time

• "Runway 26/08 had been extended in February that year to accommodate the larger transport aircraft required by the Command" - source?
• "As a result, Northolt has been extensively redeveloped with new facilities for these operations." - source?
• Avoid using one-sentence paragraphs and other choppy constructions
• WP:OVERLINK - don't link common terms like Europe, don't repeat links (especially in close proximity) (rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), not fixed)

Many links have been removed. Could you point out which articles shouldn't be linked to? Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I delinked everything I could come up with a reason to delink. Let me know if it's not good enough, Nikki, it's not what I usually do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MOS edits needed - don't use single quotation marks except within larger quotes, check hyphen/dash use, etc (Rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), remaining issues include linkrot)
  • Not something I usually check, but I've run the link checker at the top right of this page, and that's the only dead link. Anyone have a substitute? - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It was a PDF, so I have linked to the page the PDF is linked to from. It appears that when the file is linked to from elsewhere, it displays as being unavailable. Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• I think more copy-editing is needed - for example, "during the First World War I" (rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), issues remain - for example "an annual maximum of 7,000 a year")
  • Amazing ... how did you find the only one so quickly? I just went through the article again, and found no other redundancies (within a sentence at least), with the arguable exception of two "alls", which I've removed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Referencing needs to be checked - missing bibliographic details for Birtles 2010 and Bader 2004, books sources need page numbers, referencing format is overall rather inconsistent
• What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. So far, references have been added for the first two points, several repeated links have been removed, the copy edit mistake you have highlighted has been fixed and the source you have drawn attention to has been replaced with a book source. The other references given to books withot bibliographic details should be on the way as these were added by another user who I have asked to add them in. Harrison49 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A new copy edit has been completed and the referencing has been harmonised. I am in the process of getting the page numbers for the Bristow source. Harrison49 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers for the Bristow source have been added. The book does not have an ISBN which explains the absence of this. Harrison49 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are still issues with wikilinking - for example, Her Majesty is a dab link, RAF West Ruislip is repeated, etc - and referencing format remains fairly inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will remove the extra links, however, what is inconsistent in the referencing format? I have removed the author details where individual names were not available and the names of the organisations responsible had been used in their place. Harrison49 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some examples: in ref 17 the author is listed first name first, whereas in most other refs the author appears last name first; ref 12 repeats "Royal Air Force" for both author and publisher while ref 2 does not; "Hansard" is not an author but the name of a publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, these have now been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Further comments - Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• "with services transferring from other stations" seems quite vague, even for the lead. I would just omit it completely
  • Agreed, I removed it because it was implied by the first half of the sentence, but I wouldn't object if someone wants to add more detail (probably not in the lead). - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Use of "whilst" is considered to be somewhat deprecated
  • I will gleefully replace "whilst" whenever I see it at FAC, but only if we can get a stronger consensus than we've been able to get so far. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• "They then sought an aerodrome" - are "they" the aviation pioneers or the British Army?
• "led to the need for" -> "necessitated"? Check for other instances of excessive wordiness
  • Done, and checked. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If I may, Nikki, I'd like to pull in both directions here. I encourage anyone bringing something to A-class or FAC to read it through slowly thinking about "tightness". This isn't just a fussy copy-editor preference; if a "tighter" way to put something occurs to you, it will usually be clearer and easier to read, and sometimes it fixes problems you didn't even know were there. OTOH, don't force it; the time spent obsessing over word choice or grammar might be better spent writing another article, especially if you're not that comfortable with word choice and grammar. Others can help with the polishing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Glebe Farm in Ickenham, Hundred Acres Farm and Down Barnes Farm" - are these all in Ickenham? If so, reorder, if not, where are they?
  • Agreed that knowing where the farms are would help, and if you don't know, maybe some more general description (what county, near what city) would be better. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I've added that these were in Ruislip.
• Is "British Government" a proper noun (ie. is that the official name)?
  • I've lowercased all 3 instances of "government"; anyone have a problem with that? - Dank (push to talk)
• Additional hyphens needed, for example "fifteen month period" -> "fifteen-month period
  • Done. Checked month, day, week, year. - Dank (push to talk)
• Conversion for "within two miles"? (and did they just have really bad aim?)
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• What is a "day fighter base"? By "civilian flights" do you mean commercial flights or recreational flights?
  • A day fighter base was where fighter aircraft optimised for daytime operations flew from. I've changed this to read "a base for daytime fighter operations".
• "the crew's lack of understanding of English and military air traffic control procedures had contributed significantly" - the procedures themselves or the crew's lack of understanding of them contributed to the crash?
  • Seems clear; does it seem implausible? - Dank (push to talk)
    • I've added "both" to make it clear that the crew struggled with both points.
• Wikilink aggregate?
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• Don't capitalize "the" in "the Queen". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Judging purely from ghits, I'm not sure about this one. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria is right, no capitalisation of "the". Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Most reviewers prefer to see consistency on "First World War" vs. "World War I". We tend to prefer "First World War" in BritEng and "World War I" in AmEng, but I don't think it matters. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. See if you can either do without them or find a way to work them into the narrative.
• Ref 61 is oddly placed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Dank. The GOCE copy edit replaced most links for the First and Second World Wars to read World War I or II, per their article names. I have changed all mentions so that this is the same throughout. The reference 61 now has a supporting line and I have expanded the single sentence paragraphs. Harrison49 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. I checked the things Nikki mentions above; I got most of them the first time through, and I've combined the one-sentence paragraph with another paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments -- Taken first pass at the article, making various trims and tweaks. While it looks quite comprehensive, I'm not entirely sure about the way it jumps about in time, though I appreciate this is to try and keep related information together. Will have another look from top to bottom tomorrow, when I review references and other aspects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Had another look, further comments:

• Structure/flow: I still think the jumping back and forth in time, even if it's to try and keep related info together, perhaps does the article more harm than good. This sort of thing is fine when done sparingly but it seems a bit wearing here. For instance in "Battle of Britain and Second World War" we go from 1939 to 1937 to 1943 to 1940 to 2008 to 1940 to 2010, all within the first four paragraphs. I think generally (not necessarily exclusively) keeping to a more conventional chronological narrative will work better.
• Referencing: The "Bibliography" looks like it should be labelled "Further reading" -- I can't see any citations to those books. The citations themselves are heavy going too, be better to create a "References" section where you list your full book titles once, and then cite them in short form, e.g. "Birtles 2010, p. 22" or something similar.

Time for another breather, be back again as/when things are modified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Would the style of the reference section in the Avro Vulcan article be worth copying for this one? Harrison49 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That style should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the reference style and changed most of the history section to run in chronological order. I've kept the paragraph in the later civil and military use about accidental landings together as the stories of the two 707s fit quite nicely. How does this look? Harrison49 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts responding to these comments. Reckon it flows better now. I've made a few minor mods and also alternated the images to mix things up a bit and reduce stacking on wider screens -- let me know if I've mucked up anything. Last thing I want to check is the references themselves and if they look okay to me I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks a lot. Harrison49 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Had a quick check of references and they seem okay to me so I'm done, good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments A few captions have unnecessary trailing periods; use of the insignia in the infobox seems decorative and therefore fails the NFCC; intrigued as to whether a free alternative might exist to RAF_Northolt_aerial_view_1917.jpg. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the article. I've removed the full stops you've mentioned. The inclusion of the Royal Air Force ensign in the infobox is in line with other RAF articles to aid identification, and similar practice is carried out in US Air Force base articles as an example. I'm unsure if a free alternative of the 1917 aerial photograph does exist but if one is available, I'd be pleased to see it included. Harrison49 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an image expert, but isn't it possible that this image (the 1917 aerial photograph) is actually in the public domain? The description page says that it is subject to Crown Copyright, which implies to me that it is British government photograph. Wouldn't it then be more appropriate to tag it with {{PD-BritishGov}}, which states that images which are created by the UK government before 1 June 1957 are in the public domain? Given that it appears to have been taken in 1917, would that not mean that this actually is a public domain image? I'm not sure of this, though, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianRupert (talk • contribs) May 12, 2011 Comments:
  • in the Later civil and military use section, this doesn't seem correct to me: "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) aircrew killed during the Battle of Britain" - during the Second World War, Australian and New Zealand aircrew that participated in the Battle of Britain would have either been in the RAF, RAAF or RNZAF. The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps was a First World War formation, the abbreviation of which has later been used colloquially to generically describe military personnel from those nations. Using it in this way is probably confusing to readers, particularly if they click on the link. I would suggest just saying "British, Polish, Australian and New Zealand aircrew..." (and leave off the ANZAC);
    • Supported above, but I agree with AR that this colloquialism should be changed lest it confuse. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • for consistency, shouldn't the works in the Further reading section be arranged "Surname, first name"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • ANZAC was how this was presented in the A History of Royal Air Force Northolt book, though I agree it was confusing so I'll make the change. The aerial photograph is from the same book which is covered under Crown copyright so I played it safe with the image and uploaded it under the same licence. A specific photo credit is not given in the book so it is to be presumed it was created by the British government and can be tagged as being in the public domain. If this would definitely be the correct licence then I'll be more than happy to change that too. Also, I'm sorry for the oversight on the Further reading section. Thank you to everyone for your reviews and suggestions. Harrison49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly sure that the image would be PD-BritishGov, but does anyone know a FAC image guru who can confirm this or otherwise? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Update on the image: I asked at the Media Copyrights page and was told the {{PD-BritishGov}} was the correct licence to use. I have replaced the non-free licences for the image with that one. Harrison49 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Excellent, good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • in the first sentence of the Battle of Britain section, I suggest adding a clause "during the Second World War" to introduce the reason why RAF and Polish squadrons were defending the UK;
  • this sentence seems like it is missing something: "The aircraft used to fly him to meetings with other Allied leaders". -- "was used" ??
  • I'm not sure what this sentence means. Is it missing something? "The much larger civilian airport at Heathrow though its operations became constrained by its proximity to the new facility". AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for spotting those, I've corrected them in the ways you've suggested. Harrison49 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • All my concerns have been addressed, so I've added my support. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, the prognosticating octopus:

• "Northolt pre-dates the establishment of the Royal Air Force by almost three years." This is indeed a fun factoid, but it is sadly uninformative without giving the actual years that are relevant here.
• I don't understand why the second paragraph of the lead is not written in chronological order.
• Is there a difference between "civilian flights" and "civil flights"?
• "RAF squadrons including No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF are based at RAF Northolt whilst its location close to the A40 road link with central London has made the station popular with business people and politicians." This is what happens when you take two completely unrelated facts and try to bash them together into a sentence. I suggest dropping the "whilst" and splitting this into two sentences.
• I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not there should be an In popular culture section, but if you are going to include it, it should be mentioned in the lead.
• Question that should be answered in the lead: how big is this place? I would be happy with either a measure of area or the mileage of runway.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I've added in the date the aerodrome opened and a mention of film productions. I've also changed the paragraph to read in date order, replaced mentions of "civil" with "civilian" and made a change to the sentence you mention. The length of the runway is in the infobox but I'm not sure if it would fit in the lead. Harrison49 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How about putting it at the end of the first paragraph? That paragraph seems to be dedicated to numerical / bare-bones facts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added this in. How does it look? Harrison49 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to go! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Support as the GA reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Image question. Above, Jarry1250 says: "use of the insignia in the infobox seems decorative and therefore fails the NFCC". Harrison replies: "The inclusion of the Royal Air Force ensign in the infobox is in line with other RAF articles to aid identification, and similar practice is carried out in US Air Force base articles as an example." Could we get a couple of outside opinions on this NFCC issue please? - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(Drive-by reply after noticing Dan's appeal at WT:MILHIST) I would say that meets the NFCC, becuase it's being used for identification purposes, which we allow without question in articles on companies and organisations, for example. However, File:Northolt-600.jpg is too big to comply with NFCC 3b and should be reduced and tagged with {{non-free reduced}} so the old version can be deleted. I assume that's the one at issue, since the RAF flag itself appears to be user-made and properly licensed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've reduced the crest image to 125px. Harrison49 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, everyone happy? - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Was a spotcheck for WP:V and close paraphrasing done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotcheck

• " the station houses No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF, No. 600 Squadron (Royal Auxiliary Air Force), 621 EOD Squadron RLC (part of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment) and the Royal Logistic Corps.[2]" - ref 2 supports The Royal Squadron but not the rest of this sentence
• "Civilian flights ceased when the central area at Heathrow opened in 1954 with Northolt reverting to sole military use in May that year" - don't see this in the cited source
• "Thirty Allied airmen including servicemen from Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, Poland and the United Kingdom were killed flying from RAF Northolt during the Battle of Britain, of whom ten were Polish." - first part not in source, source gives only 5 Polish airmen from Northolt KIA
• "By 1952 the airfield was the busiest in Europe, with a total of 50,000 air movements per annum" vs "during 1952, Northolt was the busiest airfield in Europe, handling an annual total of 50,000 air movements" in source

Checked 5 web sources, found above issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I have corrected the references and changed the sentence relating to your second point. Harrison49 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Nikkimaria found issues of close paraphrasing and text unsupported by citations on a spotcheck, I would like additional review for same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Have the changes I have made related to the spotcheck made an improvement? Harrison49 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked another 6 or 7 sources. I didn't find any issues with close paraphrasing, but The headquarters of the London and South East Region (LaSER) of the Air Training Corps is also located at RAF Northolt doesn't appear to be in the given source. I don't have time to check all the web sources atm. I might be able to in the week if you think it's necessary, Sandy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful feedback, HJ; since you also found info not supported by the cited source, more checking might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt there'll be a queue of volunteers to mcheck the rest of them! I'll get to it... probably tomorrow (Monday) or Tuesday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell. To make it clearer, I've replaced "London and South East Region (LaSER)" with "14F (Northolt) Squadron". Harrison49 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The mention of the air cadet squadron has now been removed by MilborneOne. Harrison49 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've checked all the remaining online sources and found the following issues. It was better than I was expecting, given that two spotchecks reveled issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Following the relocation of the British Forces Post Office and Defence Courier Service from Mill Hill,—source doens't mention Defence Courier Service
• First paragraph of RAF Northolt#Project MoDEL redevelopment: only Bentley Priory and the Air Historical Branch are mentioned in source. Redevelopment (last sentence of the paragraph) checks out.
• Other airlines including Aer Lingus, Alitalia, Scandinavian Airlines System and Swissair used the airfield for scheduled services across Europe doesn't seem to be in the source (add: Aer Lingus is supported in the next online ref)
• He became regarded as an ace of the sky and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) after downing six German aircraft, before being shot down and killed on September 27, 1940 over Borough Green in Kent. (source) Paszkiewicz became a flying ace and received the Distinguished Flying Cross after shooting down six aircraft, before he himself was shot down and killed on 27 September 1940, over Borough Green in Kent. (article) That's almost verbatim.

Thank you for checking it through. I'm sorry about the mistake with references and have replaced some and added others. What happened was I included several facts in a paragraph or sentence with a reference only covering one or two. Hopefully these problems have now been addressed. I have also rewritten the sentences on Ludwik Witold Paszkiewicz, hopefully this is an improvment. Harrison49 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, they're easy mistakes to make. Btw, Defence Courier Service redirects to Defense Courier Service, which about an American unit. Is that the unit you mean or is there a British unit with the same name (that spells its name properly ;) )? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be the British version. I'll remove the link. Harrison49 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any remaining issues. The problems I brought up above have all been fixed and I read through the article while I was checking the sourcing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:25, 27 May 2011 [8].

---

USS Chesapeake (1799)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok here it is. Bad Luck Chesapeake the malignant frigate of the early US Navy. Bad luck followed me during the building process with all of the controversial and contradicting information about this ship. Hopefully I've done an adequate job of clarifying all the points. There is one external link used as a source that has gone dead three times and each time I've found the new link. Of course the link is dead again for the fourth time and I cannot locate it. I do have an offline copy of this PDF which I can mail to anyone wishing to verify the source. The article was wonderfully copyedited by the GOCE just recently. Be careful not to allow the malignant Chesapeake get the best of you. Brad (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in whether you provide volume number for citations to Maclay and Smith
• Why does the first dictionary include a date and the others do not?
• Why do some citations use curly brackets instead of parentheses?
• Ref 97, 102: page(s)?
• USS Lake Erie website is a work, not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Found one instance of missing volume number; fixed.
• The date was there as an editing reminder no longer needed. Removed.
• { instead of ( is a habit from typing templates all the time; fixed. (good eye)
• The 97 source has no page numbers on the document itself unless you want the PDF reader page number. The 102 source now has an external link to it but its only a one page archive document from the NYT.
• Lake Erie fixed. Brad (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Added sources comment: The links in the references all worked for me, though some were more reluctant than others. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as sure as the sun rises someone else will report it as dead. Brad (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed the link to the Daybook Journal(archive). It seems the site for volume 13 is broken (lucky 13=P) as one of its tag attributes aren't closed. The other volumes look fine.Smallman12q (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix but I still blame it on the Chesapeake Curse. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• "Mediterranean Sea area of operation" - can this be clearer and more precise?
• As a photo of a painting, File:USSChesapeake.jpg qualifies as PD-art, so copyright status depends on that of the painting, not the photo
• File:Onlyshotofchesapeake.jpg - page number?
• File:JamesLawrence.jpg - need more information. Is the author known? Where specifically on the source site can this image be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed caption a bit. Hopefully clearer. Brad (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • File:USSChesapeake.jpg has been updated with a PD-art tag.
  • File:Onlyshotofchesapeake.jpg There are no page numbers in that Gutenberg source. Instead I gave the Volume, Part and Chapter.
  • File:JamesLawrence.jpg was changed to File:JamesLawrenceATcommons.jpg where I've placed a PD-art tag. Thanks for spotting the pic issues. Brad (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Prose review. This went through A-class a long time ago, and I haven't worked on this one before. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "USS Chesapeake was a nominally rated 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy.": Even though "designed to carry" is not as accurate as "rated" (because she wasn't really designed to carry a specific number, she simply had a rating that allowed her expected armament to be compared to that of other ships), I've asked a couple of intelligent people what the first sentence means, and they couldn't figure it out. Would this work? "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy, designed to carry 38 cannons." - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "USS Chesapeake was a 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy" because "designed to carry 38 cannons" is dumbing down for the reader and it would also really upset the Age Of Sail Nazi's who insist on using "nominally rated". Brad (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I asked a question at WT:MIL#FAC question about "rated". I take it from "Nazis" that you're not going to insist on "nominally rated". How about this for the first two sentences? "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy. She was assigned an armament rating of 38 cannons, although the actual number of cannons varied." - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • This is quickly spiraling out of control. You want to remove "nominally" because no one understands what "nominal" (an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value) means. Removing "nominal" is dumbing down text but I'm willing to live without it.
      • "cannon/s" are always called gun/s; there is no such thing as a "38-cannon ship". All of the sources I've read on these age of sail ships use the word gun; never cannon.
      • The US Navy did not have a rating system like Rating system of the Royal Navy. There is no such thing as a "6th rate" US Navy ship. Applying a Royal Navy definition or pointing to an article about the Royal Navy for more information about a US Navy ship is ludicrous. And I don't care what Fifelfoo thinks just because he reads Aubrey novels. He should stick to referencing uniformity.
      • The solution is still: "was a 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy" as I pointed out before you ran the opinion poll. The explanation on rating vs number of guns is covered in the armament section. Brad (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Done per your suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • The US Navy certainly did have a rating system, it just wasn't the same as the Royal Navy. There were three ratings of frigates, 44-gun, 36-gun and 32-gun, which determined their complement and how much the officers were paid and had nothing to do with the designed number nor actual number of cannons/carronades/etc. on the ship which was determined by the individual captains during fitting-out. So officially, the Chesapeake was a 36-gun ship but through a mixture of a hasty redesign, contradictory official documents, and traditions that don't make sense to our modern eyes the ship was termed a '38-gun' ship as a compromise to all these forces, and that's the common way the ship is described all modern sources. Not all sources even mention the officially 36-gun part of the story and Brad explains this pretty clearly in the Armament section. Kirk (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm going to have to pour water on this "3 ratings of frigates" theory because that passage was found in Lardas, Mark (2008). American Light and Medium Frigates 1794–1836. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 1846032660. OCLC 183265266. I was able to obtain a copy of that book through my library and it's amounts to no more than a 48 page "travel brochure" on 36-gun and lower rated frigates by an author described in the book as an "amateur historian". More emphasis is placed on artwork and drawings than content. Lardas goes on to speculate that Chesapeake retained her 44-gun rating even after being built and was rerated to a 36 only prior to the War of 1812. However, I've have yet to come across any source that would support this theory. Lardas uses typical sources of which I've read several and none of them support argument. Brad (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Our naval war with France By Gardner Weld Allen has no mention of this 38-gunning stuff so it must have happened between 1801 and 1812; it should be in a congressional document somewhere related to the pay of Captains. Kirk (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Here's the 1825 Naval Register's official ship list w/three 'classes' of ships. Congress and Constellation are both listed as second class, 36-gun frigates [9]; not the time period or ship we're interested in but at least its something. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• A few notes on the capitalization of "Navy". American style guides have become more or less uniform in promoting what they call the "down" style of capitalization, meaning roughly, if you can get away with lowercasing, do it. If I were strictly following those style guides, I'd be lowercasing most instances of "the Navy". However, a popular approach to copyediting these days is to leave things alone if a particular style occurs throughout the work and it isn't horrible ... and "the Navy" isn't horrible in this article, when it's clear it means "US Navy"; the justification is that "the Navy" is what it's often called, so it qualifies as a proper noun. But it's not called "the young Navy" often, so I can't see capitalizing that, and I also can't see capitalizing "modern Navy" where it's ambiguous, following a long list of British ships. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you're looking for my approval or disapproval here. If you would like to go with lower case then knock yourself out. Brad (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying what the style guides say to help you make the call. If you don't care, I'll lowercase. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do you have any sources that will convince me that Quasi-War doesn't need a hyphen? Per the usual dictionaries, "quasi" isn't an English word. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There was only the instance of a missing hyphen in the lead. I fixed it; Quasi-War is now standard throughout. Brad (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This edit changes the meaning of clause nine of the Naval Act. It's important to note that construction was to begin on all six frigates and continue unless a treaty was reached with Algiers. The way you've worded it doesn't make that distinction. The clause was inserted into the act to appease those who disagreed with building a navy. Brad (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that; I've changed it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at USS Chesapeake (1799)#Chesapeake–Leopard Affair. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Was hoping for help finishing up, but Godot seems to be late. Plodding on.
• See if you can do something about all the short sentences in the first paragraph of USS_Chesapeake_(1799)#Chesapeake–Leopard Affair; I think the flow could be better.
• "In this regard Chesapeake ... was greatly inferior.": In which regard?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the entire content of the paragraph that explains Shannon's crew who were well trained and crack-shots with the guns. Therefore: "In this regard Chesapeake ... was greatly inferior"

Overall I'm not understanding why copyediting issues keep arising when this article was copyedited 3 times by two different editors in the GOCE. It seems like copyediting on WP means the personal preference of the editor instead of cleaning up the style of what's already there. Brad (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments, inclined to Support: An excellent article and very readable. Apart from some minor issues below, it is very clear to a non-specialist like myself. Just a few points before I switch to full support.

• Where does the name of the ship come from? (At first, I thought it said "cheapskate"!)

Clarified in the construction section. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "On 22 June 1807, in what has become known as the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, a precipitating event of the War of 1812, she was fired upon by HMS Leopard of the Royal Navy for refusing to comply with a search for deserters.": A slightly long sentence?

Entire middle paragraph of the lead section redone for clarity. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "or Secretary Stoddert rerated Congress and Constellation to 38s" The 38s does not look or feel quite right to me. At first, I thought "-s" was an abbreviation, but that might just be me. Feel free to argue.

38s was out of continuity with the rest of the article. Changed to 38 guns. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Chesapeake was launched without ceremony on 2 December 1799": Forgive my ignorance, but what does launching mean in this sense, as it says soon after this "Chesapeake first put to sea on 22 May".

Linked to ship naming and launching. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Quasi-War": Minor point, but reading this section, it is not clear that the war was ongoing while these events took place. It makes the section read oddly in isolation. Could a sentence be added to the beginning to give context to the war? Particularly useful for the non-specialist like myself who does not know anything about this event.

Done. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but not quite sure about this sentence: "The undeclared Quasi-War (1798–1800) arose from the French navy's seizing of American merchant ships and Chesapeake was launched on 2 December 1799." The two parts of this sentence do not seem obviously connected but seem to be implying the Chesapeake was launched in response to the war. If this is the case, I think a stronger word than "and" is required.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing this sentence, but please revert if it is wrong or does not work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That works very nicely. Thanks for the fix and the review. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "It took several months to get the vessels ready for sea; they departed individually as they became readied." Ready ... readied.

Rewritten. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The English minister to the United States requested...": Again, forgive the ignorance, but is "minister" similar to an ambassador? I have a mental image of a clergyman! I think clarification would help.

Changed to ambassador. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Leopard also got under way and preceded Chesapeake to sea": Was Leopard in port? The previous sentence suggests the squadron was all at sea.

Clarified. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Confusion and disarray were the state of affairs on the deck of Chesapeake": Slightly odd phrasing here: "was the state of affairs"? Why not just "there was confusion and disarray on..."

This is to point out the different "state of affairs" on both ships. Whereas Shannon had a well-trained and organized crew (mentioned previously), Chesapeake's crew were confused and running amuck not knowing what to do. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Contemporary sources place the number between 48–61 killed and 85–99 wounded.[89][90][91][92]": Does this really need four sources? If nothing else, could they be put in a note to make it tidier?

I have six sources that mention the number of killed and wounded and not one of them agree with each other. In this edit I moved two references away from the counts. The two references moved, back up the entire paragraph anyway. No need to overcite. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Chesapeake went into ordinary..." Could this be explained for non-specialists? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ordinary" = reserve. Changed to reserve. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've made one tweak myself (see above). Thanks for the prompt response, switching to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments I don't really have time to review this article at the moment, so I'm not opposing or supporting the nomination, but I do have a couple of comments:
  • The map showing modern borders in the 'First Barbary War' section is rather confusing, particularly with its current caption of "Barbary States in southern area of the Mediterranean" (which seems to be outright wrong as most of the countries it depicts didn't exist at the time). If a map showing the borders at the time of this war isn't available, I'd suggest developing a new map by marking a blank map of the southern Mediterranean with the relevant locations.
    • There are two other maps I found: File:Barbarie - 1806.jpg and long file name but neither of them are in English or very appealing visually. If the map is a problem I'd rather just remove it as there is no suitable replacement at present. Or maybe I can sneak in File:Barbary coast 1983.jpg. Think anyone would notice? Brad (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is Theodore Roosevelt's book still considered a reliable source? He's better known for his enthusiasm for the US Navy (and, of course, being the President) than the quality of his scholarship. I'd suggest replacing all uses of this book with references to more recent works, if possible. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The most recent book I'm aware of and have here is Toll's Six Frigates (2006). Toll uses source documents as a main biblio but his secondary sources include Roosevelt as well as Beach, Chappelle, Cooper, Fowler, and the further reading book by Poolman. It also contains many other books that I've read which were not applicable to this article itself. With that in mind there aren't any large discrepancies between sources in any listed for this article. Toll has on several occasions provided new light on a subject such as the discrepancies over the number of killed and wounded on Chesapeake after her capture. Wherever a more recent book reveals new information I've made sure to note it. Brad (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • And noting that Fowler (1984) and Beach (1986) also use Roosevelt. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Some ignorable comments:
• Infobox: The armament is cited but I've seen in other places she was armed with 28 18-pounders and 20 32-pounder carronades which leaves out any chasers or cannon on the main/spar deck; you might be better off using Danfs' 1807 armament.
  • Ignorable maybe. In "other places" where have you seen this? I'm listing the 1813 armaments since that was her most in/famous skirmish. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This table says 15 18-pounders, 10 32-pounder carronades and a 12-pounder carronade as a top gun (and I'm not sure what that is...) for a total broadside of 605 lbs. Kirk (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, I saw in this bibliography an article entitled: Purcell, Hugh D. "Don't Give Up the Ship!" United States Naval Institute Proceedings 91 (May 1965) which our library happens to have in the stacks. On p. 85 he says the ship has 49 guns with 4 carronades on the forecastle with a 18-pounder cannon as a chase gun, but unfortunately, he didn't cite his sources. Kirk (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your high level of sleuthing (something seriously lacking at WP) but I feel this is an issue that likely will never be solved. A lot of source documents themselves contradict each other and there doesn't seem to be any one source that agrees with another regarding guns. When an author can't cite a source then he is likely making a WAG just to get his publication finished. Additionally I don't really see a purpose in nit-picking over the location of the guns; it's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Brad (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Not trying to nit-pick; its a mystery to me why the sources we use don't agree (and don't cite their sources). Kirk (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Gun Deck

28 x 18-pounder (8 kg) long guns

18 x 32-pounder (14.5 kg) carronades

Spar Deck

2 x 12-pounder stern chasers

1 x 18-pounder bow chaser

1 x 12-pounder (5.5 kg) carronade (Guessing the roles...)

• This matches the other org. frigate articles, but both tonnage & displacement? And no unit of tonnage?
  • I need specific sources to cite. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the C vs. Shannon section, add a sentence to the lead paragraph.
  • Add what sentence? Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Its a two sentence paragraph, that's all; I couldn't think of anything.
• Mention 3rd Lt. William Sitgreaves Cox somewhere (C vs. Shannon or 'cursed' paragraph)
• Nice work - only two to go! Kirk (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and review. There are 3 more to go including the main article. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Very readable and educational. By this time most "nit-picks" have been taken care of so I can't find much of anything wrong with article. Keep them coming and thanks for contributing your talent to the Ships Project. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your high compliment. It was probably nice to read about something other than a battleship for a change ;) Brad (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

• My only quibble is that I think that there should be a comma after "38-gun" in the opening sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [10].

---

Richard Barre

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's a lawyer! Well, a proto-lawyer, sorta-kinda. Barre was a minor player in the dispute between King Henry II of England and Thomas Becket, and spent many years as a justice, royal official, and general all around go-fer for kings and bishops. Besides, this is the only medieval biography article you'll likely ever see with a citation to the science fiction magazine Analog Science Fiction and Fact! Much like Urse d'Abetot is as a layperson, Richard Barre is a prototypical medieval clergyman who never quite managed to secure enough royal patronage for a bishopric. Think of him as "everyman-clergyman". The article has a GAN review, as well as a copyedit by Malleus, and if there is anything lurking in any sources about him, I'd love to know about it, as I've been unable to turn up anything new. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the lookover! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. I'm not following: "After finishing his schooling, Barre worked for either Robert de Chesney, the Bishop of Lincoln or with Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, as Barre witnessed charters for both men in the period 1160 though 1164." Are you saying the fact that he witnessed charters proves that he must have worked for one of them, but doesn't prove which one?

  Doesn't the fact that he witnessed charters for both men indicate that he worked for both, not just one of them? Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. He could have just be around when one or the other needed witnesses. It's not always possible to be sure on these things - more later. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let's try "After finishing his schooling, Barre worked for either Robert de Chesney, the Bishop of Lincoln or with Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon; the main evidence for this is that Barre witnessed charters for both men in the period 1160 though 1164." Is that a bit clearer? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It could just be that I'm not a scholar of the period, but I'm still not getting it. I get that witnessing charters doesn't necessarily mean he worked for Chesney. So, how do we know he must have worked for one or the other, if witnessing charters doesn't prove he worked for either? - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Because he witnessed enough to make it clear that he was working for someone, and he had no other job that we know of (no visible means of support). It's a guess, but in this period, you basically rely on guesses. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've skimmed it ... no general comments, and I'll save myself some work by waiting til after you've made the edits you mention below before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• I removed the "with" in front of "Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon" to keep it parallel; if that's wrong, then some explanation of what "for" and "with" mean in this context would be helpful.

• Nope, it's fine as you changed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Although Barre returned to England, Longchamp did not return to his diocese, and much of the administration of Ely would have devolved on Barre during Longchamp's absence.": Not following; did Barre leave England?

• No. I've changed this and reworded it to reflect that it was Longchamp that returned. Not sure how this got mangled (quite likely it was me at some point). Double check that the revision works? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Letters of St. Paul": There are options; personally, I'd go with "Epistles of St Paul".

• I generally perfer "Letters" but have changed to Epistles (and removed the "St" ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, with bonus points for the superglue. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Leaning support from Nikkimaria - I checked sources (formatting, at least; no spotchecks, and I'll see if I can find any relevant unused sources) and found only one small inconsistency (compare the title given here with the one you use). Here's a long list of niggles on other topics:

• Fixed the missing "n" also. The actual print article has the Compendium title in italics. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Does "the law school of Bologna" have a name?

• Not in this period, no. Later it evolved into the University there, but ... at this point in time medieval universities/schools aren't organized or named in that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "He also briefly served Henry's son Henry the Young King. Barre served Henry as a diplomat" - it's implicit that this is Henry II and not his son, but someone unfamiliar with English history will likely get confused

• Now reads "Barre served the elder Henry as a diplomat..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Got anymore synonyms for "served"? Lead paragraph uses that verb three time close together

• Down to one "serve", replaced with "worked for" and "briefly was in the household of" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "in the period 1194–1199" - this sounds a bit awkward to me, maybe "from 1194 to 1199"?

• Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Because of Barre's close ties to King Henry, Becket considered Barre one of the king's "evil counselors", and was the subject of denunciations by the archbishop" - implied that Barre is the subject of Becket's denunciations, but it could be more clearly worded

• now reads "...Becket considered him one of the king's "evil counselors", and Barre was the subject of denunciations by the archbishop."

• "advising the king on how to resolve Becket dispute" - missing word?

Searched out, found, and returned the missing "the". Superglued it in so it shouldn't stray again. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The historian Frank Barlow argues that Barre was not specifically named was because Becket considered him already excommunicated from Barre's association with those under the church's ban" - unclear, and is there an extra "was"?

• Now reads "...argues that Barre was not specifically named in the restoration of excommunications because Becket considered him already excommunicated from Barre's having associated with excommunicates." I was really trying to avoid too many excommunicates, but "under the church's ban" is obviously not clear to folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that made it less clear. I understood the "ban" part, it's just that the last part of the sentence is a bit muddled. Maybe "considered him already excommunicated because of his association(s) with those under the church's ban"? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why link excommunication in second paragraph of "Service" and not first?

• User/editor error? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why use American spelling for an English biography?

• There shouldn't be. But I am American, so I usually tend to (mis) spell things in American ways. What got missed? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "behavior", maybe others. It's not internally inconsistent, I just found it odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Inserted the errant "u" in behaviour. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "there is evidence that Alexander ever made any written allowance for the coronation in 1170" - should that be "never"?

• Yes, never was meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Translate "in curia domini Regis"?

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Did the projected crusade ever occur? When did Henry die? Why was Longchamp exiled? A bit more context is needed for readers unfamiliar with this history

• I"ll take a stab at this later... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I've added two more sentences - one at the end of the last sentence of "Service" and one in the middle of the first paragraph of "Later years". Let me know if more is needed, I'm trying to avoid rewriting the entire William Longchamp article here...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's a "sure mention"?

• It means a mention in something that isn't possibly a forgery. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The Harley manuscript is shorter than the Lambeth manuscript, which" - not clear which manuscript the "which" is referring to

• Now reads: "The Harley manuscript is shorter than the Lambeth manuscript. Richard Sharpe, a modern historian who studied the both works, stated that the Harley manuscript "provides [a] well structured and..."" Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "the fact that Longchamp, who is named as "bishop, legate, and chancellor" but was driven into exile in October 1191, it is likely" - grammar

• Let's try "Because of the dedication to William Longchamp as "bishop, legate, and chancellor", it is likely that the work was composed between January 1190 and October 1191, as Longchamp only held those three offices together during that period."

• Some missing hyphens, for example "a late 15th century library catalogue"

• I suck at hyphens. Got that example. Hopefully Malleus will hunt for others? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "some satirical verses that were said to be Barre's" - that were owned by him, as the previous sentence discusses, or that were written by him?

• Written by, now clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note 2 needs editing for clarity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at clarifying it a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of quick replies here, and I should get to the rest of these later today.Thanks muchly for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: As usual, the scholasrship looks impeccable. I feel that the prose needs a little further tweaking:-

• In the lead, the sentence beginning "After King Henry's death..." is overlong and should be split
  • Butting in: the length is more or less in line with sentences in scholarly medieval articles I think, but I have no objections to shortening it or even splitting it if you can suggest a way to do it while maintaining the logical connection between the two halves. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I've cut it into two by the simple expedient of removing the "but" and starting the new sentence with "During the reign of King John..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• In Early life, "he was related" is ambiguous. Does it refer to Richard or Hugh?
  • Sorry, that was my language. Changed to: "Barre was related to the Sifrewast family, knights in Berkshire, and had a relative, Hugh Barre, who was Archdeacon of Leicester in the 1150s." Does that work, guys? - Dank (push to talk)
• On the question of who he worked for, discussed above, there seems such uncertainty about this that I think you should say "he may have worked for..."

• I've qualified with "seems". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• "By 1165, Barre joined the household of King Henry II of England" should be either "In 1165..." or "By 1165, Barre had joined..."
  • Oops! Fixed with "had joined", but that might be wrong. - Dank (push to talk)
• Service to King Henry: another convoluted sentence, beginning "In September 1169, Barre was sent...", needs subdivision
  • Agreed, that sentence splits neatly in two. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• I feel that, when it is stated in the text that "there is evidence", the nature of such evidence should be briefly indicated in the text.

• Let's try "... but there is no written evidence that Alexander agreed to allow the coronation in 1170." that better? It's hard to sort out exactly what went on when and why in the whole Becket affair... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Later years and death: Likewise, I think the statement that "he may have been alive as late as 1213" should be attributed in the text.

• Added the necessary qualification ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I have raised points already highlighted by other reviewers but not yet implemented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I addressed most of these. Thanks for the review! (Did you notice I did two peer reviews last week?) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: All issues addressed now. I have said before that the value of these articles is that nowhere else is there such a body of work accessible in one place. So keep them going (and keep up the peer reviews, too, please). Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Support just a few minor comments:

"During the reign of King John, Barre was no longer employed as a judge". This sentence doesn't read particularly well. Perhaps changing the sentence into the active voice would help? Was Barre sacked or did he resign?

• This is actually the correct method - judgeships didn't really exist, the king appointed judges ad hoc, and after John took the throne, Barre was no longer appointed. So sacked or resigned doesn't really apply - he was "no longer employed". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"During January and February 1170 Barre was engaged in a diplomatic mission to the pope in Rome" -- active voice might be better here too if we know who engaged Barre.

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"In 1187, Barre was once more employed on a diplomatic mission by King Henry" Too many words -- change to active voice?

fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"The work arranged passages from the Bible under topics, and then annotated the work" doesn't make sense - "the work... annotated the work"?

changed to "annotated the passages" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"publicly published" tautological? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case, this is correct - as the act of "publishing" as we know it wasn't quite there in the middle ages. Technically every manuscript that was written was "published" but many were not intended for circulation - such as this manuscript. That it survived showed that it had more use than Barre thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you very much for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Meets 1a as far as I can tell. Seems comprehensive enough. ceranthor 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: 1c / 2c / Sources. One fixit: footnotes: "Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England" italics please for the title!. I love your citation style for history articles, btw. I conducted 3 randomised plagiarism / copyright spot checks and all three passed. DOIs are correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (I had lost Nikki's source check in the above; but multiple eyes always help Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC))

Fixed, and thanks for the review. And thanks for the praise on the citation style. I particularly detest the "Name (year) p. #" style of citation, because I can never remember what YEAR the works are published in. Makes so much more sense to use a short title so folks can find the thing... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Images - there is one, it's appropriately captioned and licensed, you may wish to throw on a FoP-UK tag but that's not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [11].

---

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Nominator(s): — GabeMc, Malik Shabazz, Protonk (talk)

We are nominating The Autobiography of Malcolm X for featured article because after it's GAN, Peer Reviews, and three FACs we believe the article to be FA worthy. — GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this at its last FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Images have been previously checked and okayed, no changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Further reading should be a different section from references. "References" list all the references about the info in the article. "Further reading" provides links or any other books that the reader can go and get their hands on, which are not cited in the article. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources: Not a problem, checked out well last two FACs, no material changes now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from a co-nom: We had a lot of questions in the last two FACs about the tone of the construction section as well as its presentation of Haley. I don't want to say those questions were prima facia unworkable but I got the feeling that many of them would have been resolved had those editors sat down the the secondary sources. Perhaps this is our fault for not being as clear as possible, but the questions about Haley's unorthodox role as a "ghostwriter/co-author" were central to late scholarship of the Autobiography. As such it is hard to take seriously a complaint that the word "unique" is somehow unecyclopedic or inaccurate. Multiple sources lavished time on the nature and implications of Haley and Malcolm's collaboration and the article would suffer were we to impose unnecessary stricture on the text because some editors are incredulous that the sources say what they do. Many of the volumes cited are available on google books and I am happy to recover and scan copies of those which are not for interested reviewers. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, with comments.

• I'm surprised there isn't more detail on the origins of the Autobiography. What prompted Haley to approach Malcolm X with the idea (if indeed it was his) after he'd written about Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam in the past, and was it clear what Malcolm X was expecting? More explanation on this could perhaps set up better the dynamic between the two during the writing process itself.
  • I'll talk about this more, but it is far from clear what the relationship between the two men was like before they started the autobiography. Even though Haley wrote about NOI and Malcolm previously, Malcolm treated him with a great deal of suspicion. There is some really sketchy speculation that Malcolm was worried about Haley fictionalizing things (as he did to some extend in the autobiography and to a great extent in Roots) but only one source mentions this concern and only very briefly--brief enough that I get the feeling the source is imputing their knowledge of Roots into the relationship between malcolm and haley. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I added some detail about the impetus of the Autobiography. — GabeMc (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• I notice "Though Haley is nominally a ghostwriter" was changed to "Though Haley is technically a ghostwriter". I believe this was a change in response to Jakob's comments at the last FAC, but to me this is more confusing; "technically" suggests the opposite to "nominally", in that it says that Haley's role was definitely (in a technical sense) that of a ghostwriter, which is contradicted by the scholars you then cite. What was wrong with "nominally" that "technically" fixed? Was Haley originally credited as the ghostwriter (which would suggest "nominally" as the best word, although perhaps "ostensibly" would work better)? This might appear a minor point, but it introduces to the reader of the article Haley's role in the work, and it's critical for understanding the rest of the article that it is clear.
  • I think nominally is fine but ostensible may be better. Technically is the wrong word. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I changed it to ostensibly. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Marable argues that a critical analysis of the Autobiography, or the full relationship between Malcolm X and Haley, do not support this view". Does, surely (I mention it here, instead of changing it directly, because it could be an AmEng thing. Perhaps Dank can offer guidance).
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Are the in-quote clarifications in Stone's quote in Narrative presentation really necessary? Can't the article's reader understand without these clarifications that the writer is Haley and the subject Malcolm X (presumably Stone didn't have this problem when he wrote the source or he would have changed it himself).
  • I added the in-quote clarifications there because Jacob.schoolbach suggested it was confusing as it was. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Haley would secretly "pocket these sketchy notes" and reassemble them in an attempt to integrate Malcolm X's "subconscious reflections" into the "workable narrative". Haley's "pocketing" of Malcolm X's discarded notes for sub rosa integration of his "subconscious reflections" into the workable narrative is an example of..." A little repetitive. Perhaps "Haley would secretly "pocket these sketchy notes" and reassemble them in an attempt to integrate Malcolm X's "subconscious reflections" into the "workable narrative". This is an example of..."
  • Good suggestion, it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• "In April 2010, the New York Post reported that the missing chapters would be published with a foreword by Malcolm X's daughter Ilyasah Shabazz." While I'm confident you will, make sure the article is updated when this is released (and probably the Missing chapters section expanded as well).
  • Agreed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Apterygial ^talk 12:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Interesting and well-written article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is all of that "Further reading" necessary? It seems to be more of a list of books about Malcolm X, rather than further reading about *this* book about Malcolm X-- in other words, why are those here, instead of cited in the article about the man? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [12].

---

The Magdalen Reading

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88, Johnbod.

An oak panel fragment from a lost 1430's altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden. I saw it in London about two months ago, and it has qualities and depth you can never get from reproduction. Whatever. The hope is thats its as interesting to read as it was to write. Ceoil 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "Early Renaissance artists often conveyed this idea by portraying contemplative eyes, associating tears with words, and in turn weeping with reading." - source?
• Don't include leading zeros on dates
• Use a consistent formatting for multi-author works and refs
• Ref 31: why include only one editor here?
• No references to Campbell 1997 or White 1996
• Use English spelling for Antwerpe?
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. All done except: I cant see any leading zeros (and surprised I might have missed them, though its easy to develop a blind spot about these things), and I'd prefer to keep Campbel 1997 and White 1996 in the biblo as they are good authoritive sources and the section intended as a resource as much as evidence of fact. Your first point, re tears, will need a few hours to fix, I know where it came from, but its not where I am this evening. Bear with me. Ceoil 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the only leading zero was note 5 - now removed. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite at the end of the parapgraph covers the "contemplative eyes" section. TK (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This looks like a fascinating article, and I look forward to reading it through. In the meantime there are some prose issues in lead:-

• The citation in the first line is awkwardly placed in the middle of a phrase: "oil on oak[1] altarpiece". What exactly is being verified here? Couldn't the citation be placed at least at the end of the phrase?
• Some reference should be made in the first paragraph to the background figure, since its presence was evidently important in identifying the piece.
• "which she uses in biblical sources to clean Christ's feet". Might benefit from a slight rephrase: "which according to biblical sources she uses to clean Christ's feet".
• The construction: "A sacra conversazione, substantial portions of the original altarpiece are now lost" is not grammatically sound. It needs to be recast along the lines "The original altarpiece is a sacra conversazione, substantial portions of which are now lost".
• "The date..." rather than "The dating..."
• 1438 CE?
• Why is the artist referred to as "Rogier" in the lead, and "Van der Weyden" later in the text?

Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

All done, except I can't see "1438 CE". Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I was fussily enquiring whether the year 1438 was CE. Forget about it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

• Description
  • Will non-Christians identify "the Lord" with Christ?
  • "counterpoint" is not a hyphenated term
  • The quotes from Campbell in the first paragraph should be attributed"
  • "her quite detachment" → "her quiet detachment"
  • "Charles Darwent observed that a hint of the Magdalen's past is given through the nap in the fur lining of her dress and in the few strands of hair loose from her veil". This is a little cryptic for those unfamiliar with the Gospel depiction of the Magdalen as a saved "fallen woman". There is also the question of how Darwent deduces this past from the very sparse features that he mentions.
  • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns ("He...")

    All fixed except 'Charles Darwent observed'. Will take of. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Reworded to clarify the position. Darwent was writing for The Independent in 2009, so probably its recieved wisdom, taken from art historians, likely he deduced nothing himself just borrowed from sources (as we do, they are likely already cited in the article). Do we need to dig back further to reinforce, its the default position, fur lining and loose hair strands are strong indicators. Ceoil 00:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    Added a source and clarified this point. TK (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Altarpiece fragment
  • "...the point on the London panel" - this is the first reference in the text to "the London panel"; this description previously occurs in image captions. For clarity, it might be worth incorporating this wording into the lead.
  • "...which first appeared in 1907." I don't think "appeared" is the right word here.
  • I looked in vain on the image of the Catherine fragment for the "small triangle of red, outlined by a continuous underdrawn brushstroke" that Campbell describes.
  • A couple of awkward subjunctives in the last sentence: "would have been one of ... he would still have been". The word "was" could replace each.

    All done except, 'small triangle of red'. Need to find a high resolution version. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Added and clarified that the piece of red is only visible when the panel is removed from the frame. TK (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Iconography
  • The Luke page range should be a dash not a hyphen
  • I don't understand "in which the eyes of sinners turn contrite and tearful when forgiven by Jesus." Luke 10: 38–42 says nothing about eyes turning contrite, forgiveness, etc (see the link). Could it be that a different passage of scripture is intended here? This is important in view of the iconographic analysis which follows the biblical reference.
  • 2nd paragraph onwards: Until now you have always referred to "the Magdalen". Now we have: "Magdalen's devotion...", "Magdalen lived..." etc, as though this was her name. This is surely not correct; "Magdalen" means "of Magdala"; it is not a name.
  • We have the phrase "firmly established" twice in close proximity.

    All fixed except, contrite and tearful - might ask Johnbod to help on that one. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Replaced the bible verse which really only underscores her identification as the tearful sinner. The contrite, etc., is an extension of that, but more has been added to clarify. TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Provenance
  • No hyphen in "early 19th"
  • Again, paragraphs should not begin with pronouns ("It is...")
  • "the leading dealers" needs a little qualifying. "Haarlem's leading dealers", perhaps, or something similar?
  • National Gallery – which National Gallery? Location and link required
  • The comma after "plain brown" should be removed to preserve the meaning.
  • "Norwegian Christian Langaad" is a very poor formulation. Perhaps "a Norwegian collector, Christian Langaad"?

    Got these. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of these are relatively minor points which should not be difficult to resolve. PLease ping when you need me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: the link on Sybil goes to a disambiguation page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian, thanks for such a detailed view, and for catching those. We're working through, almost there. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: My comments listed above have been carefully addressed. For the sake of prose flow, I would humbly suggest that the words "who were" are inserted after "Nieuwenhuys brothers" in the final section. And I still think the "plain brown" comma shouldn't be there. However, I shall nitpick no more; overall this is a first class article – informative, well-researched and well presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help. Ceoil 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The dimensions of the painting are given in a figure caption. It might be useful to include this information in the body of the article.

Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• The date is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. Why c. 1435? Why before 1438?

Now explained the article body. Ceoil 22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The transfer onto a mahogany panel is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. Who did the transfer?

Now moved, and nobody knows - see below. Note added. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• My own preference if for the lead to have no inline citations (other than for direct quotes). The lead should summarise the article.Aa77zz (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the edits Aa77zz, getting to these. Your quite right about the lead and citations, but some of the info available is so sparce, there is not much to expand upon in the article body. But I'll see what I can dig up. I do remember a rationall for c. 1435 rather than 1438, just trying to remember where.....Ceoil 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is explained in John Ward's essay. Give me a chance to get up to speed here and will address it. Almost there .... TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• More on the date

The sentence for the 1435 and 1438 dates in the lead cites Drees (2001:501). The reference is incorrect. Drees (2001) is an edited book. Drees is the editor. Pages 500-502 contain an article with the title “Weyden, Rogier van der (c. 1399–1464)” by Nicola McDonald. On page 500 McDonald states that the Miraflores Triptych is dated to around 1435 while on the following page she states that Magdalene Reading (sic) is “commonly dated to this early period”. The 1438 date is not mentioned here but I notice that the National Gallery website claims that the picture dates from "before 1438". The McDonald article is not an ideal source. Does Lorne Campbell speculate on a date for the painting?

The McDonald article claims that “by 1435 he had settled in Brussels, where he was the town painter from 1436 until his death”. If you can find a better source then perhaps Brussels could be mentioned in the article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Two items in the Bibliography section are not cited: Campbell (1997) and White (1996). A "Further reading" section could be created for these. In addition, there is a recent book on Van Der Weyden that was published to accompany an exhibition held in Leuven in 2009. This could also be added to the "Further reading": Campbell, Lorne; Stock, Jan van der, eds. (2009), Rogier Van Der Weyden 1400-1464: Master of Passions, Waanders Uitgeverij, ISBN 9085261058. Aa77zz (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Citing edited books

When citing a particular page in an edited book, the author and title of the article cited should be specified - and not just the editors and title of the book. Page 203 is cited in Ridderbos et al (2005). This is an edited book and from the preview in google books the reference would appear to be to a page in an article by Till-Holger Borchert (pp173-217(?)). The citation should therefore be to “Borchert, 2005” and the Bibliography should contain something resembling: Borchert, Till-Holger (2005), "Collecting early Netherlandish paintings in Europe and the United States", in Ridderbos, Bernhard; Van Buren, Anne; Van Veen, Henk (eds.), Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 173–217, ISBN 978-9-053-56614-5.

Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Riches & Salih (2002) is also an edited book. The reference in the article is to page 130. Here again the author and title of the chapter should be specified. Aa77zz (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, these have been fixed. TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments on the lead

The lead does not mention the Provenance, and only briefly mentions the Iconography.

Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the second paragraph beginning with: “Its date is uncertain but believed” – is slightly ambiguous – does “Its” refer to the drawing or the painting?

Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence “The Magdalen Reading was transferred to mahogany panel in the 19th century; the Lisbon male head is still on its original oak panel.[5]” is rather detailed for the lead and appears slightly out of place at the beginning of the third paragraph that continues with a discussion of the drawing introduced in the second paragraph. Aa77zz (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead is reorganised, but still looking for more info on the transfer. Ceoil 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Campbell's catalogue says the transfer was "Certainly after 1828, probably after 1845, and certainly before 1860" when the NG acquired it (p. 394). He adds that the mahogany is West Indian swietenia. Added as a note. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• More comments

The sentence in "Dating and provenance" beginning "The Magdalen Reading can first be traced to an 1811 sale" cites an article in the Independent. The article does not support the details in the sentence - and a newspaper article is a poor source for this information. A more scholarly source is required.

I trimmed down the claims. I read the section of the Master of Passions book a number of weeks ago (in a book shop while traveling), and can say Darwent was borrowing heavily from Campbell; will have a copy fairly soon, and can reinstate the claims then, but though they are interesting they are not substantial overall, so gone for now. Ceoil 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any published information on the current condition of the painting? How extensively has the painting been restored? (The use of oil paint is currently only mentioned in the first line of the lead)

Beyond the panel transfer and cleaning of the actual canvas there is no mention of other restoration in any of the sources I have seen. Ceoil 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Added on this. Generally it is in "very good condition". Campbell has more on small problems than I have added. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any information in the uncited Lorne (1997) article that could be usefully added to the article? Aa77zz (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – another fine article from a great team of editors. This is the first time that I’ve participated in the FAC review process and I’ve been impressed by the rapid and thoughtful responses to my concerns. Today I popped into the NG to take a look at the picture – very beautiful. I was fortunate not to get delayed by the Obama visit to the palace. Aa77zz (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the helpful review and the support! I'm envious that you've seen the painting - I've not seen it, but hope some day to have the opportunity. TK (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, great help. Glad you saw the painting. What a room its in, two pics down from the The Arnolfini Portrait. Ceoil 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: Thorough job, excellent article. JNW (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JNW. Ceoil

Support It's very interesting. Good job...Modernist (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist! TK (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Disclaimer: I've made small edits to the article, asked questions on the talk page, and interact with the editors... but the main point is that the article has come along nicely since the FAC started and now seems objectively FA-worthy. Very well researched. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Image licensing

• File:The_Magdalen_Reading_uncleaned.jpg - would this not be PD-art as a photo of a 2D painting?
• File:Campin_Annunciation_triptych.jpg - PD-old, not PD-self. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've correct both. Ceoil 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Conversions (from m and cm to feet and inches) missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [13].

---

The Red Badge of Courage

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Less than a month after the 150-year anniversary of the Battle of Fort Sumter, I present to you the best known novel about the American Civil War. The Red Badge of Courage is striking, unique and very modern by today's standards, despite being published in 1894/5. Written by a sickly twenty-three year old young man who was born six years after Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox, its realistic portrayal of fear is captivating. The novel is one of my personal favorites, so I hope I've done it justice in completely revamping the article from scratch. It follows in the footsteps of Stephen Crane and "The Open Boat" (both FAs) as part of my one-woman campaign to improve Crane-related articles on Wiki. Red Badge was promoted to GA and recently had a PR. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I was recently involved in the peer review and all of my concerns were addressed during the PR or shortly thereafter. Well-done and fully meets the FA criteria. I note that the article has no disambuguation links and no dead external links. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Image review - the article has three images, all of which are freely licensed and properly sourced. The first two are PD-Old and the last one has an OTRS permission for its use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: A fourth image (the first edition cover) has been added to the article, and is sourced and verified. The newest addition falls under PD-1923 because it was published in 1895. María (habla conmigo) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. The new fourth image is also free (PD-US, published before 1923). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This looks a fairly comprehensive and readable article. The lead could be developed a little more in line with WP:Lead. There appears to be nothing from the Background section, and little from Publication history. A bit more plot would also be useful, as we learn little about that in the lead. In the lead we hear nothing about the initial criticisms of the novel, that it was a best seller, and not enough about its general importance. SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment! I expanded the lead slightly, going off your suggestions. María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent adjustments. SilkTork *^YES! 08:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at The Red Badge of Courage#Historical accuracy and inspiration. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Why not include both authors in shortened citations?
• Note 41: formatting
• Use a consistent formatting for anthologized essays
• How are you ordering multiple books by the same author? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fixes made: citations are now consistent and correctly formatted, as far as I can see. Thanks! As for your first question, I don't believe both authors are necessary in the shorthand citations, so I chose not to include them. The same was done for "The Open Boat". María (habla conmigo) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: As today's "On this day..." feature tells us, May 6 marks the anniversary of the Confederate victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville. As the article states, it's likely that Chancellorsville was Crane's intended setting for Red Badge. Perhaps a kind editor or two can honor history and review the article? :) María (habla conmigo) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - I thought this was a nice page when reviewed it for GA, and impressed with the additions since. I have few nitpicky, mostly MoS related, comments:

• Lead - I think it might flow better to begin the second para with the sentence "Although Crane was born after the war ... " It feels like a too much of a shift to go from Fleming as standard bearer to Crane, w/out a para break.

• Good idea; changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "he borrowed the private's surname" - bothers me a bit. Can a surname be borrowed? It's not really a big deal though.

• I agree it's awkward, but I couldn't think of a better way to word it at the time. Changed to "took" for now, but if anyone else has suggestions... María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Number consistency: two-hundred / 550. I think should be made consistent > 200/ 550

• Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• This coming from a person who is punctuation challenged but this "a version which was 5,000 words shorter than the original manuscript was printed" feels as though the "which was ...." part is an appositive and needs commas

• Added em dashes instead, if that's better? María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can't find it in MoS, but I thought we used "because of" instead of "due to"
• Chapter numbers need to be consistent chapter 9, chapter seven - good luck figuring this out in MoS

• Blargh! Made consistent. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• delink Great Britain? & link Norton?

• Done both. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the Binder edition questioned? Is a note necessary?

• The sentence continues to say that some feel Crane made the edits on his own accord. Is more explanation needed here? María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, not a big deal. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also something I can't find in MoS, but I thought we discouraged "amongst"
• Why is the biography problematic? Does this need a note?

• I've added a note; really, Beer just made stuff up. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Writing more than thirty years after the novel's debut, author Joseph Conrad agreed that the novel's main struggle was internal rather than external, writing that Fleming" > two instances of "writing". By the way, should that be thirty or 30?

Otherwise very nice job. I'll go off to delve through MoS to see if I'm wrong about any of the above and strike if necessary. Nice job on an important piece of American literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – regardless of the responses to the following very minor comments and queries:

• Background
  • "Crane was forced to publish the work privately" – not strictly true; nobody forced him; he resorted to doing so, no doubt, but not under compulsion
    • Changed to "chose". María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Publication history
  • "held onto it for six months" – I think (but am perfectly willing to be told I'm wrong) that this ought to be "held on to it for six months"
    • I think you're right; fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "John Berryman asserted that the story" – other people may not read it as I do, but the use of "assert" here seems to me to carry a hint that the assertion is disputed or even untrue. Would a neutral "wrote" do instead?
    • Sure, changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "two-hundred small city dailies and approximately 550" – odd mix of words and numerals for these numbers. I believe we are supposed to use numerals for numbers higher than ten. This would also apply to the chapter numbers in the same sentence.
    • Fixed the 200, but leaving the chapter numbers as is later in the paragraph; seven, ten and fifteen are much smaller, I think. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Great Britain" – if poor old Britannia needs a blue link, so does Uncle Sam in the lead. See WP:OVERLINK.
    • Agreed and removed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Plot summary
  • "Flemming" – he was "Fleming" in the lead. I am sorry to admit that I haven't read the book, and so cannot comment on which is correct.
    • That's just a stupid, no-good typo on my part. Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Deserts" – is this blue link likely to be used by any of your readers?
    • Hmm, I'm kind of inclined to keep it. It leads to desertion, which has an interesting explanation regarding military policy, etc. If you feel strongly otherwise, however, I'll remove it. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Historical accuracy and inspiration
  • "Thomas Beer wrote in his problematic 1923 biography" – in what way problematic? A brief explanation would be helpful here, even if only in a footnote.
    • See above re: Truthkeeper's point. :) I've added the note. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "where Crane's family at times resided" – the repetition of the name could be avoided in this sentence by changing this second incidence to "his"
    • Agreed, fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Themes
  • "yet is says the opposite" – "yet it", rather than "yet is"?
    • Yup, thanks! María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Reception
  • Really petty quibble, but what has "upon its initial publication" got that "on its initial publication" hasn't?
    • Just two extra letters; changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "a friend of the author's" – perhaps just "a friend of the author"?
    • Changed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • " the reviewer for the Critic" – The New York Times gets its definite article capitalised just above, but the Critic doesn't; seems unkind.
    • Wouldn't want him to be jealous; made consistent. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "in England when it was published in early 1896" – according to the archives of The Times, it was published by Heinemann (at two shillings and sixpence) in 1895. See "Publications Today", The Times, 27 November 1895, p. 12.
    • Aha, good catch. The source referred to a later edition's impact, but no matter. Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Notes
  • I see some IMDb citations here, but I understand IMDb is not accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source.
    • From what I gather, IMDb is acceptable if it's not used for critical input. Really, the links are just there to prove the films exist. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's my modest collection of quibbles, none of which sways me from the view that this is a first rate article, well-balanced, clear, a pleasure to read, and impressively referenced. Loud applause. Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I gratly appreciate your insightful comments, Tim -- and the applause doesn't hurt. ;) María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks - Due to the overwhelming majority of book-based sources (definitely not complaining there!), spot checks are a bit difficult. I checked the three web-based sources, however, and they all look good - they cover the information without any close paraphrasing. Dead tree sources taken on good faith. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Dead tree sources rule. María (habla conmigo) 01:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have lots of WP:PUNC queries on logical punctuation-- please review and doublecheck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [14].

---

Slow loris

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC); Sasata; Rlendog; Ucucha

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC critieria. This was a collaborative effort as part of WikiProject Mammals Collaboration. Like my previous FAC nomination, Conservation of slow lorises, this is article has been receiving a lot of traffic from due to controversial viral videos on YouTube. However, aside from reverted vandalism, the article has been stable, which in my opinion demonstrates its comprehensive and neutral nature. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimfbleak

• Dabs, links, images No dabs, all links OK, images all have appropriate licences. What am I seeing in File:Nycticebus coucang 003.jpg? It looks as if vegetation is growing out of the loris. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I missed this question. I think a small piece of bamboo is threaded through the wire mesh ceiling just behind where the slow loris is clinging. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments I'll add as I go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Stockholm: Impensis Direct. Laurentii Salvii. — I don't like this, you've translated Holmia, but left the rest in Latin, including the publisher's name and the book's title. Either the original Latin (best, I think) or translate the lot. Also there's an abbreviation.

• It looks like Sasata switched "Stockholm" back to the "Holmiae" for consistency. What's the abbreviation?

• "Direct." As it stands, it's not a Latin word, I assume it's something like directus, giving "printing directed by"

• Removed it, publisher is Laurentii Salvii. Sasata (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why is IPPL News a reliable source? It is the newsletter of a campaigning charity, no evidence of peer review or references. I'm not unsympathetic, but we are being asked to take a lot on trust

• A little bit of background on the research: When I first took on the "Conservation" section, my first (quick) searches turned up the IPPL newsletters, which were rich with information, but (as you pointed out) were clearly non-neutral. I originally had citations for as many as 7 issues, but fortunately, McGreal herself and others helped put me in touch with researchers who provided academic journal articles that offered nearly identical information. Once I managed to track down Nekaris and open a dialogue with her, I obtained access to numerous articles as was nearly able to replace the IPPL newsletters as sources. The articles that remain mainly revolve around Dr. Sanchez of the International Animal Rescue (IAR), which has a sanctuary in Indonesia. Some of the photos were taken by Sanchez herself. I suspect this veterinarian keeps her own records, as many veterinarians do. As for the differences between 85% and 90%, I suspect it was an estimate, and that's why I used the number from Sanchez's article rather than McGreal's. However, if numbers are published in a peer-reviewed source, I would promptly replace the information. But otherwise interviews with Nekaris also mention very high mortality rates. And also, news articles will also mention facts without citing sources, but that's considered okay. To me, that's more disturbing. I'd trust someone in the field who's actively involved in what's going on over a news story written by someone who might have done their research by searching on Google. I should also mention that McGreal works directly with CITES and other publications that are not cited in this article have referenced data from CITES and news reports about smuggling attempts.

• That's fair enough, I suppose my concern was the figures which seemed to have been plucked out of the air by someone committed to a cause. If they're based on her practice, that is a proper professional opinion rather than a guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• ''Hundreds of Indonesian lorises are traded domestically every year — Where is IPPL's data from?

• I don't think this was stated in the article, but in Conservation of slow lorises, there are several peer-reviewed sources that talk about the prolific domestic trade and give sampling data that support these claims. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• mafia, poor animals, brutally don't inspire confidence that we are getting objective research-based information

• Again, not used in this article, but "mafia" may be accurate for these black markets. There was an Animal Planet video on YouTube that showed undercover operations to expose the middle-men in the trade. Also, peer-reviewed sources also talk about organized trade. As for the language, they are allowed to express their opinions, as long as they are not introduced into Wikipedia. If the opinions are introduced, they need to be sourced. But as far as I can tell, this article does not introduce their bias. If you feel that the article does not represent both sides, then please help me find a source that either favors the illegal trade or disputes their numbers. I haven't found any opinions to the contrary, unless you count rants in YouTube video comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Often, the buyers are Western tourists or expatriates who sometimes pay up to 1,000,000 rupiahs — Where is IPPL's data from?

• Again, this is not used in the article. However, the information is not out of the ordinary. It is common in lesser-developed countries for foreigners to pay more for goods than the locals. The people know Westerners have more money, and they charge more. In Madagascar, it's called the "vazaha price." In fact, the families I stayed with insisted on doing the shopping for me when I bought food for the family because they knew I would have to pay at least 10x what they do. Otherwise, other reliable sources mention that internationally, prices for slow lorises in pet shops range between $1,500 and $5,000. I think 1,000,000 rupiahs (~$110US) is likely to be accurate for a street price. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• ''captive lorises often die of nutritional problems, pneumonia...dental infections, with a death rate of up to 90 percent Where is IPPL's data from? Other IPPL source, quoting Sanchez, says 85%. Why is the figure different?

• See above. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• including the Borneo — why the?

• I think it originally was intended to read "the island of Borneo", but either way, Sasata fixed it. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• chocolate plantation — a lovely image (pick your soft centres here), but I think it's more likely to be cacao (:

• Nice. Looks like I was following the source a little too closely. Anyway, Sasata fixed it. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see which ref cites McGreal 2007

• Good catch. It's been removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• just the Latin bit to sort, then I'll be happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Changed to support above, I'll see if I can get a page number for Linnaeus (I might only have the bird ones) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

Source review

• "Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire defined the genus Nycticebus in 1812, setting Nycticebus coucang (then called Tardigradus coucang) as the type species." - source?

• Added citation. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic information for Groves 2001, Martin 1979

• Added. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Does "Nekaris, Starr & Collins 2010" refer to the bibliographic entry that also includes Wilson?

• Thanks for catching this! I thought I had fixed all of these. Fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a way to distinguish visually between the two Nekaris et al. 2010 entries?

• If I stopped using {{cite doi}} and moved the reference back into the document, I could change the years from 2010 to 2010a & 2010b. However, Sfn does link these citations separately, so is it really needed? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs

• If you're referring to the Hagey, et al. ref, it's been added. If there are others missing it, please let me know. I didn't see any. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why provide location for one CITES PDF and not the other?

• Looks like Sasata got this one fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why is BBC News italicized and The Independent is not?

• Independent now italicized. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, etc

• I'll check again, but some of this is template-related. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the citation templates create double periods when there is an "et al.", particularly in editor lists. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how many authors you list before truncating with "et al."

• This should be handled consistently by the citation templates we're using. {{Sfn}} shows up to three authors, but if there are four or more, it truncates to one author + "et al." The citation templates seem to truncate after about seven or eight authors, and possibly less for editors. Either way, it's beyond the control of this article and more of an issue for the widely-used citation templates. If you know of a specific counter-example, please let me know. I didn't see any. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Retrieval dates are not required for weblinks to print-based sources, but for consistency you should provide them for all or none. Same with total page count for books

• Removed unneeded retrieval dates. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers (and if you do include them, be more specific than "U.S.A.")

• I added all the one I could do without having to mess with a template. VH, you'll have to add this info to the templated sources for this article to have consistent ref formatting, but I don't know if that's going to mess with the consistency of formatting of other FAs that use the same templates ? Sasata (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure all foreign-language sources are noted as such Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is done as far as I can see. Sasata (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Axl

• From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Slow lorises are most closely related to other lorisids, such as slender lorises, pottos, the false potto, and angwantibos." Why is "the false potto" singular while the others are plural? Also, why does "the false potto" use the definite article ("the")? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  There is only one species of false potto, so it was listed as singular. But thanks to you pointing this out, I checked the others and discovered there there is only one species of potto, so I made it singular as well. The others (galagos and angwantibos) consist of multiple species. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand your reasoning. However the sentence may seem odd to someone who doesn't know that reason in advance (like me). Would it be reasonable to use the plural forms ("pottos" and "false pottos")? After all, there are many individuals within each species. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This used to be a lot clearer when WP:PRIMATES used upper case for species and lower case for genera. Anyway, I've discussed this topic with another trusted editor who writes about mammal species, and although we both prefer the original usage, we don't see a harm in changing it if it makes things clearer for people who are new to lorisiform primates. Let me know if I missed any. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is the plural of "potto" really "pottos", not "pottoes"? Similarly, "angwantibos", not "angwantiboes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  The plural of "potto" is certainly "pottos" (per sources), and I'm 99% sure the plural of "anwantibo" is "anwantibos". – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Because of their close relation to lemurs and other lorisiforms, they also possess a toothcomb...." They possess a toothcomb because they are closely related to lemurs/lorisiforms? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'm in a rush and will have to revisit this one when I have more time. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do lemurs/lorisiforms possess a toothcomb because they are closely related to slow lorises? The reasoning is back-to-front. Naturalists assign slow lorises as closely-related to lemurs/lorisiforms partly because they have toothcombs.

In general, there are two types of answer to the question "why does this species have this particular (functional) anatomical structure?": 1. Their genetic constitution leads to development of the structure during the individual's growth. 2. The structure has a particular function that helps the individual/species in its life and/or reproduction. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I understood what you meant, but at the time I was in a rush and didn't have time to fidget with the wording. Anyway, I've made a change, so let me know if you like that better. Feel free to tweak as needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the layout. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• From "Evolutionary history", paragraph 3: "The living slow lorises are generally considered to be most closely related to the slender lorises (genus Loris) of India, followed by the angwantibos, pottos (genus Perodicticus), and the false potto...." Again, why is "false potto" singular while the others are plural? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  Same as above. "Pottos" has been made singular because, like the false potto, there is only one species. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• In "Evolutionary history", subsection "Taxonomy and phylogeny", why does the diagram show N. coucang three times? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Added a bit to the caption to help explain this. Sasata (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The new caption includes "The three individuals designated N. coucang were only tentatively identified, and their origins are unknown." But N. coucang is a species, not an individual. The diagram is supposed to represent phylogeny of Nycticebus. Perhaps you mean "The three branches"? This new caption is actually more difficult for me to understand. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How's "The three branches labeled N. coucang were based on individuals of unknown origin that were only tentatively identified." ? Sasata (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The diagram still doesn't make sense. There is no difference between the three branches with respect to the positions of the non-coucang branches. Can someone look at the original reference (Chen et al. 2006, p. 1196) and confirm the correct diagram please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is a simplified version of one phylogram presented in the article, simplified in that more individuals were tested than indicated here, but I grouped together end-nodes of identical species (for example, four pygmaeus individuals were used, but I've grouped them as one). The coucang branches differ with respect to the bootstrap values associated with them. I have not included bootstrap values on the phylogram here, as that would unnecessarily complicate the diagram, and is not normally done on Wikipedia. I've added a bit more about the results to the text. Sasata (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what "bootstrap values" means in this context. None of the articles "Phylogenetic tree" (redirected from "Phylogram"), "Phylogenetics", "Computational phylogenetics", "Clade" or "Cladistics" use this term.

The most helpful statement is "In the latter subclade, N. bengalensis and N. coucang are mixed together; the N. coucang sequences do not form a clade." However three coucang branches seems unnecessary. Two should be sufficient. (The statement, together with the following info about DNA sequences, makes me wonder if bengalensis really should be regarded as a separate species from coucang—but that is just my speculation.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, bootstrapping is a statistical technique that is used in the context of phylogenetic trees to determine how strongly supported each node of the tree is. In published literature, the nodes usually also show this value to demonstrate the strength of support for the node. Rlendog (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any advantage of three coucang branches over two. I understand that the original source had three branches because it included bootstrap values for each branch. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the source offers several phylogenetic trees and this one is so confusing, would anyone object to me removing the cladogram completely and simplifying the body text to say that phylogenic relationship between the species is uncertain, possibly mentioning the possible introgressive hybridization between N. coucang and N. bengalensis? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that would be best. I don't think it is essential to include a phylogenetic tree in an FA, and if the tree in this situation is causing confusion it may be best to do away with it. Rlendog (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the tree is useful. It clarifies some of the points in the text. I ask for removal of one of the N. coucang branches, leaving two. This is sufficient to illustrate the point of the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, that tree is one of several in the paper, so the presentation in this article suggests that one measure is more reliable than the other, which the paper does not suggest. By removing it and a lot of the complicated text explaining it, we can offer a more simplified explanation of slow loris relations, albeit ultimately uncertain. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you think that's best. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the cladogram and made some changes to the text. I hope it's still clear. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 2: "Unlike the slender lorises, however, the white stripe that separates the eye rings broadens both on the tip of the nose and on the forehead while also fading out on the forehead." However the picture shows that the slender lorises' stripe does broaden on the forehead. Indeed the broadening in the forehead is greater in the slender lorises. The stripe on the lower slow loris does not broaden on the forehead. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The key word there is "both". On the slender lorises, the stripe does not always broaden on the nose, as seen in the individual on the right. Also, the diagram isn't perfect, since it doesn't clearly show the fading the of the stripe on the forehead, as can be seen on the slow loris in the separate picture immediately below and on the right. You can see it a little better if you view the full-size image of the diagram and consider the depth you would see in real life (rather than just looking at a flat drawing). Although it's not perfect, this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios. If we remove the illustration, the information in the text becomes more difficult to follow. Anyway, I hope this explanation is satisfactory. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I am sure that you have searched around for free pictures, and this is the best that you found. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 3: "They lack the opsin gene that would allow them to detect short wavelength light, which includes the colors blue to green." I suppose that "blue to green" refers to the electromagnetic spectrum? Why not just "blue and green"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many shades of color within that range of the spectrum. But, to be honest, I don't see it being a big deal. I've changed it per your suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 5: "Their combined head and body length varies by species, with the smallest, the pygmy slow loris, measuring 18 to 21 cm (7.1 to 8.3 in) to the Sunda slow loris measuring 27 to 38 cm (11 to 15 in)." Could endashes be used for the number ranges? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Six of one, half dozen of another. I don't feel this matters, and if we change it here will we have to change it everywhere else in the article? Thanks for the thought, but I'm going to pass on this one. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Other parts of the article already use endashes, such as the subsequent sentences in the "Description" section. Using endashes throughout would give the article a more consistent appearance. For what it's worth, I am still reading through the article and I would be happy to make these changes if you (and the consensus) agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the format is inappropriately applied in the "Diet" section, paragraph 2: "animal prey makes up 30%–40% of its diet." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't think there's a requirement that you stick to one format, or that one is more appropriate than another. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 7: "They can tightly grasp branches with little effort because of a special muscular arrangement in their hands and feet, where their thumb is nearly perpendicular (~180°) to the rest of the fingers...." Perpendicular is not 180 degrees. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. One of the three sources says perpendicular, but the more detailed texts say "nearly 180° from the other digits". I've adjusted the text. By the way, if your points have been sufficiently addressed, please strike them out so that we know what's done and what remains. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• In "Distribution and diversity", paragraph 1 uses "Burma" while paragraph 2 uses "Myanmar". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent catch. I've standardized to "Burma." – VisionHolder « talk » 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Distribution and diversity", paragraph 3: "encounter rates ranging from as high as 0.74 lorises per kilometer for N. coucang to as low as 0.05 lorises per kilometer for N. pygmaeus." How is "encounter rate" defined? What does "0.74 lorises per kilometer" mean? Should this be "square kilometer"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The paper talks about transect studies, where you talk along a straight path through the forest and record what you see at at exact distances along the path. Therefore, the number would be a rate for how many slow lorises were encountered per kilometer. I'll try to clarify in the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and ecology", paragraph 1: "those [home ranges] of males may be larger than those of females." This statement is vague. It implies that home ranges of females may be larger than those of males. Is there any difference between the home range sizes of males and females? Perhaps the home ranges of males are often larger than those of females? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Reworded to read: "...and those of males are generally larger than those of females." And btw, not to complain—because we certainly do appreciate your meticulous review—but this FAC and your review has been going on for over a month now. Yet you are little more than half way through the article. Is there anything I can do to help this along? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have as much time as I would like to spend editing Wikipedia. (I am sure that you already guessed that.) I appreciate your tolerance of my questions & comments. However there is no deadline for the article (that I am aware of). If the FA director/delegate feels that consensus has been achieved, he/she should promote the article. If my review is the only outstanding issue, I would not object to promotion of the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something in my control that was holding you up. I understand the busy life completely. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and ecology", paragraph 2: "Documented predators include snakes, the crested hawk-eagle (Nisaetus cirrhatus), and orangutans (Pongo borneo). Other potential predators include cats, sun bears, binturongs, and civets." The following paragraph has sun bears and binturongs wikilinked with their binomina. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Ucucha 10:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• From "Behavior and ecology", paragraph 3: "In tests ... the toxic secretion alone generated only mild interest." Should this be "mild aversion"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, "interest" is correct; the source talks about "curiosity". Ucucha 10:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • In which case, use of the word "only" implies that the observer was expecting greater interest. Perhaps remove the word "only"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Removed "only". Ucucha 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and ecology", paragraph 4: "Studies suggest that slow lorises are polygynandrous." Couldn't this be a more definite statement: "Slow lorises are polygynandrous"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Their behavior is not fully understand, and the source is not definite, so I don't think we can say that. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Diet", paragraph 2: "Captive pygmy slow lorises also make characteristic gouge marks in wooden substrates." What are "wooden substrates"? Trees? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wooden substrates are things made of wood that they walk on: things like branching and wooden platforms are examples. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know what "wooden substrates" are until I read your explanation just now. Can you clarify this in the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added something to clarify. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Diet", paragraph 2: "Several anatomical adaptations present in slow lorises may enhance their ability to feed on exudates … a short duodenum." How does a short duodenum help them to feed on exudates? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the team discussed this before. Unfortunately, the source does not explain, and no other source discusses it. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the team know why a short duodenum is helpful (despite the lack of a reliable source)? If not, perhaps you would consider removal of this from the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've written to Dr. Nekaris, so hopefully she'll get back to us about it. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And 5 minutes later, I got a reply:

"In my article on exudates, I bring up the short duodenum, and this was also cited by Swapna. I got the original citation from Osman Hill 1953. Gum is a hard to digest and rather toxic resource so the idea apparently is that it can sit in the stomach for sometime but go through the duodenum fairly quickly! My colleague Simon Bearder has said it is an advantage for it to sit and sort of dissolve in the stomach, but then to get it out of the rest of the digestive tract quickly...and that in many gummivores we happen to see a correlation at any rate with the short duodenum..." —Dr. Anna Nekaris

Now the trick is briefly summarizing that... – VisionHolder « talk » 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am impressed by your dedication, and by Dr Nekaris' helpful & quick response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Conservation", paragraph 3: "Populations of slow loris species, such as the Bengal and Sunda slow loris, are not faring well in zoos." Why are the Bengal and Sunda slow lorises mentioned as examples? Pygmy slow lorises are discussed later in the paragraph. Why not say: "Populations of Bengal and Sunda slow lorises are not faring well in zoos"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I think this is a relic of a previous clarification. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• In the subsection "Wildlife trade", I am uneasy with the heavy promotion of Anna Nekaris' name. Is she so important that her name must be mentioned several times (as well as the stand-alone quote)? My suggestions:-
  • From paragraph 1, change "A survey by primatologist Anna Nekaris and colleagues (2010) showed that these belief systems were so strong that the majority of respondents expressed reluctance to consider alternatives to loris-based medicines." to "A survey in 2010 showed that these belief systems were so strong that the majority of respondents expressed reluctance to consider alternatives to loris-based medicines."
  • From paragraph 2, change "According to Nekaris, these videos are misunderstood by most people who watch them" to "These videos are often misunderstood by people who watch them".
  • From paragraph 2: "There is also extensive smuggling of slow lorises in Poland and Russia, according to Nekaris." Europe is already mentioned in the preceding sentence, so this sentence could be deleted.
  • If these changes are made, I would be happy to keep the stand-alone quote. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

    Nekaris is probably the leading slow loris researcher out there today. Most papers published about slow lorises in the last 10+ years have her name on them. I removed the last sentence you listed, but when claiming that videos on YouTube are misunderstood, I feel it's important to name who's making that claim. The same goes for the quote. Any opinions from the other contributors? – VisionHolder « talk » 12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

    I was thinking that the the reference with respect to Poland and Russia was the least necessary, but I see Visionholder already deleted that. The responses to the videos are Nekaris' opinions and so need to be attributed to her. The survey on the belief system could just say "A 2010 survey showed that these belief systems were so strong..." and so I think Nekaris' name could be taken off there if necessary, but I don't think at this point it's overdone. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Conservation", subsection "Wildlife trade", paragraph 3: "Furthermore, few know about their strong odor or their potentially lethal bite." The article previously mentioned that there has only been one documented human death due to a slow loris bite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yet it is still a potentially lethal bite and most people are unaware of it. Again, other opinions? – VisionHolder « talk » 12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Conservation", subsection "Wildlife trade", paragraph 3: "According to data compiled from monthly surveys and interviews with local traders taken during the late 2000s, nearly a thousand locally-sourced slow lorises exchanged hands in the Medan bird market." Does this mean that nearly 1000 slow lorises were traded during the late 2000s in the Medan bird market? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed, I hope. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• From "Conservation", subsection "Wildlife trade", paragraph 4: "This results in severe bleeding, which sometimes causes shock or death,[53] and frequently leads to dental infection, which is fatal in 90% of all cases." Does this mean that of the lorises that develop dental infection, 90% die? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes. "...which is fatal in 90% of all cases" qualifies "dental infection", which it follows immediately. Is there a clearer wording that you can think of? – VisionHolder « talk » 12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  How about "This results in severe bleeding, which sometimes causes shock or death.[53] Dental infection is common and is fatal in 90% of cases." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sounds find to me. It's been changed. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Casliber

• Comment beginning a look-over now. I'll jot notes as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Para 1 of the lead doesn't flow that well and there is some repetition (some of which I concede is necessary) - I will try and have rejigged a little. but....

this sentence "The currently recognized species are the Sunda slow loris (N. coucang), Bengal slow loris (N. bengalensis), pygmy slow loris (N. pygmaeus), Javan slow loris (N. javanicus), and Bornean slow loris (N. menagensis)." I think is a bit listy. Can anything succinct be added to embellish it? "e.g. species separated by geography/distinguished by size/long considered only one species etc. I might get ideas as I read.

I agree. Would it just be just be better to say "There are currently five recognized species, ..." and then merge with the next sentence? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Slow lorises sleep during the day, usually alone but occasionally with other slow lorises - ouch. hmmm. tricky. How about replacing first SL with "Individuals"?

Excellent suggestion. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

nearly a thousand locally sourced slow lorises exchanged hands in the Medan bird market in North Sumatra - over what period? Also, can Medan be linked somewhere...

The first part of the sentence reads: "According to 59 monthly surveys and interviews with local traders taken during late 2000s, ..." Otherwise, thanks for suggesting the link! I completely missed that one. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha yes, my bad. I was tired when typing that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can't get a feel for the taxonomic history from that section - I was just trying to get a timeline on how we ended up with five and it isn't clear from the body of the text. Was it the molecular study or before? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Some stuff got mistakenly left out. I've made some change, so please let me know if this clear things up. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's better. I will reread. Most of it flows fine, there were just some tricky bits flow-wise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. The stubby Etymology section is one reason I often combine it into taxonomy as "taxonomy and naming" - the facts in it slot nicely into early taxonomy material. Also, I envisage "evolution" as a subsection of "taxonomy" not the other way around . In this case I would (1) incorporate etymology material into first para or thereabouts in "taxonomy and naming" (2) move that up to top under lede, and (3) make "Evolutionary history" subsection, so it flows naturally - discovery --> names --> infrageneric relationships --> extrageneric relationships/evolution. But for me that's a style thing. Otherwise looking ok, so I will support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. I have attempted to integrate the etymology information into the rest of the text. If it looks worse or doesn't read clearly, anyone is welcome to revert or make corrections. Otherwise, I prefer a reverse approach to talking evolution and taxonomy: start general and become more specific, integrating taxonomic history along the way. But as you said, that's more of a style thing and not an issue for FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ceranthor

• Note - I intend to review this article tomorrow. ceranthor 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• Found in South and Southeast Asia, they range from Northeast India and Yunnan (southern China) to the southern Philippines and Java. - I don't know why, but the use of range is bothering me. Is this customary for biology articles?

This was changed for other comments, but the use of "range" as a verb is quite common. I guess I don't see how it sounds odd. Please let me know if it reads better, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Slow lorises are thought to have reached the islands of Sundaland during times of low sea level, when the Sunda Shelf was exposed, creating a land bridge between the mainland and islands off the coast of Southeast Asia.[7] - "during times of low sea level" sounds a little silly, maybe better to just remove that phrase.

I re-worded it slightly, but I prefer to keep the mention of "low sea level" in for clarity. (Otherwise was the shelf exposed due to geological uplift, or what?) – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Although it was comparable in size to the pygmy slow loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus), its teeth set it apart from living slow lorises.[10] - How so?
  • Some crests on the teeth are stronger or weaker than in Nycticebus, according to the source. Not sure how much detail is necessary here. Ucucha 19:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• The brains of slow lorises have more folds (convolutions) than the brains of galagos.[45] - seems a little unclear, might be useful to explain the relationship here? are they similar?

The source did not go into details. I think it was comparing related primates and used galagos to compare the folds. Do you want us to explain the relationship between lorises and galagos again? I'm not sure what you're asking. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Slow lorises range across tropical and subtropical regions[67] and are found in primary and secondary rainforests, as well as bamboo groves and mangrove forests. - again, use of range seems to niggle me.

Again this is fairly standard for these types of articles. If it's important to you, can you offer an alternative that you're more comfortable with? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Little is known about the social structure of slow lorises, but they generally spend most of the night foraging alone. - for food?

"Foraging" almost exclusively refers to finding food. I think changing it to "...spend most of the night foraging for food alone" only makes the sentence more bulky and redundant. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• The single case of human death reported in the scientific literature was believed to have resulted from anaphylactic shock.[81] - What does scientific literature mean here?

In other words, peer-reviewed journal articles, not popular books, news stories, etc. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Captive slow lorises eat a wide variety of foods including bananas and other fruits, rice, dog-food, raw horse meat, insects..." - Maybe better as slow lorises in captivity? I've never seen it used as an adjective I don't think. Or is it fine?

I don't think it matters, but I changed it per your request. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidently I have no idea what I'm talking about. Great work with this article. ceranthor 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your perspective. Maybe it's more of specialize term for the animal industry. Anyway, thank you for your feedback and support. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - An intriguing article with cute pictures but serious topics. Very neatly organized and well-written. ceranthor 18:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cryptic C62

Lead is good. After a brief review which can now be found on the FAC talk page, I am satisfied with the lead. Should anyone voice dissatisfaction with the lead, I will happily gnaw off their arms. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha

Comments:

• "The toxin is also applied as a form of protection for their infants"—the lead gives no previous use for the toxin, so why the "also"?

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• The range map should show the ranges of all species (not too difficult since the three that are to be split are on different islands).

This is a good point, but these range maps are not SVG files, and unfortunately before this collaborative project began, and before we all sat down and decided to recognize on Wikipedia the newest species, I asked the person who made it (using a script) to consolidate the ranges of 3 of the species for the genus article since we didn't recognize those species at the time. If these files were SVG, it would be easy to fix. I can try to play with the PNGs, but it may take a while. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The fossil record in both Asia and Africa is patchy, with most fossils dating back to the early Miocene, around 20 million years ago"—fossils of what?

Fixed. Good catch. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do we really need that much information about early lorisiform evolution? That seems more appropriate for an article on the family than on this one genus. Also, why are you first discussing evolutionary history and only after that mentioning what they are actually related to?

I had thought I had kept the history pretty simple. I started by stating what they are related to, then covered a very brief history of crown strepsirrhines to show where they originated (while also mentioning that all-important toothcomb), and quickly discussed more and more recent related fossils. If anything, I think the details about Karanisia clarki could be thinned out, particularly the details about its discovery. But given that this is a genus, not a species article, I thought a brief history of the family and how it ties in was appropriate. Of course, I welcome other opinions on this, particularly that of Sasata. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• "However, the relationship between the African lorises and the Asian lorises is complicated by biogeography, strong similarities in morphology (with both slender and robust body forms existing in both Africa and Asia), and significant differences in genetics."—not sure whether this means much

How does it not mean much? Basically, there are African lorises that are very similar to the slow lorises, yet their relationship is confusing for those three reasons given. (Spelled out a little less concisely, in both Asia and Africa, there are slender and stout-bodied lorises. However, genetics suggests that the slender-framed lorises on both continents aren't closely related, nor are the stout-bodied lorises, despite appearances.) This complicates the evolutionary history. People might wonder if the slow lorises are most closely related to pottos, and this explains why that's not necessarily the case. Am I wrong? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Taxonomy and phylogeny"—this subsection contains quite some information that is neither taxonomy nor phylogeny

Are you referring to the etymology information? There used to be a short section for it, but a reviewer suggested that we simply integrate the information into the rest of the text since it was only a few sentences long. Do you suggest restoring the section? Otherwise, am I missing something else? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Nycticebus coucang (then called Tardigradus coucang) was used as the type species."—false, and ref doesn't say this.

I'm not sure where this came from. Anyway, I think I've made the correction, based on Groves' "Mammal Species of the World" (MSW3). I looked up Boddaert and also referenced the original source, but I can't read the Latin. Let me know if this is better. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1921, British zoologist Oldfield Thomas noted that there was some confusion over the individual used as the type specimen, which was actually N. bengalensis."—type specimen of what? And why is this cited to Eliot (1913) and Thomas (1922)?

I'm going to leave this one for Sasata, since I think he wrote this section. He'll know this material better than I. If help is needed, I'll look into it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think too much emphasis is placed on a single, fairly limited molecular study (Chen et al. 2006). As they themselves acknowledge (p. 1199), "Because of the limited samples and genetic markers, however, there is still some uncertainty around the incongruence with morphological studies", and we shouldn't take one of their trees as our presentation of "the phylogeny" of Nycticebus.

Agreed. I've removed the cladogram and altered the text to note the uncertainty, but still nothing the potential close relationship between two of the species. Please let me know if this looks alright. Otherwise, I will also try to address the rest of the concerns this evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I've now rewritten pretty much all of the taxonomy and am now myself (of course) okay with it, but I'd be happy to discuss any disagreements. Ucucha 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the changes. The part of evolution (which I wrote) is much clearer and more up-to-date. Sorry for overlooking the literature that overwhelmingly supports what had been the leading hypothesis (among several) for lorisiform evolution. The taxonomy section is also much improved. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Slow lorises range in weight from the pygmy slow loris at 265 grams (9.3 oz) to as much as 2,100 grams (74 oz) for the Bengal slow loris. Slow lorises have a stout body, and their tail is only a stub and hidden beneath the dense fur. Their combined head and body length varies by species, with the smallest, the pygmy slow loris, measuring 18 to 21 cm (7.1 to 8.3 in) to the Sunda slow loris measuring 27 to 38 cm (11 to 15 in)."—you cite different sources for maximum body weight and head-body length. Might that be the reason the largest species is also different?

Actually, the large differences in weight are very clearly documented in the newest source (2010), but unfortunately they don't discuss head-body length... which from what I can find is most recently discussed in the 2007 source. I admit that it would be best to use one source for both measurements. What do you suggest? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not mention species for HB length, or find a source that states HB length for the Bengal slow loris (which I suspect is bigger than in the Sunda). Groves (1971) gives 330–367 mm for bengalensis and 265–330 mm for coucang sensu stricto. Ucucha 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I gave the range for the entire genus instead of the species to avoid lack of clarity and inconsistency. If Nekaris or someone publishes something new that clearly distinguishes the sizes (both measurements) of each species, I will use that instead. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Like nearly all crown strepsirrhines, they have a toilet-claw"—lead says this is the case in nearly all prosimians. Do tarsiers have it?

Yes, tarsiers have two of them per foot. It's the aye-aye that makes it tricky... they may or may not have one, depending on which source you use. That makes the wording difficult, so I'm leaving "nearly" in there. Otherwise, I changed it to read "prosimains" instead, per your hint. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• "They have also been reported in Mindanao, the eastern-most island of the Philippines, although they were likely introduced there by humans"—Fooden (1990, Fooden, Jack (1991). "Eastern limit of distribution of the slow loris, Nycticebus coucang". International Journal of Primatology. 12 (3): 287–290. doi:10.1007/BF02547589. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)) says the Mindanao record is erroneous, not the result of an introduction. I can't check the source cited here (Nowak 1999).

Thanks for catching this. I've re-worded it, but it could also be removed entirely. Opinions? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, since it's not really relevant to this genus article where an individual species was recorded incorrectly. Ucucha 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• "In the folklore of northern Thailand, the slow loris is considered venomous. This belief may have originated from the painful anaphylactic reactions that susceptible individuals experience when bitten by the animal."—may it perhaps have originated from the fact that slow lorises are actually toxic?

I've re-worded it, but would it be better if we just removed it? This is an element of folklore, but the topic had already been discussed above. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it folklore at all? It's true, and the fact that the Thai recognized that it is true can hardly be considered "folklore". Ucucha 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree. I've removed the sentence due to redundancy and because it's not folklore but a fact. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.loris-conservation.org/database/captive_care/nutrition.html a high-quality reliable source?

The list of authors is what makes this a reliable source, IMO. Basically all the big-name loris researchers are working together on this project to document how to care for them in captivity. I feel that makes this a much more reliable source than a news article. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Same for http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/slow_loris/taxon

IMO, I dislike using Primate Info Net's factsheets as sources, but not all the editors on this project agree. Even some of the lemur experts I know feel these pages are highly reliable. If you still prefer to see this source replaced, I can try to track down the references they cite and cite the peer-reviewed literature directly. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to cite the original source. Ucucha 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to replace the sources for these six refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Refs replaced. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the critiques, Ucucha and Cryptic C62. I have been very busy of late with RL, but will make time this evening to work on these. Sasata (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm in the same boat as Sasata, but I, too, will try to address the issues above this evening. I'll be watching carefully to avoid any edit conflicts. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Alright... I had time to look at most of the concerns, although I left one of Ucucha's questions (about Oldfield Thomas) for Sasata. The other editors, including Sasata, are encourage to review my changes and replies to all the other questions. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Snek01

Support and comment: Cladogram can be in 100% font size instead of small 70% size. Although it is not a prose, it can improve readability per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Font size and this cladogram still will be in reasonable size. --Snek01 (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support. I previewed the cladogram at 100% text size, and it takes up too much space and requires the eye to do too much backtracking when following the body text around. I did bump it up from 75% to 85%, which should be a decent compromise. By comparison, most of my FACs and the previous WP:Mammals collaboration (Fossa (animal)) used 75% on their cladograms. I'm also bumping up the font size at the Lemur article to reduce eye strain, and may do it for other soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it reads a bit better. If the cladogram gives only additional and less important information than its surrounding text, there should be keep it as it smaller as it is. Then it says to a reader: "Hey, reader! You have to read the text to fully understand it and do not stare at this intentionally small cladogram." A reader can bump up the size of cladogram relatively easily, but not as easy as images with one click. But if this cladogram gives infomations of the same importance, there is no objective reason, why the text should not be at standard size. (If you would decide for standard, you can either keep it in the box or you do not need to have it in a box, you can place it unboxed under the "... evolved into the slender and slow lorises of today." sentence such as this test.) In the Fossa article may be the situation different and I presume, that there is need to have two cladogram next to each other for comparison in all viewing devices. You can not expect that a reader will write to talk page "Could be so kind and could you bump up the size to standard. I can not see it." Sometimes it it not so easy for practical reasons, but sometime it is easy to use standards that are within the spirit of free content. --Snek01 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to defer on this topic to the other collaboration team members. I prefer it the way it is now. I figure that if anyone has problem reading the cladogram as is, they'll have enough of an issue to regularly bump text size up and down on their browser. (85% is very, very close to full size.) What does the rest of the team think? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is excellent article, but Oppose, standards are not met. Small font is reasoned only when the cladogram would be too large to fit on screen. Following style guidelines is required for Featured articles. There is no reason to broke guideline in this case. --Snek01 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Should be IUCN Red List in italics or not in italics IUCN Red List? It sounds like as name of publication as Systema naturae. I think that italics should be applied, but maybe both ways all possible? --Snek01 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen any article italicize "IUCN Red List" ... it's an online database, but whether that counts as a "publication", I don't know. Again, other opinions from the collaboration team? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Online publications shouldn't be italicized. Ucucha 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Spot checking a number of current mammal FAs, not italicizing seems to predominate. The only place I found "IUCN Red List..." italicized was in the footnotes to Lion. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/faq#No_hardcopy_of_RL per Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Websites_and_webpages it seems that it is OK without italics. --Snek01 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The LEAD seems a tad long ... it's supposed to entice the reader with a concise overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can trim it up if needed. Normally I get told to lengthen the lead or cover more material from the body, not the opposite.  ;-) I'll try to do it tomorrow when I'm more awake. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... we should all get more sleep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [15].

---

Percy Grainger

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As a composer and performer, Percy Grainger was a bit of an oddity who ultimately, perhaps, delivered less than he at one time promised. He was innovative and original, yet most of his musical ideas failed to catch on; he tends to be remembered for relatively trivial works such as the eminently whistlable "Country Gardens". As to Percy's private obsessions... well, the less said the better. I've done my best to do him justice, with the help of a very thorough peer review (for which many thanks) and some early assistance from Jappalang in the sourcing and selection of images. If more needs to be done, please speak up; I look forward to your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments This article clearly deserves to be an FA, but some of the prose seems a little bit marginal to me I'm afraid:

• "... Percy Grainger, was an Australian-born composer, arranger and pianist. In the course of a long career he was an innovative performer and composer who played a prominent role in the revival of interest in British folk music. He also made many adaptations of other composers' works." That seems really awkward to me; he was a composer who was a composer? "Made many adaptations of"?

• "... who became a frequent attender at his London recitals". The proper word is probably "attendee", but why not "who frequently attended his London recitals"?

• "The visit was not a success, howver".

• "Before coming to London Grainger had composed numerous Kipling settings ...". That implies that you're writing this article in London. "Before going to London ...".

• "Grieg was greatly impressed with Granger's playing, and later wrote that the Australian was ...". How could he have written it earlier?

• "In 1905 Grainger had acquired a Danish girlfriend ...". Why "had acquired"? Acquired in any case sounds rather mechanical.

• "... with high school, summer-school and college students." Why is "summer-school" hyphenated but "high school" isn't?

Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus, for these comments. All your points have been addressed; I blush for my clumsiness. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We're none of us perfect Brian, not even me. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will bear your imperfection in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Image and Media Review The article contains 13 image files and one sound file. The image files are all freely licensed, mostly by being old enough to be PD in the US or else as free recent images of places in Grainger's life. The music file is of a piece old enough to be PD, by a US military group, so both the composition and its performance are PD. I did not yet have a chance to read the article in depth. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image/sound file review. I hope you played the sound file -it's quite good fun. There's a couple more in the Exernal links. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "... prominent role in the revival of interest in British folk music."

  When was this revival?

  Added into lead and briefly into text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Family background

• "He won professional recognition by designing the Princes Bridge ..."

  Should it not be "recognition for his design" or "recognition for designing"? "By designing" makes it seem that he is known just because he was the architect of the bridge (not because of any qualities that the bridge might have or serve).

Concert pianist

• "I thought I was about to die;"

  Die from ecstasy or from some other acts during their encounters? The quote is a bit too vauge to be certain what gave him this thought?

  It's clear from the sourse that Grainger was describing his first sexual climax. I have added a bit which hopefully explains this.

  It feels a bit strange he did not get some phobia of sex from this (no joy from his first orgasm), but if that is the case... Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• ... a role Grainger was not prepared to fulfil."

  Not prepared or not willing?

Emergent composer

• "Their plans were thwarted by Grieg's sudden death in September 1907, but on the basis of this relatively brief acquaintance Grainger championed Grieg's music for the rest of his life."

  I am not seeing a contradiction ("but") between the thwarting of Grieg and Grainger's plans and Grainger's championship of Grieg's work based on their acquaintance.

  Suggestion: "Their plans were thwarted by Grieg's sudden death in September 1907. Their relatively brief acquaintance left an impact on Grainger, and he championed Grieg's music for the rest of his life."

• File:GraingerandGrieg1907.jpg: I suggest uploading this to Wikipedia instead; it is quite likely a German photographer's work (Grieg's home) and if the photograph was published earlier in Germany or was published in Tapper's book without the photographer's permission (possibly Grainger let the publisher print his copy), it would be regarded as a German work (the 70-year pma comes into play).

  I have uploaded per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "He had resolved that he would to establish himself..."?

• "In 1908 he had obtained ...": seems redundant?

• "... five of Grainger's works were performed to great public acclaim,; the band of thirty guitars and mandolins for the performance of "Fathers and Daughters" creating created a particular impression.": eliminate noun plus -ing phrasing.

• "In 1905 Grainger had acquired ... ": seems redundant?

Departure for America

• "... with Thomas Beecham conducting."

  Should this not be "... under Thomas Beecham's conducting." or "under the conductorship of Thomas Beecham."?

  I've looked at this again. Although Beecham was one of the festival's conductors he may not actually have conducted the concerto, so I have reworded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The reason for this abrupt departure, Bird explains, was that Grainger saw his future as Australia's first noteworthy composer, and thus felt a responsibility to avoid being killed."

  Is this Bird's opinion or Grainger's explanation (in a letter or diary)? I think the source should be explicit. This thought seems a bit egoistic and I think it would certainly befit the accusation of cowardice laid down on Grainger by Legge if it was Grainger's purpose. It is also a factor in another of my concern below.

  I have added to this section, quoting Bird's exact words. He does not say where Grainger gave this explanation. So I have made it "according to Bird..."

  I also think that a brief statement about British drafts for WWI should be here (Canadian and Australian forces are part of and under the command of the British Empire). Younger (or less knowledgeable) readers might wonder why an Australian would be decried by British men for fleeing to America.

  The sources do not address this issue, though from my school history studies I know that conscription didn't begin in England until 1916, so Grainger was not in imminent danger of being drafted. I suppose the pressure on young(ish) men to volunteer might have been awkward for him, but establishing these points would surely amount to OR. I'm not sure that, on the basis of what's available, I can say much more. Brianboulton (talk)

  Yes, without a source to explain why they treated him as such would be OR. Mayhaps someone knows a source that describes the general attitude at that time (or even better a commentary on Percy's nationality to his conduct).

• "On 9 June 1917, after America's entry into the war, Grainger enlisted as a bandsman in the Coast Artillery Corps of the US Army."

  Why did he do this after running away from Britain? Could he not have joined up as a Royal Army Musician or such, or were American army musicians simply "safer"?

  "Running away" is surely interpretive. Again, no answers to your questions are provided in the sources. We can surmise that he felt some sense of duty to his adopted country, or as you suggest, that he made a "safe" choice. But it's guesswork. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The piece became instantly popular,; with sheet music sales quickly breaking broke many publishing records.": eliminate noun plus -ing phrasing.

• "On 3 June 1918 he became a naturalised American citizen."

  The US Army accepts foreigners?

  I'm sure they did; Britain was certainly happy to do so in wartime. Grainger had registered his intention to apply for US citizenship in 1915 - I've added this into the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Career zenith

• "This was to be his permanent home for the remainder of his life.": Redundancies

• "She became particularly troubled by rumours that her relationship with her son was incestuous."

  I think the footnote to this should be moved into the main body. Such a controversial issue should be explained/clarified than glossed over (why there were such rumours and who).

  I have moved the explanation into the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• With Rose's death, a question rose to my mind: What about George? Did he have any interactions with Percy after Rose's death? Did Percy ever meet his half-sibling in England?

  There is no information that Grainger ever met his supposed half-sibling. What is your source for supposing that this child was male and called "George"? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was actually asking about Percy's father, John, instead of "George" (Percy's original first name sort of stuck in my mind); the last we heard of John was his supplementing the mother and son's income, but nothing else. I raise the matter of Percy's half-sibling as another matter of curiosity—Percy was in England for quite some time and one wonders if he might have tried to find something about his relations there. Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Traveller

• "In Norway he stayed with Delius at the latter's Norwegian summer home.": Redundant

Innovator

• '"Love Verses from The Song of Solomon"' (also appearing in Music section): should this not be '"Love Verses" from The Song of Solomon'?

  The title of the piece is as I have written it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Postwar decline

• "... his stepdaughter Elsie Bristow in April 1951, ..."

  It is rather surprising to suddenly read he had a stepdaughter (we were not told of Ella Strom's status before her meeting with Grainger). I think the footnote should be moved into the main body (possibly where Ella is introduced).

  I have done this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "... he deposited in a bank a parcel containing that contained an essay and photographs relating related to his sex life, ...": reduce the noun plus -ing structure, are both the essay and photographs related to (about) his sex life?

Last years

• "By 1957 ...; in 1957 ...": seems a bit repetitive

• "... he informed Ella Bristow ...": who?

Music

• "Despite his conservatory training ..."

  Would "Despite his education (or training) in a conservatory" be more correct here?

• "Indeed, he would reflect ..."

  This seems a bit dramatic.

Legacy

• "... did not generate disciples;"

  I think "attract" would be better than "generate"; I feel those who would follow his music do it out of their own volition, and are not produced.

• "... had been scornfully rejected ...": one of those bias terms, unless as a quote

• "... before the mid-1970s,; being it was initially regarded as evidence either of an over-large ego or of extreme eccentricity.": eliminate noun plus -ing

Assessment

• "... that included originality, and complexity as well as and beauty.": redundancies

• "... he ranked himself equal ninth ...": redundant

• "His inability to be recognised ..."

  Would "failure to be recognised" be better? "Inability" (and the way it is phrased) concludes (an outside opinion) he lacked the ability to do this; it seems third parties are not unanimous on this.

• "More recently, an increase ..."

  This is imprecise (needs a period or range; define which period there is an interest). In 1 or 2 years, would it be an increase, decrease or standstill?

• "Louis Pabst, Grainger's first piano teacher, believed that his pupil's talents as a painter equalled his pianistic abilities; Grainger himself commented that "I never had more talent for music than for painting"."

  This (his painting skills) is rather sudden (see also below) and could be confusing. It is ambiguous as to whether the teacher was praising or insulting the pupil.

  I have removed this, since we don't need to make the point twice (see below). Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Brian Allison, a former Grainger Museum curator, has speculated that had his father's influence not been removed, "Percy Aldridge Grainger may today be remembered as one of Australia's leading painters and designers, who just happened to have a latent talent as a pianist and composer"."

  We are only now told Percy had talent as a painter. Nowhere earlier had this been explored, and without support from others, Allison's speculation does not seem worthy of note.

  I have written a linking sentence into the "Childhood" section, dealing with Percy's early flowering as an artist. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Recordings

• "In 1995 Chandos Records undertook the compilation of compiled a complete recorded edition of ...": redundant

An interesting read of an interesting man so far; Brian is doing a good job as usual. Jappalang (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this detailed review. I have already acknowledged your help with images selection. I believe I have addressed all your points; where I have not commented, I have adopted your suggestions. I do have a slight problem wth the "was he/wasn't he a coward" issue, but I feel I have gone as far as the sources allow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: My remaining points above are likely minor, un-actionable, or misplaced. This is a comprehensive article on an interesting fellow indeed. Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. I will see if anything can be done with your outstanding minor concerns; at least I can incorporate the date of John Grainger's death. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review and all my (very minor) quibbles were dealt with there to my satisfaction. In my judgment (with the caveat that I am inexpert on anything to do with images and their permitted use) this article meets all the FA criteria. It is well proportioned, well balanced, impeccably researched and referenced, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for your kind comments, support and help, as always Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
• Use a consistent formatting for Grainger Museum references
• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
• When using titles to disambiguate refs, be consistent in whether you include quotation marks or not
• Be consistent in using either UK or U.K. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  All above addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: I took part in the peer review and most of my queries were dealt with there. It has improved since then and I am very happy to support, although I am by no means a music expert. Re-reading just threw up a couple of points, which do not affect my support.

• "to the extent that it was thought by his tutors that art rather than music might be his future." Possibly better as "to the extent that his tutors thought his future lay in art rather than music."
• Presumably, the Hoch conservatory was one of the best, but this is never made explicit. Otherwise, his mother's choice seems a little random. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I have adopted your suggested wording, slightly tweaked, re his artistic future. The Hoch was chosen on a reccomendation from the professor of piano at Melbourne Conservatory; I have included that, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support I participated in the peer review, and did a prose review of the article. My concerns were addressed at that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your PR help was much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support with further comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• What is a "society pianist"? A "pastiche"?
  • A society pianist is a pianist who performs in the private houses of the rich and fashionable. I believe this meaning is clear from the text in the "London" section. A pastiche is an imitation of another's style.
• Consistency checking needed. For example, you use both "antisemitic" and "anti-semitic", both "Princes Bridge" and "Prince's Bridge", "Granger and "Grainger", etc
  • I think the correct form is "anti-Semitic", and I have now adopted this throughout. "Prince's" and "Granger" were typos.
• Does the Conservatorium have an article?
  • No. I don't think the place exists now - possibly absorbed into the music department of Melbourne University long ago, but I don't have information on this.
• "always held the virtues of the Australian character in high regard" - what does this mean?
  • I'm not quite sure what you are asking; the meaning seems clear enough. Are you asking that I specify the virtues Grainger admired?
• "his famous orchestral rhapsody" - title/link?
  • The WP article links to Grainger's setting. There is no link to Delius's orchestral rhapsody of the same name.
• Don't wikilink things already included in hatnotes, as for Grainger Museum
  • OK
• "the Graingers made a long visit to England in 1936, during which Grainger made" - "made...made" is somewhat repetitive.
  • Reworded

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the sharp eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [16].

---

Myotis escalerai

Nominator(s): Ucucha 15:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Like Myotis alcathoe, this is a European bat that was only very recently and thanks to DNA data recognized as a separate species. Very few sources have covered this species (the most substantial one is a book in Catalan), but I believe I have covered everything that is known and relevant to an encyclopedia. Ucucha 15:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Ref 6: why et al for just 3 authors?
  • Why not? It's what pretty much every scientific journal in zoology does.
• Is Amengual et al 2007 or 2008?
  • 2007.
• Ref 4: is there a range missing, or should it be "p."?
  • The latter; I've corrected it.
• For Gauthier and Hutson 2010, are those file names, or is that the actual publisher?
  • Those are the document names that EUROBATS apparently uses (there is also a bunch of them in Myotis alcathoe, and two others in this article). They also use those names to refer to these documents (see e.g. the text of Hutson 2010, p. 1).
• Check formatting for Miller 1912
  • Oops.
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Added one. Thanks for the check! Ucucha 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • "Though very similar to Myotis nattereri, it apparently differs from that species in some features of the tail membrane." What you mean by "apparently" in that sentence seems a little vague to me. How about "according to several sources" or somehting like that?
    • Just removed "apparently"; it's not really needed.
  • "type locality" links to a disambiguation page.
    • Fixed.
  • "For example, it occurs widely, though localized, in Aragón, where Myotis sp. A is known from a single locality only." Why is it important to mention Myotis sp. A here? What about all the other species in this complex?--Carabinieri (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • M. sp. A is the only other one that occurs in Aragón. I've added a clarification. Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 13:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you for this article :)--

Carabinieri (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support and comments Fine article, just some minor queries. None are a big deal, just for my enlightenment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Aggregate — I wonder if "gather" is better when talking about animals?

• "Aggregate" is pretty common for bats; see [17] for a few examples (though many are on other things).

• flexible flyer. — I'm unclear whether this refers to flight style or versatility

• The latter. Switched wording to "agile" in agreement with the body.

• Mr. Martínez de la Escalera — What is "Mr." an abbreviation of, can't be mister?

• Yes, that's what "Mr." means. The source doesn't mention a first name for him, and just saying his last name would sound odd. Ucucha 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Which source specifically gives Ibiza as a location? If it's a Catalan source, would it be better to use Eivissa?

• Why? We're writing in English, not Catalan, and the island is pretty universally called "Ibiza" in English. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with just a couple of quibbles, which don't detract from my support.

• Lead:
  • "...it was included in Natterer's bat (Myotis nattereri) until molecular studies..." I'm confused - if the species was first named in 1904, how can it have been part of another named species???
    • Added "from 1912"; Miller made it a synonym of nattereri in 1912. Ucucha 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Taxonomy:
  • quickie definition of "cryptic species" so we don't lose readers to the link?
    • Not quite a definition, but I've added some explanation there.
• Distribution:
  • "The range of Myotis escalerai remains poorly constrained, and it may be found to be more widespread than currently known." the construction "it may be found to be more widespread" is awkward - perhaps "... and further study may find it to be more widespread."?
    • Used a different rewording.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted part of your edits because a sentence had become rather too complex. Ucucha 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review - Single image is appropriately licensed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Support -

• Why is the relationship with Myotis schaubi not discussed, although the relationship between M. escalerai and all other species in the relationship table is?
  • The sources don't really discuss it, probably because schaubi has been recognized as separate from nattereri for quite some time. Ucucha 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• "The range of Myotis escalerai remains poorly constrained" - "constrained" seems an odd word here; perhaps "defined" would be better?
  • Perhaps "constrained" is not the best word, but I don't like "defined" either. Its range is not something humans define, it's where it actually occurs. But we don't really know quite where it occurs, so its range is not well-constrained. Ucucha 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• "and are usually in caves or basements." Perhaps "are usually found in"? It may be grammatical as is; just sounds weird to me...
  • Added "located" instead. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above are minor quibbles that do not detract from my support. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [18].

---

Nebula Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nebula was the first Scottish science fiction magazine, and one of the best-loved features of the 1950s British science fiction scene. Despite being launched by a teenager it established itself as a significant market, and published the first sales of several well known writers including Robert Silverberg and Brian Aldiss. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Colon or no colon preceding "Part 4"? (Also, is "part" vs "volume" from the original source?)
• Illustrated Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia?
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate "Volume" in Footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All done. I've left "Vol." in the references for Ashley because the book has it that way on the title page. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• It says "21 shillings per word", "2d per word", "price was 2/-", "priced at 2/6". It's the same accessibility problem as in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Science_Fantasy_(magazine)/archive1 and the same solution will work i.e. provide each instance with a conversion into current UK money values. I suggest: '21 shillings (£1.05) per word', '2d (0.8p) per word', 'price was 2/- (10p)', 'priced at 2/6 (12.5p)'

  Done. I should have remembered to do this; I am about to work on another UK sf magazine and will make sure I get this right before I bring it to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• As noted above, it mentions "21 shillings per word" and goes on to say that is "the equivalent of half a cent per word". The conversion is wrong. Please confirm that the astonishingly high value of 21 shillings per word is correct. If it has a current UK money value, I don't see any need to convert into US values.

  It was a mistake on my part; the rate is actually 21 shillings per thousand words. I've corrected it. If my math is correct, the conversion would require the dollar/sterling exchange rate to have been $5 to £1 at that time; I don't know what it actually was. The comparison is made in the source (which gives the half cent figure); the reason it's relevant is that the American magazines were regarded as the main market for sf and Hamilton's ability (or lack of it) to pay rates that were competitive with the US market is part of the story. Hence I'd like to leave it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• It says "in the fifties". I suggest that year expressions include the century whether in digit or word form.

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• It has a table shown as an image. The contrast is poor and the image truncates the section separation line. We discussed this elsewhere and I didn't pay enough attention. Can somebody explain to me again what happens if text is presented as text?

  This has been discussed several times; the most recent was at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Science_Fantasy_(magazine)/archive1. I created a sandbox to try out the text version: User:Mike_Christie/Sandbox4. I feel there are still some significant flaws with the text version that I don't see how to fix. There's a fairly detailed list at the Science Fantasy archive of the goals for a table or image -- if we can resolve those points I have no problem with a text table. However, I also think that the accessibility issue is addressed because the information in the image is also available in the text -- the goal of the image is precisely as a visual aid for quick comprehension; this is not a goal that can be achieved for the visually impaired reader, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  However, the table-info is discussed primarily in a different section of the text. The goal appears to be a good one: a visual overview of the pattern of publication. That would be more appropriate in the "Publishing history" section, which is discussion about the irregular pattern, etc. than in the "Bibliographic details, which is discussion about the page-size and price. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  I've moved it -- see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Looks fine thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lightmouse (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Images - sidestepping the discussion above about the table, image copyrights are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. The text-as-image issue is cropping up in multiple articles and there must be a simple solution. I'm not an expert but village pump (technical) seems to me to be the place to ask. I'd be happy to ask there on your behalf but I think you are probably better able to express the problem. Shall I leave it to you? Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you really feel I should, I will post there, but to be honest my only concern is accessibility, and I think that moving the information to the body of the text addresses that sufficiently. I'll be happy to switch to text if it looks just as good, but I think with the info in the body the image is just a visual aid, so I don't really see a problem with leaving it as it is. If you don't mind I'll let it lie. If someone else solves the problem, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't oppose progress of this article to FA just on the basis of the image problem, but I'll ask at the Village pump and hope that somebody can find a solution. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Mike, Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Presenting_a_text_table_as_an_image_or_as_text. I hope we'll get a helpful response. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will watchlist that page and hope someone comes along with a solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Support"""Comments Close to support, just a couple of niggles.

• Lead:
  • "Because Hamilton could only print Nebula when the equipment would otherwise have been idle, the schedule was initially quite erratic." Wordy. Try "Because Hamilton could only print Nebula when the equipment was idle, the schedule was initially quite erratic."

    Um, yeah, it's wordy, but the pedant in me protests -- it wasn't actually idle, because Hamilton was using it. Are you sure the reduction in wordiness is worth the loss of precision? I guess people will read your version correctly, but it bugs me to make it inaccurate in that way. How about "could only print Nebula during gaps in the printing schedule" instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    That's a good compromise. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    As it turns out, I couldn't use that phrase because "schedule" was in the earlier part of the sentence, but I found another way to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • No article on Hamilton?

    I thought about it but there doesn't seem to be anything written about him specifically -- he's only well-known because of the magazine. I don't think he's notable in himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Publishing:
  • "...better than the contemporary British sf magazine Authentic Science Fiction..." do we really need the qualifier "sf" here?

    No, good point. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "...paying as much as 2d (0.8p) per word .." you gave the equivalent in US cents for an earlier figure - can we do so here?

    The US equivalent was given in the source; I don't know what the exchange rate was at the time so I can't be sure the source is right, but it seems to work out at about $5 to the pound. If that's right then 2d is about 4 cents per word, which is consistent with the comment "as much as the best markets in the U.S." Since I don't have an independent indication of the rate of exchange I didn't add it. I'll see if I can find a source for that and if I can I'll put it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    I just found this, which seems to be a reliable source and says that the exchange rate was about $2.80. If you agree that that's an RS, I think that warrants a footnote to the sourced half cent conversion, and then I can supply actual conversions. It's awkward because the source is very explicit that this was a competitive rate but it appears it was not that high a rate; I'll have to think about how to deal with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    I've used MW in my horse articles, and it should be reasonably accurate. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "This was higher than the best U.K. markets, such as New Worlds, and as much as the best markets in the U.S. were paying at the time; as a result, Nebula was a very attractive market." too many markets!! Can we change some out?

    I cut the third one as redundant; what it says is repeated in the next sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "U.S." or "US"? I prefer the former, but I suspect that the latter is the usual in Brit English.

    I don't have a strong opinion so I switched; not sure if it's an engvar issue but I suppose it might be. My BrEng is somewhat corrupted after twenty years over here in the ex-colonies; not sure I can be trusted on this one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    ONly the Brits could see us as still "ex-colonies" (gaze up) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Contents:
  • "science fiction fandom" Linky?

    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "...and in 1953 bought the first story of several writers who later became very well-known..." shouldn't this be "bought the first stories"?

    Not sure. I think I'd like to hear from a grammar maven on this one. I would say "the first person on each team to cross the line", because "the first people" could refer to more than one of the people on a given team. I don't think "the first stories" is similarly ambiguous though. I will ping Malleus on this. I also just noticed that in the intro to this FAC I said "first sales", so I am not being entirely consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    Malleus agreed with you that it needs to be changed. I've recast the sentence so I could use "each", which I think now allows me to keep "story" singular. Let me know if you think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    That works. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I usually see "SF" not "sf", but really - this is an encyclopedia and we should spell it out to be more formal.

    I use "sf" rather than "SF" partly because that's what the Nicholls/Clute encyclopedia uses; that's the basic reference in the field; it's quite common to see it lower case. I don't particularly mind changing it to SF if there's a consensus to do so but I think the lower case version is less obtrusive visually. It is almost universal in the reference works to use an abbreviation; either "sf", "SF", or occasionally something odder like "stf". I think it's justifiable because one often finds sentences in which "science fiction" would naturally occur two or three times; abbreviating one or two of those instances makes for a much smoother flow. Here's a sentence from the Planet Stories article, for example: "Fiction House's first title with sf interest was Jungle Stories, which was launched in early 1939; it was not primarily a science fiction magazine, but often featured storylines with marginally science fictional themes." I think making that first "sf" into "science fiction" would sound very clunky. Having said that, this particular article doesn't have any sentences that would sound terrible if I changed it, so I am OK with changing it if you feel it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Which novel by Heinlein didn't get serialized?

    I'm away from my refs at the moment; I don't think the refs say but I hope I can tell by looking at the issues themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    It appears Hamilton did not announce this in the magazine -- the "Next issue" notes for the last two issues don't mention it. I've ordered a copy of Heinlein's Grumbles from the Grave, which might mention this; and I'll post a note at the SF WikiProject page in case someone there knows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    • I'll check my copy of GFG in a few... after I eat lunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    • NOthing I show in GFG, looking in the index for Hamilton and Nebula. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "In 1954 the back cover was given over..." is that ONLY in 1954, or FROM 1954?

    Not sure; again I will look at the issues when I get back to the house and check. (I'm in a Starbucks waiting for my fifteen-year-old oboeist to finish her orchestra practice). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    From the October 1954 issue for the remainder of the run, it turns out; I've made the change in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bibliographic:
  • "indica" Linky?

    Yes; done.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and supported - the couple of issues remaining I trust you to resolve. And boy, we're really working on Bede, aren't we? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Bede -- maybe one day. When you've done every bishop and I've done every sf magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with regard to Criterion 1a. Tony reminded us at another nomination of Fowler's aversion to unintended repetition of words, which Fowler called jingles. Is the jingle here intended "but was not physically healthy enough for hard physical work"? Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, unintended -- it always amazes me how hard it is to spot that sort of thing in one's own prose. Fixed. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with nit-picky comments:

• "quite erratic" and "rather erratic" > maybe simply erratic would suffice

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fees paid doesn't make clear they were paid to writers. It makes sense to us (who receive even less than sf writers!) but maybe not to a lay audience.

  I wasn't sure which point in the article you were talking about, but there's an instance of this in the lead so I tweaked that. Let me know if there are other places this is a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Nevermind - I've re-read it, and it seems fine. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• You mention other magazines - I'd take the opportunity to link to some of the others you've written about if they were the direct competition and the source mentions them by name

*:The British competition was Authentic, New Worlds, and Science Fantasy; two of those are linked and the third isn't as relevant as it was more fantasy-oriented. Ashley and Harbottle don't mention the US magazines, so I don't think I should; in the discussion of top rates, for example, I know perfectly well that they're talking about Astounding and Galaxy, but it's something of a synthesis for me to say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah you can't if the sources don't support it. Too bad. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• "As these were novel-length" > this needs to be rephrased - already mentioned that they were novels, and I'd wondered what happened to the novels when they were mentioned earlier. Perhaps try simply dropping the "As these were ... " and begin the sentence with "There was little room", or perhaps, "The long pieces left little room for ...."

  I tried a slightly different tack to fix this; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Much better. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• "New authors also began to appear" > might be better to write something like "to be published"

  Done, with additional changes per a comment of Malleus's below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "each sold their first story to Nebula" > end of a long sentence - might be better to add a semi-colon in front of the "each".

  I think you might be misreading the syntax here -- take another look; but I hope the tweaks for Malleus have shortened this enough. That was a hard sentence to write and I'm open to improving it if we can find a way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's better now. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Organization seems a bit off in the "Contents and reception" section. Before the para about the reception there is quite a bit of information about writers/authors; then in the reception artists and cover art is described, and then back to writers. I think it might flow better if, in the reception paragraph, the writer information comes before the art information to continue from above, if that makes sense?

  Yes, it was a bit back-and-forth. I had a think about this, and what I've done is to move all the artist-related material to its own paragraph. The final paragraph is intended as a summary, included quoted recollections; so the structure is now three paras on fiction and writers, one para on art and artists, and a summary/retrospective para. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is a nice improvement. TK (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Another nicely done article on a pulp magazine! TK (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I'm rather surprised that I hadn't heard of this magazine until now, but here are a few ignorant comments anyway:

• "This was higher than the best UK markets, such as New Worlds, and was close to the rates paid by the best markets in the US at that time." Markets don't pay, publishers do.

  I think the root problem here is jargon; sf writers refer to individual magazines as markets, so in that sense a market does pay. You even see things like "John Campbell [editor of Astounding] was my best market that year". However, jargon is just as bad as imprecision, so I've reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Hamilton was glad to work with fans trying to make a professional sale ...". I have no idea what that means.

  Sf readers often dream of becoming writers; I suspect this is more true of sf than of other genres, though I couldn't cite that guess. What I meant was that Hamilton worked with sf fans who were subscribers and readers and part of the sf fandom subculture, but who had no writing experience. Few of them (perhaps none) became famous. It's a very minor comment and it takes too much explaining so I've cut it; it's really of interest only to other fans. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Robert Silverberg had begun submitting to Hamilton ...". You make it sound like an SM paradise.

  Hah. More jargon; thanks for spotting this. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Hamilton only serialised one novel: Wisdom of the Gods, by Ken Bulmer, which appeared in four parts, starting in the July 1958 issue. Hamilton was planning to serialize a novel by Robert Heinlein ...".

  That's my damn mixed-up AmBrEng. Thanks for finding that; the article should be in BrEng so please fix anything else you spot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and also for the copyedit; I am always impressed at your ability to clean up prose I think is already clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I get caught with my own stuff as well; I see what I meant to write, or what I think I wrote. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistency-- is Ashley, Mike the same person as Ashley, Michael? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [19].

---

Jefferson nickel

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Jefferson nickel is a fairly ubiquitous item of trade, yet it has an interesting history. If you've ever noticed Monticello on the nickel seems far more imposing than in real life, read on.Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• 1c/2c Support No real issues; Consider contracting Massachusetts in the Bibliography per your US state style. I spot checked 3 random online sources for copyright, plagiarism, paraphrase, support of claim cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "5 cents (.05 U.S. dollars)". There should be a zero before the decimal.
• It says " 5.000 g (0.1615 troy oz)". That's a remarkable precision and looks particularly dramatic when described in troy ounces. Do we know the precision? Many coin weights are expressed in grams only. The troy ounce value for recent coins (within the last 1 to 1.5 centuries?) seems to me to add little value, has this issue been discussed?

It has not been discussed, and I'd welcome hearing the views of others interested in numismatics. It might be that a distinction should be drawn between precious metal coins and base metal coins. And yes, the nickel is exactly five grams. I'll-fated decimalization efforts in 1866 and 1882, see Shield nickel and Liberty Head nickel for details.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see the views. It's an interesting issue for many coin articles. But this article can proceed through the FA process without it being resolved. Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Troy weights are used to measure all metals (not just precious metals), but I agree that it is useless on most coin articles unless the coin is known for its troy weight, such as bullion coins. The infobox has a field for grains, but that is also somewhat archaic. If anyone is interested, I would be glad to add a new field for weight in standard ounces.-RHM22 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest adding weight in ounces, to do otherwise invites confusion I think, for precious metal coins especially. Thank you..--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there's now a field for ounces. Just add "Mass_ounce" to the infobox and put the weight in there.-RHM22 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass_ounce? Mais oui! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It says "Early production; World War II changes (1938–1945)", "Later production (1946–2003)", and "Westward Journey nickels; redesign of obverse (2003–present)".

• I think the sections and titles could do with review. It took me a while to work out what the headings meant and I see now the semi-colons indicate that they combine two ideas. I think it would be simpler to understand with just one idea per heading.
• If the headings relate to time spans, it might be simpler to understand with the more direct format of 'Production <start date>-<end date>'.
• I have no idea what 'Westward Journey' means. It's used as a title but not explained. I recommend that any phrase in a title should be self-evident or explained.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've played with it. Is it better now?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review - File:1945-P-Jefferson-War-Nickel-Reverse.JPG needs licensing info for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done that, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• 1946–2003: "A number of leftover reverse dies with S mintmark were used in Denver". Should "an" be added before S? I'm not sure if that's the intention or not.

I've written it correctly but you are right, it sounds sort of jargony. I'll toss in the "an" as requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• 2003–present: Not a big fan of the in-text external link. It seems like it would be more appropriate as a reference or external link at the bottom of the article.
• "from a journal entry by William Clark. Clark...". Another of these situations where a word repeats from the end of one sentence to the start of another. This should be simple enough to fix, maybe with "He".
• The Walter Breen book is listed in the bibliography, but there are no cites to it.
• In reference 24, should the city name be included as part of the newspaper's name and italicized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've ascertained that the name is properly The Register-Guard and so I've used the city name as a location, in parens following the name. I think I've caught all your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – My comments have all been dealt with and this looks like another nice coin article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• support, I enjoy this one didnt notice any points of concern, not even minor one like I the Bufflo nickel this is IMHO a featurable article Gnangarra 13:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Racepacket (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the convenience of the delegate, I've taken the liberty of bolding Gnangarra's support. By the way, Racepacket was the GA reviewer, and I thank the two of them and Giants2008 for their work and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

• Consistency: US vs. U.S.
• "his house, Monticello": either remove or add a comma.
• "modernistic": "modernism" is "a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression" (M-W). Was this what was meant?

Yes, Bowers specifically uses the word modernistic. It is what was meant, and what was resented by the Treasury.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• "animus": too strong for the context.
• "the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau": you know the drill.
• "sculptor/engraver": WP:SLASH recommends against slashes.
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Thanks for the fixes. These are my edits. I used to change "From 1971," to "From 1971 on," or "Starting in 1971," in AmEng, but I'm seeing the Britishism more and more in American prose. I still don't use it myself, but I can't say it's wrong, either. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will confess to have been bothered slightly by it. I'll keep playing around.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaning toSupport: A few mainly minor issues:-

• Infobox: I have some difficulty following the various designs indicated. I can work out that the large designs are the current obverse and reverse, and that the smaller designs are earlier versions, but the labelling does not make this entirely clear. In particular the four reverse designs for 2004 and 2005 are confusing labelled ("upper" and "lower", but not "left" and "right"). Perhaps all will be clear when I absorb the text, but I think an infobox should have a stand-alone clarity.
• Lead
  • "Beginning in 2006,..." → "Since 2006..." ?
  • Perhaps the phrase "replacing the 1913 Buffalo nickel" could be added to the first sentence?
• Production
  • "Production of the Jefferson nickel began at all three mints..." Previously you have referred to "the Mint" with no indication that it was a tripartite body
  • "...this alloy began to be coined into nickels beginning in October 1942" The "began ... beginning" proximity is ugly. Suggest replace "beginning in" with "from"
• 1946–2003
  • It's not obvious to non-coin people what "the 1950-D" refers to.
  • "Proof coin sales resumed in 1968, but with coins struck at the reopened San Francisco facility". Don't follow the "but", suggest delete (or, maybe, "but only").
  • "In 1968, after three years of coins with no mint marks to represent place of origin, they returned, but moved to the lower part of the obverse, to the right of Jefferson's bust." Grammar; I imagine "they returned" is intended to refer to "mint marks", but the subject of the sentence is "coins with no mint marks". The sentence needs rewording.
• 2003–present: Last paragraph: I'm not sure that "rebounded" is the best word here. In the final sentence the word "more" looks unnecessary.

As with previous coin articles the detail is spot-on and I anticipate full support very soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

All issues resolved. Support registered. Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both Dank and Brianboulton, and as I've said, to all the commenters. I have addressed Brianbouton and Dank's comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support— Graham Colm (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [20].

---

Banksia marginata

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to nominate a banksia for a while but got interested in this one as it is a taxonomic conundrum, so I buffed it for my own education...and well here I am. Have at it. I'll try and be prompt in answering queries. (There are 16 others to compare to, if anyone wants to check and compare to see what I might have missed) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Is "Alf" a nickname or an abbreviation? Was this a master's or PhD thesis?

His name was Abraham Isaac Salkin, but everyone knew him as 'Alf' so...I dunno, just what everyone called him in all correspondence (and how he answered the phone :)) It was an M Sc thesis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether our not you provide publisher locations, and if you do whether you include states for Australian locations (most you do both , but not all)

I'll slot all the states in and locations where I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Provide page numbers for multi-page PDFs
• What does IBIS stand for?

Nothing earth-shattering. --> this. is it worth explaining in article? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting on FN 16, 41

got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include "England" in London-based refs (I would prefer not, or at least using UK instead, but it's up to you)

I think I have UK'ed them all.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multi-author refs are formatted

I am not sure what you mean here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Thiele, Kevin and Pauline Y. Ladiges" vs "Taylor, Anne; Hopper, Stephen" - why the difference? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Aah, missed that - fixed now. mere oversight on my part. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how volumes/editions are notated

resolved (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page numbers appear before or after ISBNs

One source we've used a pesky template for. I'll rejig that rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Use endashes for all page ranges

got 'em all Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, formatting needs to be much more consistent. The sources themselves appear appropriately scholarly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have nothing to add from the GA nomination, I feel this is ready for featured article status. For the record, all images check out. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments just a few Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• banksia expert — cap for banksias?

Tricky as I'd either use nonitalicised banksia (commn name) or genus name (italicised and capitalised). Given the monograph George wrote, I'll align it as genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• some forms (in lead) — where have these come from, there are no ssp, so what are these? Never really made clear as far as I can see

aha, I've been sloppy. Form (botany) can mean any minor variation and alot of botanists and plantspeople use the term loosely to describe (essentially) any origin with any possible characteristics. Heeding your puzzlement at the term's use I have looked over, and some replaced with "population" since that is what is more aptly meant, and in one instance "habit". I can see why this has only arisen with this species as it is so widely variable, yet no subspecies or varieties are recognised, yet "form" is a sort of all-encompassing short hand I've resorted to. Anyway, tweaked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "forms" three times in para 2

see above Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Conversely, it — I'm not sure that either "conversely" or "it" are correct. In what sense is a bush the opposite of a tree? And I think the subject referred to is plural

it is more the stark contrast between it growing as a 12 metre high tree, and a 20 cm shrub. Not exactly "opposite" but a huge and remarkable difference within the one species. However, I have changed from the stark "conversely" to the not-opposite-but-still-contrastive "while" and pluralised that segment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• 1.5–6 cm/0.59–2.4 in long and 0.3–1.3 cm/0.12–0.51 in. — delusions of accuracy. How can the inch figure be accurate to one-hundredth of an inch?

gah! more template:convert madness. I find it makes the simple complicated, but found some tweaks that make it give sensible conversions now (hopefully). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I always do conversions by hand, less problems in the long run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Description —please split this interminable sentence

?? - ummm...you've lost me. Which one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In Firefox 4 at least, the whole of "Description" is one sentence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Aah, you mean paragraphs not "sentences"? Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Duh - how do I ever get my own FAs threw when I can't even use the right word! Changed to support, good luck, Cas. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - y'know someone corresponded with me reporting this growing outside in a garden in Leeds...need to find the ref for that somewhere...hehehe Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Why do some captins begin with lowercase letters?

Captions that are sentences (i.e. they have a verb in them) need a capital and period. Others should not have either. I could make them all (or none) sentences I guess.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not a big problem, but the link to Harrison's website on several of the image pages appears to be broken

Aah, I think JJ Harrison (talk · contribs) would be best placed to answer that. I'll ask him when he's next around.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Publisher for Banksia Atlas? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the Australian Government Publishing Service Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments - Another nice Banksia article. I really need to travel down under to see all of these plants I keep reading about :) A few thoughts:

• Description. "to possibly 30 m". We don't know for sure?

Official herbarium description gives 12 m as maximum height, and the reports of taller trees are not officially verified Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Taxonomy and naming, "(having crossed out Van Diemen's Land 1804)". I'm not sure what this means?

It means Brown made a mistake - he thouight the specimen came from Tasmania but it came from Victoria. I find this stuff fascinating, the taxonomic history. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Taxonomy and naming, "The French naturalist Aimé Bonpland called it Banksia marcescens Bonpl.," When?

1816. added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Taxonomy and naming, "Kevin Thiele placed it in a subseries Integrifoliae," When?

1994. added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Taxonomy and naming, "he found it to be the most basal member, within the Salicinae" Should Salicinae be italicized? Also, I'm not completely understanding what this is trying to say. It was the most basal member within the Salicinae (i.e., lose the comma)? Or, it was the most basal member of Integrifoliae? Or something else completely?

Aha, most basal of Integrifoliae, which lies within the salicinae - reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Distribution and habitat, "from mixed forest (where it grows as a small tree), button grass moorlands, flood plains of the Loddon, Franklin and Huon Rivers, as well as coastal regions." Seeing a "from", I'm expecting a "to" somewhere...

Aha, just changed to "in" as there isn't a hard-core sequence of habitats listed here Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall very good. Once the above comments are taken care of, I'll have no problem supporting the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow response. Everything looks good, so I've changed to a support. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, some alpine forms could probably handle down to -15C and snow. Maybe that'd grow on a south-facing wall somewhere where you are...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it might, if it was protected. Or even in the (unheated) greenhouse... It often gets down to -20C for a few days in the wintertime + several feet of snow, but it's the wind that's the killer of plants around here... But then there's all of the importation permits and everything. I think I'll just use that as an excuse to come down to Australia - I've been looking for just such an excuse for a while :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "24 feet high and a trunk girth of two feet". These need conversions to make it widely accessible.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

added - left metric second and in parentheses as the description is old and was in imperial units. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• "1.5–6 cm/0.6–2.4 in long": YMMV, but I've generally asked people to do something about "in" when it might be misinterpreted as, well, "in". The usual format (with parentheses around the second units) would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I hate that formatting style which template:convert gave me this time. I'd not seen it before and was pondering tweaks to make it parenthetical. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

update, its the "disp=s" parameter. I just removed them all but got edit-conflicted. Feel free to remove them or I will in a few hours. Gotta attend to RL....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• In Banksia marginata#Placement within Banksia, in the sentence starting "In this arrangement", it's generally best to avoid using semicolons to separate elements of the series if there's an easy way to do it. Since you've only got one comma (in the first element), it's probably doable; one way would be to make the first element the last element in the series.

I think this is readily navigated with commas, so just changed the semicolons to commas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• [Full support below.] Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to Banksia_marginata#Distribution and habitat. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That gallery is distracting, but never mind, that's just my personal opinion ... what I really don't understand is why the gallery captions begin with lower case, while all other captions in the article begin with uppercase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A string of words without a finite verb in it is not a sentence and hence does not need a capital to start it nor a period to end it. If I converted to sentences, some would sound odd. I might try the other way for uniformity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'd not normally use a gallery but I really wanted to capture the remarkable variability of this species and show the images next to each other for maximum contrast. It is pretty unique in this way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, MOS review needed-- I saw MOSNUM issues, missing conversions, and failures of Precise language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the first half, "1.5–6 cm/0.6–2.4 in long": MOSNUM prefers parentheses. Need conversion for 2–5 mm. I don't see any WP:DATED problems in the first half. Anyone available to tackle MOS issues in the second half? - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, missed those three - got 'em now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently no help coming, plodding onward(s). Conversions needed: 400 to 1000 mm, 1200 metres, 8 m.

got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The collection was displayed in various exhibitions, and is currently housed": Sandy has flagged this for a "Precise language" check. Can you tell from the source whether this collection is housed there more or less permanently? If so, it's fine if you remove "currently". If not, add "of as 2011", if the accessdate of the cite is a good indication.

permanent, hence currently removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's a prostrate?

== Prostrate shrub - linked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I made it to the end. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

thx++ :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead is tasty. I reviewed the lead and worked out a few issues with Casliber; the details have been moved to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. I am very satisfied with the lead as it currently stands. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• "ranging from a small 20 cm (8 in) high shrub to a large 12 m (40 ft) tall tree"—body says it goes to 30 m, and does not mention 20 cm (it does mention 2-m shrubs; is that an error for 20 cm?).

Yes it does - the usual range is 1-12 m, which is what the standard herbaria and monographs say, but there are some extremes of size which are mentioned in the three sentences (I think you overlooked the first sentence after the usual range) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that. Ucucha 02:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Robert Brown described 31 known species of Banksia"—why the "known"? Did he also describe unknown species?

aha, good point. removed redundant word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Further in taxonomy: why is Banksia australis mentioned in detail and not the other synonyms that Brown named? What did Bonpland call B. marcescens?

I was fascinated that he crossed the original location out and it has been remarked unpon by George and Salkin as well. I lacked other info but I have some to add now, so I will do so for balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this piece could be organized a little better chronologically. Ucucha 02:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah, this bit is somewhat complex. I'll have a think. rejigged now - is this along the lines of what you're thinking? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 14:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks - As well as my review above, I have carried out spotchecks of the references. I have found no instances of close paraphrasing or copyvios, and all information was backed up by the given reference. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are hyphenation issues throughout: a tree can be 12 m high, or it can be a 12 m-high tree. Tony usually recommends recasting the sentence to avoid the need for hyphens. Did the prose checkers not make it to the end of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, yes the cultivation section was a bit sloppy, which you fixed (thanks). I didn't have a problem with the lead and it was analysed by a few. Still, I think avoiding that hyphen was prudent. The ones that remain as far as I can tell are uncontroversial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [21].

---

2012 phenomenon

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous 10:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC), User:Cosmic Latte, User:PL, User:Shii, User:HRIN

I am nominating this for featured article because all the issues raised at its previous FAC have been fixed, and it has subsequently been peer reviewed, and then, unofficially, peer reviewed again. Some issues which may be of interest to reviewers are covered on the article's talk page. Serendi^podous 10:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• "13th b'ak'tun", "thirteenth b'ak'tun": consistency please.
• "pushes the Sun's position very slightly farther through the Milky Way": I don't understand.
• It's not my call when I've got my copy-editor hat on, but I'm not sure if you need the last subsection, 2012_phenomenon#Planet X/Nibiru. I take it from the description in this article that these ideas have very little support.
  • Wait, I've poked around a little and it seems a fair number of people continue to talk about this. In that case, keep the subsection, but include at least one reference (perhaps from the hatnoted article) that shows that people are still talking about it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Inserted ... one more thing. "NASA has compared fears about 2012 with those about the approaching new millennium in the late 1990s, suggesting that an adequate analysis should preclude fears of disaster.": I'd recommend deleting this from the lead. It's not reflected in the text of the article, and I don't think it's a fair representation of what NASA is saying. That is, they don't make a comparison between Y2K fears and 2012 fears, they just start off with a throwaway line about Y2K, then devote the whole article to 2012. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These (minus one) and these are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• Should specify how long a baktun is.
• Seems a bit underlinked - "Palenque, Usumacinta, and La Mar" not linked, Mayan stelae (FA) should be linked somewhere.
• "In India, the guru Kalki Bhagavan has promoted 2012 ..." - one (short) sentence para.
• The Mayan maths & the astronomy are rather beyond me, & I haven't looked at the sources (chicken, I know..)
• an extra image or two would help - Bugarach & its peak look pretty (or even a French riot policeman).

As far as I can tell, which isn't very far, seems to meet the criteria otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says that a baktun is 144,000 days.

That's not very helpful! It's 395 years or something.

Which Mayan maths and astronomy do you mean?

Well most of the article, but I just don't follow that stuff. Sentence by sentence it all seemed to make sense. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Serendi^podous 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support though I notice another one sentence para in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose on sourcing at this time

• "precession causes a slight shift in the Sun's apparent position in the Milky Way." - source?
• A significant number of citations to book sources do not include page numbers - this is required for verifiability. If you're citing the existence of the book only then you don't need page numbers, but citation 67 for example includes no page numbers despite sourcing a direct quote
• See MOS:QUOTE for correct formatting of embedded quotes
• Citation formatting needs cleanup - some shortened citations use p/pp while others don't, multi-page PDFs need page numbers, etc
• Spotchecks found instances of close paraphrasing. For example "To render December 21, 2012, as a doomsday event or moment of cosmic shifting, she says, is" replicates "To render Dec. 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting, she says, is" from the source almost verbatim
• What makes this a reliable source? This? Check out WP:SPS for guidelines on self-published sources like blogs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me which ref the first source is citing? Because I didn't add it and don't know where it is. Serendi^podous 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Current citation 17. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to one of Nikkimaria's points and some Comments

• The scientific side of the astronomical information all checks out to me. Support there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridia (talk • contribs) 06:52, April 13, 2011
• Disagree with Nikkimaria's first point about precession: that statement is an extension of the explanation of the effect of precession moving the apparent position of the Sun in the sky that is made in the previous paragraph. I think it counts as acceptable further explanation and does not require a source.
• General comment on source reliability for other reviewers: A lot of the astronomical info will require sources equivalent to Sky and Telescope: it is info that NASA's outreach or an amateur astronomy magazine would publish, but would not be discussed in professional literature, (such as the gravitational effect of the central supermassive black hole on our Solar System).
• Though if you don't want a website, a textbook like Roy & Clarke could be cited for the precession paragraph.
• First mention of "Mayanist" comes well before the explanation of what they are.
• "supposedly supported by observations that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening" I'd change this cite to the Nature Geoscience article the pop sci article is discussing.
• "the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now predicts that the solar maximum will peak in 2013, not 2012" I'd update this link and statement, since the current solar cycle is not matching the models that well.
• "the event was initially slated for 2003, but this date was abandoned after it passed without incident." Cite here would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridia (talk • contribs)

comments: I've addressed most of the glaring issues raised above. I've page numbered the majority of book refs or pdfs but several are, as you say, citing the existence of the book/pdf and nothing else. I've gone through recent cites from NOAA but they all still say May 2013. Serendi^podous 08:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods

fixed. Serendi^podous 05:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Images themselves appear unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Question What makes Defesche 2007 (current ref 2) a WP:RS? Typically, MA theses are not considered a reliable source. Exceptions are possible though. Is this one of them? It certainly is good study, that has been quoted by his advisor, and maybe should be published, but it still is a masters thesis.TR 12:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where the information came from, as long as it's been vetted and cleared for publication by a reliable site. Skepsis is the Norwegian affiliate of CSICOP, which makes it about as rock solid a skeptical site as you're likely to find. Serendi^podous 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't in that case Skepsis be listed as the publisher for the ref? TR 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments :

• Article title seems vague. There are going to be lots of 'phenomenon' in 2012 that don't come into this article. Why is '2012 phenomenon' preferable to say for example '2012 eschatology'?
• Parts of the last two notes aren't referenced. Would be better if notes could be numbered/lettered for easy of communication.
• Typo found in alt "a photoraph of the Milky Way"
• Three dablinks found: Aquarius, Magnetic pole, Pisces
• Reference 71 for financialpost.com no longer seems to contain the information required.
• Reference 37 has no page number Not required as book as a whole.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Most issues resolved.
• re:title. If you look at the article's move history, there have been many discussions regarding what to call it. "2012 phenomenon" is the title chosen after years of discussion and it seems that it follows consensus.
• The final note falls under WP:CALC

Serendi^podous 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Striked resolved issues. Not entirely convinced on the article title situation but it isn't an actionable task so I've striked it.
• How can 'Sun's winter solstice position first fully crossed into the Milky Way around the year 800 AD' be WP:CALC? I believe some reference is required. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You can determine the approximate angular width of the Milky Way. You can determine the speed at which the Sun precesses. You can determine the ecliptic longitude of the Sun at the winter solstice. You know Sun is 0.5° wide. You know the direction the Sun is travelling in. So you can calculate from that when the Sun first entered the Milky Way. Of course, the figure should be rounded, as it can only ever be approximate. Serendi^podous 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My previous limited experience with WP:CALC left me with the impression that would be to much of a calculation, however I may have got the wrong idea of how CALC is interpreted. So I've asked for a second opinion here. 19:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't take that information down. It has to be there, or the article makes no sense. And there's no way I'm going to find a source that will pass RS on this. So you have to decide whether the FAC can still continue with this in it or not, because it can't be taken out. Serendi^podous 07:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that it is some sort of original research.. So it cannot stay in it's present state. I suggest the sentence can be removed. The article cannot pass the Featured article criteria while containing WP:OR. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down. It's about as far as I can go without locating an RS. I hope that's enough. Serendi^podous 06:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this link from the Cornell University "Curious About Astronomy" webpage? It seems to be a RS (Cornell Uniuversity astronomers) and says in part Defining an exact boundary for the plane of the Milky Way is tough, but it's at least 10-20 degrees wide across much of the sky, meaning that the solstice can be described as being "in the plane of the Milky Way" for 700-1400 years! To put it another way, the winter solstice that just past (2005) was only 0.1 degrees away from where it will be in 2012, a distance smaller than the size of the Sun itself (which is about 0.5 degrees in diameter). In any case the Sun crosses the plane of the Galaxy twice every year as we orbit around it, with no ill effect on Earth. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's definitely a help! Thanks. Serendi^podous 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Striked the issue as resolved. Good work. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this a while ago and have just re-read it carefully. I am leaning towards support, but would like to see some fairly nit-picky points addressed first, which I outline below.

• Inclusive language, use "humans" or "humanity" or "people" for "men" in The Popol Vuh describes the gods first creating three failed worlds, followed by a successful fourth world in which men were placed.?
• How recent is "recently rediscovered"? There is a mention in this article of the Long Count calendar from 1957, over 50 years ago, which does not seem that recent to me. Although the Calendar Round is still used by some Maya groups in the Guatemalan Highlands, the Long Count was employed exclusively by the classic Maya, and was only recently rediscovered by archaeologists.[25] Perhaps give the approximate date instead? "and was only rediscovered by archeologists in the [1950s? latter half of the 20th century?]"
• Would the Tortuguero inscription be clearer in a table with two columns, with the original text on the left and translation on the right? Seems like it would take less room that way.
• Is the capitalization "Proleptic" or "proleptic"? (both are used in this article)
• I am not sure about tense - I understand that we are before 2012 now, so future tense makes some sense, but this sentence is about books written in the past and all the other sentences in the paragraph it begins seem to be in past tense (so should it also be past tense?): In 1975, the ending of b'ak'tun 13 became the subject of speculation by several New Age authors, who believe it will correspond to a global "consciousness shift". (i.e. change to "...believed it would correspond to...")

Many are still alive, and still believe this. Serendi^podous 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also not sure what tense Aveni dismisses all these authors.[45] should be (past, since the ref is from 2009?) So Aveni has dismissed all these authors.[45]
• Does this need a ref? In Western astrological traditions, precession is measured from the northern hemisphere's spring equinox, or the point at which the Sun is exactly halfway between its lowest and highest points in the sky. Presently, the Sun's spring equinox position is in the constellation Pisces and is moving back into Aquarius. This signals the end of one astrological age (the Age of Pisces) and the beginning of another (the Age of Aquarius). Is the song a WP:RS? ;-)
• Tighten? According to this hypothesis (termed the Shiva Hypothesis), mass extinctions are not random, but recur every 26 million years.
• Should the Geomagnetic reversal section make explicit reference to 2012 somehow? So something like Another idea [associated with 2012] involves a geomagnetic reversal (often incorrectly referred to as a pole shift by proponents),...
• Would "predicted" be better than "slated" in This idea has appeared in various forms since 1995; the event was initially slated for 2003, but this date was abandoned after it passed without incident.[94]?
• Wikilink NASA in the Nibiru section?
• I understand that "in 2012" in the following sentence means that the predicted arrival date of the spacecraft is 2012, but I do not think the grammar is correct. In December 2010, an article, first published in examiner.com and later referenced in the English-language edition of Pravda[101] claimed, citing a Second Digitized Sky Survey photograph as evidence, that SETI had detected three large spacecraft en route to Earth in 2012.[102] Perhaps en route to Earth and due to arrive in 2012.? Or would splitting this sentence be clearer / better? So In December 2010, an article, first published in examiner.com and later referenced in the English-language edition of Pravda[101] claimed that SETI had detected three large spacecraft en route to Earth. The article, which cited a Second Digitized Sky Survey photograph as evidence, said the spacecraft would arrive in 2012.[102]
• The Notes are identified by letter in the text, but are not so identified in the Notes section itself. I think thet they should be for clarity.
  • Thanks for yoiur work on this article, which looks much better than it did last time I saw it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Other issues resolved. Serendi^podous 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to support. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are all those books needed in "Further reading", shouldn't most of what's there be covered in the article, and what will prevent that from becoming a trivia farm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I care not a jot for that section, so it can go. Serendi^podous 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support by a vicious bird-eating spider who calls himself "Cryptic C62".

• "A New Age interpretation of this transition postulates that during this time," During which time, the 5,125-year cycle, or December 21? I assume it's the latter, in which case "during this time" should probably be replaced with "on this date".
• "Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of catastrophe in 2012." So they're saying that there won't be any earthquakes, volcano eruptions, or tsunamis in 2012? All of these things could be considered catastrophes, particular by those who end up buried under the rubble/ash/water. I think a better phrasing would be "Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea that such a cataclysmic event will occur in 2012."
• Why isn't there an In popular culture or In fiction section?

All attempts to add such sections have been deleted. Serendi^podous 20:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. I imagine it can be rather frustrating to have to deal with pop-culture deletionists, but it just seems absurd to me that there exists a film about this very phenomenon, but its only mention is in the See Also section. The existence of mainstream cinema/literature about this subject shows that it is a much more widespread (mis)belief than just a handful of New Age weirdos. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I made that very point last year. To no effect. Serendi^podous 19:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cryptic of the requirement of an in culture section. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also be fine with a culture section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

added. Serendi^podous 07:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, I will take a look at the new prose right now. If anyone gives you flak for adding the section, I will gladly stand by your side and defend the obvious necessity of its existence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Half of these emails are from outside the U.S." What is the purpose of this statement? --Cryptic C62 · Talk

Don't know. The start of that paragraph says there are hundreds of books and hundreds of website. Then focuses three sentences on just one person. That is UNDUE WEIGHT. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC) done

I've had a go at reworking it. Serendi^podous 06:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So what still needs to be done? It's been 11 days since the last comment and all listed issues have been resolved. Serendi^podous 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is an issue with the article per se, I checked earlier today and no FACs had been promoted since May 6th. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment Are you sure that it doesn't lack major or minor facts? TGilmour (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you assume that it lacks facts? Serendi^podous 22:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

TGilmour - opposes have to be based on actionable requests, otherwise they can be ignored by the FAC director or the FAC delegates. I do not see how your oppose is actionable. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just said that there may be available some facts that aren't mentioned in the article. TGilmour (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There undoubtedly are; for instance, it isn't mentioned in the article that the Earth is round, or that the sky is blue, or that snow is cold. These facts aren't mentioned because they aren't relevant. Unless we have some idea of what these facts you refer to are, then we can't judge whether or not they are relevant. Serendi^podous 12:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Understood. TGilmour (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [22].

---

Calabozos

Nominator(s): ceranthor 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's a comprehensive account of this relatively obscure volcano. At the last FAC, there were problems with organization and images. While I haven't quite been able to tell which feature in the satellite images is Calabozos, I plan on doing that during the course of this FAC. Otherwise, everything that could be fixed from the last FAC has been fixed, and I feel the article is now ready to be re-nominated. ceranthor 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources review:

• No citations that I can see to González-Ferrán
• Nor to "Simkin, T., and Siebert"

Some of the information in the sources actually used came from these references. Should they be removed?

ceranthor 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are not directly cited, they should be listed separately as "Further reading". Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• "This subduction process has resulted in the formation of the Peru-Chile Trench, an oceanic trench in the Pacific Ocean. It also produced the Andean Volcanic Belt and the rest of the Andes."[7] I have difficulty in finding evidence for these statements in the cited source.

fixed. ceranthor 23:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence is certainly in there, but the first one was indeed from a different source. Nice catch. ceranthor 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise citations and sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions.

Support—My concerns were addressed. Comments—Nice article. Just a few issues:

• "...a massive amount of space." is vague. Should this list the 200–500 cubic kilometres from the "Eruptive History" section?

Fixed.

• Is there a depth listed for the caldera?

No.

• "Calabozos is of similar age to the Cerro Azul stratovolcano." The caption should clarify which of these is being displayed.

Fixed.

• The description of the first eruption doesn't list an estimated volume, in contrast to the second and third eruptions. Is this information available?

It's not in any sources I have afaik. I suspect that they're unsure because of erosion. Hildreth says "Subsequent ice advances [...] excavated spectacular exposures in the course of removing as much as 75 percent of extracaldera units S and V and probably 95 percent of unit L." So I'd assume that means no.

• The "Stern et al.", "Grunder" and "Grunder and Mahood" short form notation cites don't list a year, whereas the other short form citations do. It would be good to be consistent.

Fixed.

• It doesn't appear that the following citation is used. Any reason for not including this information?
  • Grunder, Anita L., Thompson, J. Michael, Hildreth, W. (July 1987). "The hydrothermal system of the Calabozos caldera, central Chilean Andes". Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 32 (4): 287–298. doi:10.1016/0377-0273(87)90080-1.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I have access to it, but it seemed highly technical and simply unnecessary at the time. I'd be willing to incorporate some of the information if you wish.

I think some of the basic information would be interesting, such as the amount of time the thermal system has been active (much less than the age of the caldera), the existence of two distinct systems with different sources, &c.

Added a bit of information.

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!

• Support – I couldn't find any prose/grammar issues with the article. The thing I noticed was "Calabozos" repeats on the lead (Calabozos and the majority of the Andean volcanoes formed [...] South American continental lithosphere. Calabozos is in a transitional). Great job on the article. Novice7 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I tried to fix that one instance you mentioned. ceranthor 13:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks really good. Novice7 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) ceranthor 14:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I made a few edits, please feel free to revert them if I have introduced any errors. I left one comment on the Talk Page about the inconsistent use of "million years ago" and "mya". I don't like "Each period is distinct for its composition and size" but not knowing the subject, I have left it; what does it mean? The article is much improved since the last FAC. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ceranthor 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I got all the million years ago, and I removed the sentence. Thanks. ceranthor 23:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• From what point on the caldera is elevation measured?
• Third paragraph of Geography needs editing for flow and clarity
• "Its largest historical eruption was at Quizapu Crater, located on the north side of Cerro Azul's summit" - okay, but given that we're not told where Cerro Azul is that location doesn't mean much
• "at a rate of 9 centimetres (4 in) to 11 centimetres (4 in)" - that conversion seems meaningless. Also, rate per what? Year, month, week, day? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the last two. The elevation is measured from base to summit. The paragraph probably still needs a copyedit. ceranthor 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Looks good. Here are my comments:

• sedimentary and metamorphic rock in the lead need to be linked.
• andesitic and rhyolitic magma – can they be briefly explained in parentheses? Same with "plutonic".

They're linked; basically it means magma that it made from molten andesite or rhyolite, which are rocks. I'm not sure it would be helpful to explain them.

• I've been told from people who've reviewed my articles that we're not supposed to use flags in infoboxes. I can't remember if it's policy, but we might want to double-check that.

I'll check.

• "800,000 (0.8 mya) years ago and lasting until 150,000 (0.15 mya) years ago" ... Shouldn't it be: "800,000 years ago (0.8 mya) and lasting until 150,000 years ago (0.15 mya)"?
• In "Geography and structure", please link or explain "dacitic".
• "The scale of the eruptive events that produced these features remains essentially unclear." – Maybe it's just me, but I don't like "essentially unclear". If some aspects are clear while others are not, then those aspects that are clear should be explained.
• Although illustrations are important, I'm not sure if including File:Quizapu crater cerro azul.jpg is beneficial. With types of animals, similar species may be beneficial to look at. But if you're talking about the age of the volcano, showing the picture of another volcano is more likely to result in readers assuming they are looking at a picture of the volcano for which the article is entitled. Maybe I'm out-of-line, but since the feature that's being compared is not necessarily visible, I don't see the point of an illustration aside from breaking up the monotony of the text. But then again, you mention a similarity in size in the text... maybe that could be added to the caption (talking about similarities in size and age)??

I believe the old caption had that information in it, but I was asked to remove it. I'll re-mention it.

• "In comparison to the well-preserved rocks of the dry, central part of the Andes, the record that defines the southern sector is poorly kept." – Record keeping is a human task, rock preservation is a function of nature. If I'm not misinterpreting this, you mean that the rock preservation was poor and you're stating it in an anthropomorphic way. If I'm correct, please rephrase.

Re-used preserved. Hope that's okay.

• "Vegetation is rare in the area. The 1932 eruption of Cerro Azul's Quizapu Crater reduced much of the land to a pumice desert." – Does this mean there used to be vegetation, but the eruption erased it and it never returned? I just want to be clear.

Yeah, that's what it means.

• "Its remoteness means that Calabozos poses little threat." – I suggest appending "to human populations." Otherwise, the threat could be to other wildlife, the climate of the region, a fragile habitat, etc.

Aside from that, you've got a great article. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I implemented everything except for a few which I explained. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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

• Some reviewers object to doubled parentheses: "( ... elevation: 3,250 metres (10,663 ft))". I don't have a position. If you like, you can replace the inner parens with "or". - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• In case it comes up, I have no problem with the hyphen in "north-south"; I don't think this violates WP:DASH.
• Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, up to where I stopped, at Calabozos#Climate and vegetation. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ceranthor 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [23].

---

Abdul Karim (the Munshi)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) and DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He was an Indian Muslim who became a secretary to Queen Victoria, and influenced her views on India. Described variously as "really exemplary and excellent", "thoroughly stupid and uneducated", and "a sort of pet, like a dog or cat". DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Should mention the original source given in the PBS link
• Ref 60: check punctuation
• Ref 64: does the source specify the date of this account?
• Refs 93 and 94 are identical, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Changes made [24]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport: An interesting article which is well written and engaging. Just a couple of prose queries and things I didn't quite understand. If any of the questions are impossible to answer, that is not a problem and wouldn't prevent my support. And forgive my ignorance as I am not too familiar with this area of history!

• What is "a vernacular clerk" and how does one differ from an ordinary clerk?

I will defer on this to my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Vernacular is an adjective referring to native or indigenous language. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was meaning more along the lines of why not just "clerk"? Was a vernacular clerk a special position (i.e. did most clerks speak/write English?). --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "His father arranged a marriage between Karim and the sister of a fellow worker.": A fellow worker of Karim or his father?

They were coworkers at the jail; it's the same either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• "At the Queen's request, Tyler suggested Karim." Slightly fuzzy: did the Queen ask Tyler to recommend Karim or did she request a suggestion of who might be suitable?

The latter. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "...was beginning to engender jealousy and discontent among other members of the Royal Household...": A little grand? What about "began to create jealousy..."?
• "...which was composed of individuals who would normally never mingle socially with Indians below the rank of prince." A little clumsy; could it be simplified?
• "Karim, for his part, expected them to treat him as a member..." What about "expected to be treated"?
• "approached the Queen's private secretary Sir Henry Ponsonby in outrage at seeing the Munshi standing among the gentry." "at seeing"? What about "when he saw" or "upon seeing". And do we need "standing"?
• "considerable and meritorious military service": Does it need both adjectives? It sounds a little like a quote.

I don't have Basu, but Anand quotes the same letter, and the phrase the Viceroy uses is "very long and meritorious service". I will simplify to "long and good service".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've shifted "good" back to meritorious, because there are separate awards for long and good service; whereas a land grant is an exceptional award for doing something beyond long service and good conduct. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Through July to October..." Maybe "Between July and October"?
• "...there was little land in government control in the vicinity of Agra...": What about "there was little government-controlled land in the vicinity of Agra"?
• Is the Landsdown quote about land to show that he disapproved of the grant? It seems a little shoe-horned in at the moment.

He disapproved of it very much. He's saying a great hero of the Mutiny only got half what the Munshi's getting, and the old soldier only gets the income for life. The Munshi is getting a perpetual income or possibly ownership, it isn't clear. Lansdowne is saying "What has he done by comparison to deserve this?"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Lansdowne met both the Munshi and his father privately..." The Munshi's father?
• Why did Karim's father want so many poisons?

I leave this for my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He did not say, or it is not recorded. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "As a fellow woman..." Seems an odd phrase, a fellow woman?
• "Beginning in 1892, the Munshi's name appeared in the Court Circular..." Does this mean he appeared in every year from 1892?

In years he accompanied the Queen, yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• "By March 1897, Reid was treating Karim for gonorrhea." This seems to be a little random. Is there a connection with the following sentence? If not, a little context may make it a little less abrupt!

My colleague has the source that discusses this incident in greater detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hibbert slips it in as a clause "now suffering from gonorrhea" in the midst of the Cimiez incident, but without directly linking them. Basu directly links the two saying "The news just broken by Reid had provoked this collective display ... The doctor revealed that he had been treating the Munshi for gleet and a relapse of venereal disease." I would prefer to leave it to the reader to make a connection, but the alternative would be to add a sentence after ".. gonorrhea." Something along the lines of "According to biographer Shrabani Basu, the Munshi's infection brought the Household's simmering discontent to a head."? DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I would be inclined to spell it out. At the moment, rather than hinting at a suggestion, it seems disconnected (to me, anyway). If a biographer has made the connection, I would use it and go for that sentence. However, I'm happy to leave the call to you on this one as I don't think it's that big an issue and I understand your reasoning. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• What is the "long letter" that Victoria enclosed?

My sources don't say what it was. It probably doesn't exist anymore, thanks to King Edward.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Victoria said to burn it after reading. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Privy Purse Sir Fleetwood Edwards and Prime Minister Lord Salisbury advised against it." Advised against the MVO or the knighthood?

I leave this for my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The MVO. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Victoria was visibly older..." Odd phrasing; obviously she would be older. As the point is that she looked much older, how about she had "visibly aged" or "noticeably older".
• Why was the destruction/return of the letters so important?

It doesn't say. I think the King feared either publication or blackmail. He had long experience being on the receiving end of both.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Victoria emerges from this quite well, given the obvious racism displayed by others and her attitude seems unusual for the time. Are there other examples of such an attitude from Victoria and has it drawn comment from contemporaries or historians? Or did she just really like the Munshi? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Victoria had many faults, but she could not abide racism or prejudice of any kind. There are other incidents. Her support for Peel in the Maynooth Grant controversy, and even her very pointed visit to Maynooth when she went to Ireland. My colleague has the scholarly bios of Victoria, or at least had them recently, but the smaller-scale books, like the one I used for one or two refs regarding her holidays on the Riviera comment on her dislike of prejudice. I will work my way through these. As I have only some of the refs and Dr Kiernan has the others, I'll do the best I can with these and leave him a minimum of cleanup to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done my bit now. Thank you for the thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Combined changes [25]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, switching to support. Great stuff! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I quite like this article and feel sure I'll be able to support its promotion, but the writing seems a bit slack in a few places. Some examples:

• "In December, Victoria practised what she had learnt during an audience given to the Maharani Chimnabai of Baroda." The punctuation (or lack of it) makes it seem as if she learnt the Urdu during the audience, and practised it elsewhere.
• "... and on 20 August she 'had some excellent curry made by one of my Indian servants'". That just doesn't work.
• "As a result, Victoria wrote to the Viceroy of India, Lord Lansdowne, throughout the first six months of 1889 demanding action on Waziruddin's pension and Tyler's promotion." There's something wrong with the punctuation there, from "throughout the first six months" onwards.
• "In May 1892, the Munshi returned to India for six months' leave". He didn't return to India for his leave, he returned during his leave.
• "By 1893, Victoria was sending notes to Karim signed in Urdu. Victoria often signed her letters to Karim as "your affectionate mother ...". How could she sign in Urdu? "Your affectionate mother" isn't a signature in any event.

Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've amended the example clunky bits. "signed in Urdu" means she wrote out her name in the Urdu script rather than in the Latin alphabet. You can see some of her writing in Urdu here or here. DrKiernan (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still havering, Can you persuade me that in this: "Karim assisted Tyler in organising the trip, and helped to select the carpets and weavers. When Queen Victoria visited the exhibition, Tyler presented her with two gold bracelets as gifts. The Queen had a longstanding interest in her Indian territories and wished to employ some Indian servants for her Golden Jubilee", the presentation of the gold bracelets is in any way relevant to Karim's story? "For her Golden Jubilee" sits uneasily as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to address these concerns by linking Karim to the bracelets and explaining that the Indians were only engaged for the time of the Jubilee initially [26]. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. Having read through the article a few times now I feel happy in supporting its promotion, regardless of the answer to my question above and my unease at the (to me) strange capitalisation in sentences such as this one: "Following the Queen's death in 1901 the new King, Edward VII, returned Karim to India". It seems very plain to me that "king" in that context is not a proper noun, and neither is "queen", and I'm equally uneasy about the similar use of "Household" throughout the article, but I maybe I'm just being an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy. It's a worthy article nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps we can escape the capitalization issue by re-phrasing to "Following Victoria's death in 1901 her successor, Edward VII of the United Kingdom|Edward VII"? DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That would do for me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Images - I believe the licensing tag on File:Queen_Victoria_and_Abdul_Karim.jpg is incorrect. If the author is unknown, his or her date of death is unknown, and given the timeframe we can't automatically assume it was more than 70 years ago (although it likely was). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you. I'll look into it a bit more.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The image was taken in the Garden Cottage at Balmoral in October 1895. According to Anand, it is from the Royal Archives and the present Queen claims it as copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of similar images, but who took them is uncertain.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a photographer. That does not mean it is unknown however.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The tag is incorrect, as the photographer is known: it was Robert Milne of Ballater. I'm trying to find his death date. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this, he was still alive in 1946. I think we have a problem, damn it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've used Template:PD-US-1923-abroad instead. DrKiernan (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Travels and Diamond Jubilee - "that whenever he was called to examine the Munshi's wife, a different tongue was presented for his inspection" As in when she opened her mouth for him to inspect the interior? And why would they have switched women every time?
• Same section - "Nothing was ever proved". Proven?

A pleasure to read, discussing a piece of British history about which I was previously entirely uneducated. A couple of minor comments above, but nothing that impedes my support of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and praise. There is no reason. It shows the bigotry of Reid, even though he was not the worst by any means. Even if the Munshi had the clap, that was far from unusual in India, or even among British soldiers stationed there, or for that matter at Aldershot. I think either proved or proven would be acceptable and will wait for my colleague's view on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought Reid was examining her to see why she wasn't able to conceive? What does this have to do with tongues (I'm assuming this means the actual tongue, not some Victorian word for another body part that I'm not understanding) and gonorrhea? Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that in Victorian times women were examined by doctors only through clothes, and I remember reading that Reid never saw Victoria naked while she was alive (he did momentarily while laying out her body for burial). As these women were veiled, the only part of the body that Reid could see was the tongue. Well, the hands as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it clearer as "Dr Reid never saw Mrs Karim unveiled, though he claimed that whenever he was called to superficially examine her, a different tongue was protruded for his inspection."? DrKiernan (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another option is to shift that sentence into the "Land grant and family matters" section, so that it becomes unlinked to the bit about conception difficulties. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the examinations weren't related the conception difficulties? The way it is currently written, I thought I understood that he was trying to fix this problem. It would probably be best to either shift this sentence or make it clear that the infertility and the examinations were not related. I also like the proposed rewording. Dana boomer (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed proved to proven, but I have no strong opinion either way. Thanks for the support. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For the convenience of the reviewing delegate, current status is three supports, no opposes. image check done, source check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments: We didn't learn this stuff in history at school! Well, well. I have a few comments for consideration:-

• In the lead:
  • "Karim was one of two Indians selected to be sent to Britain to become the Queen's servants" reads as though she only employed two servants. Perhaps "...to become servants to the Queen".
  • "...which caused angry arguments between her and her attendants". This doesn't seem plausible – the Queen having "angry arguments" with her attendants? It was a deferential age, much more so than now, the image of Victoria having a heated argy-bargy with her flunkeys just doesn't ring true. Maybe there was anger and dissention, but it would surely have been suppressed on their part.

So sayeth the contemporary primary source. Clearly, much of the conflict was not known at the time outside Court circles.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Early life: some dates (or at least years) would be helpful in the first paragraph

Added two. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Royal servant: "After he complained that he had been a clerk in India..." Can you clarify to whom he complained?
• Household hostility: "She expressed reservations on the introduction of elected councils on the basis that Muslims would not win many seats because they were in the minority, and urged that Hindu feasts be re-scheduled so as not to conflict with Muslim ones." The context of this sentence would be clearer if we had previously been informed that Karim was a Muslim.
• Land grant and family matters:
  • "On 30 October, the Munshi left Balmoral for four months' leave in India, travelling on the same ship as Lady Lansdowne, and Lord Lansdowne telegraphed the Queen to let her know that a grant of land in the suburbs of Agra had been arranged". Did both of these separate events take place on 30 October? Even if they did, this is surely not a case for an "and" conjunction - the statements are too disparate.

Yes, both events were on the same day. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• • "Lady Lansdowne met his wife and mother-in-law..." First mention of a wife? When did he marry?

It is mentioned in the final sentence, first paragraph, Early Life section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Travels and Diamond Jubilee:
  • "Victoria had arranged for a female doctor to examine the Munshi's wife in December 1893, as they had been trying to conceive without success." - "they" is awkward here.
  • Ponsonby wrote, "[the Munshi] happens to be a thoroughly stupid and uneducated man..." Where, or to whom, did Ponsomby write this?
  • The offhand and unelaborated reference to Karim's gonorrhea is a little strange.

I look forward to supporting when these have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of the female doctor, the complaints, the early reference for Muslim, and the Indian servants in addition to my above comments. The others I'm going to have to leave to Dr Kiernan and they implicate Basu which he has and I don't. Possibly the Ponsonby quote is in Anand, I will dig for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, found it. It is on pages 76 and 77 of Anand, in a 27 April 1897 letter from Fritz Ponsonby (at Cimiez) to Sir Henry Babbington-Smith, the Viceroy's Private Secretary. "We have been having a good deal of trouble lately about the Munshi here, and although we have tried our best we cannot get the Queen to realise how very dangerous it is for her to allow this man to see every confidential paper relating to India, in fact to all State affairs. The Queen insists on bringing the Munshi forward, and if it were not for our protest, I don't know where she would stop. Fortunately he seems to be a thoroughly stupid and uneducated man, and his one idea in life seems to be to do nothing and to eat as much as he can." It then goes on to discuss Rafiuddin Ahmed, and asks Babbington-Smith for clippings from "Hindoo" papers that might be helpful in making the arguments to the Queen. I added "in late April"--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On the gonorrhea, I think Wehwalt has a more skeptical opinion of this than I do, and would like to see it moved to a footnote. Whereas I would prefer to see it integrated somewhere in the text. How about moving "who was treating Karim for gonorrhea" to the sentence two paragraphs down "Reid appears to have joined with the other Household members..."? DrKiernan (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we note that the information, such as it is, comes from Reid. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Who else is a diagnosis going to come from if not from a doctor? Three of the biographies mention it without qualification, or much expansion, in two cases as an aside and in one case as an integral driver of the story. In adding it the three ways I have done, and the five I've suggested, I'm simply following the sources. I'm not in favor of cutting it, but I'm prepared to consider alternate drafts. DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an "according to Reid" is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A few of my points still outstanding:-

• Can you indicate where it is specifically stated that Karim was a Muslim? This should be explicit rather than implied.
• On the two separate events of 30 October, as I say above, "... this is surely not a case for an "and" conjunction - the statements are too disparate."
• My query about Ponsomby was not about the sourcing, or what he wrote, but whether this was a letter, journal, report, memoirs etc?

• Re the gonorrhea, it remains perplexing that we are told in a casual aside that the subject of the article had this infection. If there is only Reid's account to go on, the statement definitely needs qualifying. Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment by Ponsonby was a letter to Babbington-Smith, written at Cimiez. I'm uncertain what I may have omitted in setting it forth just above.

OK, it's in the ref - I was looking for it in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have called Karim a Muslim and reffed it appropriately.

As Dr Kiernan alluded to, I am troubled as well about the single reference to Karim's clap. We discussed this before FAC and looked for additional info, which was not forthcoming. We have Reid's word for it. Even though VIctoria was not quite as straight-laced as people seem to think, on one of these vacations, she refused to receive the woman who was lending her the house where she was staying, because that woman had divorced and remarried. I know she was loyal to Karim, but there are limits. I suggest we either inline cite to Reid or else relegate it to a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added "Letter from" to the footnote. DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: I am happy with these responses. Thanks for your patience. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [27].

---

Olivia Shakespear

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A minor novelist and playwright, Olivia Shakespear was W.B. Yeats' lover, Ezra Pound's mother-in-law, and a interesting Victorian/Edwardian woman. Enjoy and thanks for reading. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• "The False Laurel was the least successful of her books, selling fewer than 200 copies. It received a poor review from The Bookman but a good one from The Athenaeneum" - source?
• Missing bibliographic info for Hassett 2005

• Because it doesn't exist. Sorry about that, fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some punctuation inconsistencies in both References and Sources - for example "qtd. in" vs "qtd., in", "Oxford University Press. 1997" vs "Oxford University Press, 2010", etc
• Why do some Reference entries omit dates, and why does the Reynolds entry omit page numbers and instead have the author's full name?

• Reynolds is an html file with no dates; from what I can tell the sources have dates. Am I missing something? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• St. Martin's or St. Martin's Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed these. Thanks for the review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• All issues adequately addressed. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Olivia_Tucker_Shakespear.png - I'm not sure that this has the correct licensing tag, given that the author (and therefore his/her date of death) is unknown
• File:Maud_Gonne.jpg - what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is fact has had a couple of image reviews, with User:J Milburn a few months ago. Do you mind if I ask him to have a look again, and I'll remove anything that can't be used. File:Maud_Gonne.jpg was published in 1896, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As Truthkeeper mentions, I've been involved with the images on this article before. It's much better now than it was, and it's great to see you've taken such care researching the copyright status of the images, and the issues are mostly minor ones. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• File:Olivia Shakespear.png and File:Yeats Celtic Twilight.png are PD in both the UK and the US, and could be moved to Commons. (I have added some info/licensing tags to both images). I don't have any objection if you want to keep them locally- tag with {{KeepLocal}} (or, if they're already on Commons, {{NoCommons}})
• Without the date of death of "E. Braur", the licensing of File:Maud Gonne.jpg is questionable if someone's being really picky. However, if you cannot find the date of death, it could be uploaded locally under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, as it was published so long ago.

• I've searched for the photographer and can't find any information. I'll follow your recommendation and delete if we can't use it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• It needn't be deleted altogether- if we cannot find a death date, upload it on enwp licensing it as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, noting that it is probably PD in the UK, but as we do not know the author's death date, we cannot be sure. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Was File:Ezra Pound.jpg first published in the US? It's clearly public domain there, but it is not PD in the UK, so far as I can see, and I worry that the UK may technically be the "source country", meaning that it's not kosher for Commons, only enwp.

• The photophraph was in Alvin Langdon Coburn's 1922 Men of Mark, published in the UK in 1922 - see this WorldCat entry. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• If it was first published outside of the US, it will also need to be PD in the source country to be hosted on Commons. It is clearly PD in the US, and so can definitely be hosted here if it can't be hosted on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• File:Olivia Tucker Shakespear.png is the most questionable one. Claiming the author died over 70 years ago (though it is almost certainly true) but that the author is unknown is very strange. There is {{Anonymous-EU}}, but that is no help in this case because of how recently the image was published (so far as we know). I think a little more digging is going to be needed on this one.

• What I know about this is that John Harwood, her biographer, was given access to family photographs. He does not indicate who took this image - I do know that her father, mother, and husband died before 1940. But if you think, to be safe we should delete, that's fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tricky one. I've done some digging, and this is definitely verging into IANAL territory, but I've found something interesting. See this- in UK law, certain "provisions apply to works existing on 1 August 1989", including "published photographs and photographs taken before 1 June 1957". Specifically, they remain governed by the Copyrict Act of 1956, which I have reason to believe gave "a uniform period of protection of the lifetime of the author plus fifty years thereafter". If that is the case, the only way this would not be public domain is if the author lived for at least another 77 years after it was taken. I'm inclined to say that we can safely call this public domain in the UK, but finding the right tag for it is a little difficult. If it was PD in the UK in 1996 (see {{PD-URAA}})- that is, if the author had died by 1946, 63 years after the photograph was taken (which I think it is safe to assume)- then it is PD in the US too. I'm out of my comfort zone here, but there you have it. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Replies:

• I don't actually know how to move an image from Commons to enwp - can you point me to a guide, perhaps, to I've moved File:Maud Gonne.jpg which is now File:Maud Gonne .png and licensed with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}
• File:Ezra Pound.jpg seems to already exist on enwp as File:Ezra Pound 2.jpg (uploaded by another editor). I prefer the clarity of File:Ezra Pound.jpg but can use File:Ezra Pound 2.jpg. Also, am not clear which license to add to update that the book was published in the UK and in the US in 1922]]. Add: I didn't realize the copyright in the UK belongs to the author for 70 years after death, regardless of date of publication. In this case, this image shouldn't be on Commons because Coburn lived until 1966. I've replaced File:Ezra Pound.jpg in the article with File:Ezra Pound 2.jpg which another editor uploaded some months ago (I didn't realize two images existed until tonight).
• I've deleted File:Olivia Tucker Shakespear.png.

• Thanks very much for the good review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts- all images are now well documented and verifiably free by enwp standards. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question - I don't see how this is even possible - Olivia introduced Yeats to Georgie Hyde-Lees, her 18-year-old stepdaughter, and Dorothy's best friend, whom Yeats would eventually marry. If Olivia is married to Hope in 1885 and Dorothy is born in 1886 and Georgie is born in 1892 how on earth can Georgie be Olivia's stepdaughter?..Modernist (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The answer I think is that Georgie Hyde-Lees wasn't Olivia's stepdaughter but her niece, the daughter of her brother. I've made that change anyway, but if I'm mistaken then I'm sure that Truthkeeper will put me right. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding that error. I've fixed, clarified and added an explanatory note. It is a bit confusing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected; I was never any good at understanding family relationships. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• support...Good job with Georgie!...Modernist (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reading and for the support - and good catch on an error that resulted in a new article! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• There's punctuation around her parenthetic birth name and dates. Also, ensign is wikilinked, while adjutant general is not. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I linked it...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, nitpicking

[BTW: SUPPORT Drmies (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)]

• I'm not quite sure why Valentine Fox (or, Elizabeth Valentine Fox, nee Ogilvy, daughter of Captain David Stewart Ogilvy--so Google Books informs me) is mentioned here. She doesn't have an article, there is very little on her that I could find (she doesn't strike me as notable), and don't see what having her and her unhappy marriage to a Kent brewer adds to the party. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Does note 9 (Harwood (1989), 31) verify the disruptively drunk behavior? If so, shouldn't the superscript note be inside the parentheses? Drmies (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry for these choppy remarks and questions. But this, "...continuing his correspondence with Olivia—he wrote about Maud (who had recently given birth to Iseult)", I don't think I understand content and/or punctuation. Does this contrast correspondence with literary writing, or that he wrote about Maud in his letters to Olivia? If the latter, the dash doesn't seem to be the most applicable mark of punctuation. I'd suggest "in which" (or something like that) and removal of the parentheses. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• "...to visit Valentine Fox of which Harwood says ...": "of which" requires a noun as an antecedent. Perhaps the sentence was revised before?
• "Ezra Pound biographer, Jay Wilhelm, suggests...": remove commas; not parenthetic.
• Why no wl for grimoire?
• The second paragraph of the "Later life and death" section needs a reference, maybe more, for three reasons: "likely", the quote, and "continued to correspond".
• The following paragraph, "and continued to have many friends", is not of the same high level as the rest of the prose (and it's an awkward parallel with "to socialize").
• A somewhat general question: is it worthwhile expanding the Pound connection in the lead, if her financial support for Pound was indirectly also support for Eliot et al.?
  • Thanks for reading and comments. I think Valentine Fox was important enough in Olivia's life to warrant keeping, though I've trimmed out the bit about her husband, and will swing through and tweak that section a bit more. The rest of the issues are resolved, I believe. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Not done yet. I'm looking at the bibliography--some publishers are named "completely", such as W.W. Norton & Company and Greenwood Publishing Group, and some are shortened, such as Faber (& Faber) and (Basil) Blackwell. In my opinion (and I borrow from the MLA), shorter is better--Norton, Greenwood, Pantheon, Temple UP, etc. (If you don't want to go for the UP abbreviation, that's fine, but there should be consistency.)
• Pound was a pretty goodlooking guy, wasn't he! He does look like a terrible son-in-law.
• Both notes should really end with punctuation--or move the reference to the footnotes.
• I was wondering about the "circus drawings." It sounds like it's a well-known term. Is it? I looked at the source. Is it worthwhile mentioning they're in the Hamilton Art Museum? (Not that I know what that is, of course.)
  • Made references consistent per MLA 6th edition and added punctuation to the notes. I think the information about the Picasso drawings is better in the Dorothy Shakespear page, but a good point. The image of Pound isn't the best - yeah, he was surprisingly attractive, but of course crazy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't mean to say it wasn't a good image or it shouldn't be there--I was merely expressing my admiration and inserting some levity in my slew of comments. Did I already tell you that I think it's a good and interesting article? Support. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, there was a clearer version of that photograph which I'm a bit disappointed not to have been able to use, that's what I meant. Thanks for reading, for the comments and the support. And now I have to ask you to move the support up to the beginning of the comments or to the front of the sentence, so the delegates can easily see it! Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Good point. SandyG's eyes aren't as good as they once were. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Got that right, but now we have two supports :) Debolded one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport: Very interesting! I know little of Yeats, so you can imagine how much I knew about his lovers; namely, nothing. Just some comments/suggestions (mostly regarding to the prose) until I'm ready to support:

• Locations are needed for the book references.
• Repetition in lead: Her six novels show stylistic similarities to other female novelists of the period, and are described as "marriage problem" novels.
• Her last novel, Uncle Hilary, is considered her best, while she wrote two plays in collaboration with Florence Farr. -- I'm not sure these two thoughts (her last novel and the two plays) are connected. Can these two thoughts be split into two, with perhaps a little more said about Uncle Hilary?
• and had little formal education. But she was well-read, and developed a love of literature. -- Perhaps I'm old school, but beginning a short little sentence with the word "But" makes my skin crawl.
• Again in the lead: After her death -- "her" is ambiguous due to the previous sentence mentioning Georgie and Dorothy.
• Olivia's death is mentioned twice in the lead, so the chronology is a bit off for me. I understand the need to keep things together by subject (Yeats in one paragraph, Pound in another), but the two deaths is somewhat off-putting for me personally.
• In 1877 the family moved to London and raised their daughters in a social world that encouraged the pursuit of leisure. -- What of Henry, who we're told in the previous sentence was born eleven years earlier?
  • The source only mentions the daughters, not Henry. He was likely at boarding school. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. María (habla conmigo) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• "I noticed opposite me ... a woman of great beauty ....She was exquisitely dressed... -- These two sentiments are already mentioned earlier in the paragraph, so it reads as somewhat repetitive.
• In his Memoirs Yeats referred to her as 'Diana Vernon'... -- Is there a reason for the single-quotes?
• This was unexpectedly, and he took another absence. -- unexpected?
• Ezra Pound biographer Jay Wilhelm suggests Hope Shakespear knew... -- Earlier in the article Henry Hope Shakespear is simply referred to as "Shakespear", so consistency is needed.
• Repetition: Olivia opened her home once a week for a salon, opening an important period in her life.

That's about it. Overall a very good treatment of a little known figure. Nice work! Let me know when the above has been taken care of, and I'll gladly support. María (habla conmigo) 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Maria for catching the errors. One response above - the rest have been taken care of. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I've changed to Support above. María (habla conmigo) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and for reading! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [28].

---

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Nominator(s): North8000 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because we think it is ready, and believe that the topic is both interesting and famous. A 729 foot long ship which sank in a huge storm with 35 ft waves on a lake, with all hands lost, and the cause remaining a mystery. We've received and responded to much excellent feedback in the last few months. It received thorough review when it achieved GA (review at GA review page). We then asked for and received a thorough Peer Review. Then this article recently had a FAC review (page at FAC review page with a large sub page at FAC review sub page) We believe that it received reviews with successful conclusions on references, general and images. (we've since added one image: [29]) There were concerns with prose and the 3/20/11 close advised us to improve prose and come back in a few weeks. In response to our request, the Copy Editors Guild went through it thoroughly and made changes in the prose. We then asked for, received and responded to feedback from the reviewer who expressed concerns on prose during FAC. During that time we also worked to further improve other areas. Thank you to all who have helped us including those who have given us feedback. We have active editors ready to respond. Thank you for your consideration. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's a excellent article, complete and organizated. Good work, North. MatheusLPereira (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. On the last point, WPWatchdog did the most work on the article, and many others have helped substantially. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support with the disclaimer that have I helped review the article on its talk page to offer comments and suggestions before this renomination. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sources seem to be well organised, and of appropriate reliability. A few small points:-

• In the list of books, please check punctuation in the Schumacher (2005) entry. Is the publisher actually called "Michigan Bloomsbury Publishing"?
• For newspaper sources, page numbers should be provided where there is no online link
• Can "ServiceOntario" be considered as the publisher of the various laws and regulations cited? Surely it is only a facilitating site, in the same way as, say, Project Gutenberg gives online access to books?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the above points except the page numbers for Poulson and Lawrence's newspaper articles. I should be able to add that information soon.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the corrections on the sources are completed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• There are no links needing dab; all pics have alt text; one external link timed out as unresponsive but this could be temporary. All photos are properly licensed as stated in the previous FAC. Brad (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Above mentioned link timeout no longer times out. I've watched this article improve constantly since it passed GA review. Involved editors have been extremely cooperative and attentive to feedback and improvement. My involvement with the article amounts to less than 30 edits and advice given in peer review and talk page comments. Brad (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Normally I review MilHist articles but a fair few of them are ships, and wrecks always intrigue me anyway, particularly mysterious ones. Anyway, given the number of previous noms I suppose we should expect this to be well prepared, and it is -- well written, referenced and structured, covers the topic in detail, and has all the requisite supporting materials. I've made a couple of minor copyedits, not particularly vital but they mix the prose up a bit. A few other nitpicks, none of which affect my support of the article but could improve it further:

• Generally "which" is employed after a comma, otherwise "that" is used -- I changed one instance but not others.

  Done except within quotations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• The first two paras of Design and Construction are a bit heavy going due to all the citations. Is it possible that some duplicate each other, and could be omitted?

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• As a general point, if you can drop any citations at all in the article without compromising the referencing, it'd improve the reading experience a bit.

  Done - number of citations reduced from 240 to 203.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• You used both "she/her" and "it" to refer to the ship -- this should be standardised, preferably the former. I dealt with one instance, pls check for any others.

  Completed eleven more corrections for "she/her" instead of "it." Did not change "it" within quotations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• McSorley reported, "We are holding our own." It sank minutes later. No distress signal... -- Since we know from the start that the ship sank, I wonder if it's more effective to remove "It sank minutes later" with something along the lines of "This was the last communication received..." Then we can pick up the story of how she sank as it unfolds in the following sections.
• Paquette's vessel was the first to reach a discharge port after the November 10 storm to be met by company attorneys who came aboard the Sykes. -- Bit confusing, do we mean Paquette's vessel was the first to reach a discharge port after the November 10 storm, and was met by company attorneys who came aboard the Sykes.? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited that to clarify. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all of that great feedback. There is one area where I might offer a comment, which is that IMHO ""We are holding our own." It sank minutes later. No distress signal...."" conveys useful information...that the sinking was very sudden and unexpected. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No prob, and thanks Wpwatchdog for your mods -- always nice to have people respond to suggestions even when support has already been given... ;-) Checking those, there might actually be one or two cases when "(comma) which" might read better than "that", but I'll take care of those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and help.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and for your comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I picked through this article the last time it was here, and feel that it has only improved since then.Canada Hky (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How are "depth" and "depth of hold" distinguished? Not defined anywhere in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As a note, the number after "depth" has the term "moulded" which has slightly varying definitions but for all it is the vertical dimension in the center of the ship from the bottom of the keel to somewhere on or just under the main (weather) deck. We spent about 2,000 words in talk and researched about 8 places just trying to do our best on those two numbers and the terminology for them. (first discussion section, second discussion section) The problem is that the sources gave both of those numbers, using those terms, without being clear on exactly what they meant, and the definitions of the terms themselves also vary. In the end we just went with the numbers and terminology used by the sources, reassured by a "plausibility check" from our other research...that the 39' moulded depth given by the sources is plausible for the various definitions of moulded depth, and ditto for 33' 4" as the hold depth. The problem with trying to add clear statements on the meaning of the terminology given with those two numbers is that we would be guessing/adding precision to what the sources said where such "additional info" did not actually come from the sources. But I think that it would be safe to add a general statement in. I'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I added it. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a close paraphrasing, sourcing check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're been checked thoroughly on sourcing in general. I've not seen where anyone has checked us for close paraphrasing. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(added later) I know that this doesn't mean much, but this article has been about 90% reworked (like 3,000 edits) over the last 6 months, and most material is new. Most of the actual insertions of material was by me and WPWatchdog. WP did more of the source-based type work than me, but I can say that my part I'm pretty confident I've not put in any close paraphrasing. Maybe WP might want to reflect on this as well in case it is helpful. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would do that :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Design and construction section: close paraphrasing check completed. The check resulted in citation corrections and revision of the first sentence. (The author's text read, "The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, a heavy investor in the iron and minerals industries, had ordered the construction of the ship: the first time an American life insurance company had made such an investment.") I expect my check of the article will take several days unless someone else has access to all of the sources.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that SandyGeorgia meant for somebody else to check on us, (I don't think we're allowed to review ourselves :-) ) using the general/usual tips for spotting close paraphrasing in articles. I was just thinking that since most of the material in the article was initially inserted by you and me (you #1) that comments from you and me about our own insertions might be helpful to the reviewer. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I just changed text in the Career section to quotes to avoid close paraphrasing. I will standby for further instructions.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to quickly fix any that you know of that you put in, and then say here that you think that all of the material that you put in is OK. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not to turn the article into a quotefarm. There are better ways than quotes to fix the troubles. Brad (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I finished checking the article and added quotes where the text ran too close to the original. I agree that the article is too heavy on quotes. It would be great if someone took another crack at paraphrasing.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is OK regarding that. Most quotes are in for a good reason, usually when some person or organization made a significant & important but imperfect statement. Also I don't think that there are too many in proportion. But I removed and summarized two block quotes anyway. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So, to summarize, we self-checked, repaired two possible instances of close paraphrasing, and the two main editors believe that we have no close paraphrasing remaining.North8000 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Their investment in the construction of the Fitzgerald made them the first American life insurance company to invest in the construction of a ship.": Some repetition here.

  Fixed North8000 (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are a number of "city, state" pairs that need a comma after the state. I'm getting all the ones that aren't linked, so the ones that are left are easy to find. See WP:Checklist#second commmas and WT:Checklist.

  Happy to change...but is this a pretty sure thing? (basis seems to be the checklist which says that all city state sequences are considered to be parenthetical phrases?) North8000 (talk)

  I don't believe it's in our style guidelines, but it's in the top 3 US style guides and many more. See WT:Checklist. The problem with comma rules, of course, is that commas are one of the easiest things to ignore, which means that everyone is reading a lot of stuff that (according to current style guides) gets it wrong. Also, it's totally okay to drop the second comma in "tabular" material ... TV shows like Jeopardy regularly drop the second comma in their clues (groan). - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  I say we roll with that. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Not following. What I'm saying is that, like many style guide recommendations, it gets thrown out in list-y or abbreviated formats, not in text. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  I meant to do as you originally recommended, a comma after both the city and the state wherever the city,state, sequence occurs mid-sentence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  All done. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• This seems to be AmEng, so it's "St. Lawrence", with a period.

  Searched for instances, found and fixed. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is required, but we usually link the first occurrence of "nautical mile" at FAC, since many readers have no idea how long that is.

  Looks like the only instance of that term in the article was generated by the convert template so we don't have anywhere to link from. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some like the formatting of 5/16 in "5⁄16-inch-thick (7.9 mm)"; some don't. It seems to be supported by MOSNUM, and I don't have a position.

  I also am fine with it either way. Left it as is unless someone prefers it changed. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Company designed furnishings": Company-designed furnishings

  Fixed North8000 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• See WP:ELLIPSES; "..." usually needs a space before and a space after.

  Found and fixed all of them. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Unless you prefer otherwise, we'll note responses and work completed in-line. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, that's fine. One more thing: someone got the idea that {{'}} produces 's ... it doesn't, it produces '. Please search the text for {{'}} and (usually) replace with {{'s}}. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Not comfortable changing something I'm dumb on. What would that not be just 's ?

  I got it (check my last edit). It's so trivial that I'm ashamed to bring it up, but it's a MOS requirement, generally supported by style guides ... the Mediawiki software renders (incorrectly IMO) ''Fitzgerald'''s with an italicized apostrophe, so we write instead ''Fitzgerald''{{'}}s or ''Fitzgerald''{{'s}}, which gives a non-italicized apostrophe. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks! Thanks to folks like you I learn something new in WP every day. I'll change those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sure thing. I believe I got them all. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I fixed the kerning problems throughout; see WP:MOS#Quotations within quotations. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald#Theories on the cause of sinking. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and the support. I couldn't find any more errors for the plural form of Fitzgerald.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [30].

---

Science Fantasy (magazine)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Science Fantasy was one of the mainstays of British science fiction for seventeen years, from 1950 to 1967. It helped launched the careers of Michael Moorcock and J.G. Ballard, and is also remembered as a showcase for the less famous Thomas Burnett Swann, an American author of historical fantasies. Unfortunately the covers are probably still copyrighted, so I have only been able to include a low-resolution montage showing the layout changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• I believe today's edition of WP:MOSDASH calls for unspaced endashes between months of the same year
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names or not
• ISBN for Harbottle & Holland?
• Be consistent in whether second authors/editors are listed first or last name first
• Where is San Bernadino? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  All done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review - unfortunately, I think you're going to need to provide copyright info for each of the pictured covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

They are all still under copyright as far as I know; I'm using this as my guide, which means 70 years after the death of the author. I've added a note to that effect in the file; does that suffice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so. The only thing you might do (if possible) would be to check whether copyright was retained by the artists or whether it's held by the publisher. Either way they're still fair-use for quite a while, so it's not a big deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any way to tell, unfortunately. Thanks for both the image and source reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You're effectively using a gallery of ten separate non-free images here. Combining them into one file does not get around that. I really think you need to cut down the number of images you're using here. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but I really would like to be able to illustrate the comment about the layout. Is there any way to do that with non-free images? Obviously there are no alternatives, and I could shrink the images a bit more if it would help. The only other way to legitimately include a cover image would be to include issue 3, about which there is a specific comment -- would that be acceptable, if the layout images are not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the comment on the layout? I can see comments on the artistic style, but not the layout. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I wasn't thinking straight when I posted that comment. Currently the only commentary on the layout is in the summary of the image page itself. What I should have said was that without the image page, I'd have to describe the layout changes in the article: something like "The initial cover layout included a footer which was removed for the third issue; the seventh issue added a white title bar, and from issue 33 this was moved to the right hand side. From issue 55 to the end of the digest period the cover illustrations were monochrome, though issues 62 and 64 had no cover illustration at all. Issue 65, the first in the new paperback format, saw a revised cover layout and font; the font was changed again for issue 69. The layout was slightly redesigned when the magazine was retitled Impulse; and from issue 6 of Impulse the letters "sf" were added before the title." Of course I could add this to the caption as it stands, and that would provide commentary, but I was really hoping that the images would suffice as commentary -- essentially as illustration. Thinking about it now I can see that that's not what fair use is about, but I would like to give the reader the layout change information one way or another. Is there any way to use images to do that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm responding to this request, IMHO the image in question is cv as its a derivative work of multiple copyright images, It is illegal to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. I'd suggest that the editions that have coverage within the text should be seperate images, given the way the article is written I believe there would be ample justification for as many 4 without concern (covers as per image desc #1(first edition),#9,#10(Name chages) and #3(issue 7 which is specifically covered in ..this disruption caused extended delays in the appearance of the seventh issue.[1][5])) though any more would be pushing even the fair use envelope Gnangarra 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review -- I have switched out the image for an image of the third issue. I suppose I could use others too, but I think it's fine just to use this one, which there is direct commentary on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• The tables with titles "Issues of Science Fantasy..." are png. Is it possible to use wiki/html tables instead?

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to have tables that text can flow around, as can be done with images. I have used tables before where that wasn't an issue -- see Galaxy Science Fiction, for example, which has some pngs and a table. I'd be happy to change these to tables if that problem is solvable, but without that I think it would make the layout quite ugly. As it is I've tried to make sure that the information in the tables is also in the text, so that the tables are just a visual aid, and are not necessary for comprehension. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've asked about this issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#How_to_create_a_table_and_manage_text_flow. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Table#Floating table. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (P.S. this is an archived section ... does that mean it is no longer an active nomination?)

I've converted the first table, adding footnotes for the underlining as well as issue 7. This has made the table quite large. It would seem to me to be a good idea therefore to change the group "notes" to "n" or "fn", but this would require consistent changes in the rest of the article. Alternatively, those footnotes could be removed, if the data really is in the text on the left. I commented out the image for the original caption. --Izno (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Add a row at the bottom of the table (across all columns) with the text "notes" and put the references in there. This is a feature common to a lot of infoboxes, though few people take advantage of it, though I am one of those who do. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a solution, but one which is unsemantic, which is why I did not suggest it. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if you indicate the information being referenced; consider it an additional dimension - the table presents one slice, the reference set a second. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're to consider them different dimensions, then semantic HTML indicates that we should have two separate tables, which is surely even worse than how it was. I think it would be simpler to indicate the information in the prose rather than attempt to stuff it in some way into the table. --Izno (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers and example; I've reverted for now and created a sandbox to test this in; I'd like to try out a few things. Ceyockey, the FAC is still open -- the "archive" is just part of the naming convention for active FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking your sandbox, you should not use smaller text for accessibility reasons nor should you set the background color of the styled table if at all possible (largely for the same reason). Obviously, setting the background of a few cells makes sense to keep consistent with the given tables. Ideally, you should also not use "bgcolor" as that is a deprecated attribute in html, nor should the use of "<u>" be used, for being deprecated element in html. --Izno (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the text size that I'm after so much as generally compressing it to the same relative size that the image took up. One of the benefits of the image is the ability to have it visible at different scales -- large scale if you click through, smaller in the thumbnail. I understand that that gives a separate accessibility problem for visually impaired users.

I'll post a couple of lines below on what I would like the image or table to accomplish. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please post link to sandbox being used for reformat testing. Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's at User:Mike_Christie/Sandbox4; I've made a few changes but would still like to reduce the vertical cell height, increase the space around the table (the text wraps very closely), get all the column widths identical, bold the header row and left hand column, and possibly move the caption to below the table. I suspect it's not possible to use dashed lines instead of solid lines but if it is I'd like to try that -- I like the weaker visual separation of the cells that that provides. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there are a lot of different features of the image/table under discussion, and many are intentional, here's what the goal is for the article. I think this is complete but this list can be tweaked if there is a discussion needed.

• Visual display showing the viewer when issues were released, by year and month/season.
• The pattern communicates directly to the viewer the relative frequency by year -- is it being published more or less frequently each year.
• Colour (or other visual means) of indicating who the editor was for each issue
• Distinguish issues named by month from those named by season
• Record the volume and issue number

Then for visual presentation or aesthetic purposes I would like the following things to be true:

• Bolding or equivalent visual distinction between the first column and row and the body of the table/image. The current table also has shading which I am in two minds about; I think it's unnecessary but does serve this purpose.
• Weaken the cell boundaries for aesthetic reasons; the contents of each cell form a connected series and loosening the boundaries helps visually reinforce that.
• The text flow around the image/table should have about as much white space as is seen when an image is used.
• Consistent column widths -- there is no semantic difference in the columns so I would like them the same width, in order to be visually neutral
• Caption below -- this is what readers expect.
• Vertical cell height -- the current table has a good deal of unnecessary white space that I would like to get rid of

Finally for accessibility:

• All the information should be accessible to someone visually impaired or colour-blind

I suspect not all of these goals can be easily achieved at the same time. I have addressed the accessibility issue by putting all the information in the article as well as the table, so a visually impaired reader is not missing any information (though I just realized I hadn't put in some of the volume details in the text; I've now added them). The table/image is intended specifically as a visual aid, not as the only means of communication of this information.

Thanks for the help on this, by the way -- I would be glad to find a way to improve these images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to be a little quicker to make guesses and a little slower to ask questions than careful copy editors should. Please check my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  All look good; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• "down to 1/6 from 2/-": pounds and shillings? And there are more of these in Bibliographic details.

  I've linked the first occurrence to here; does that cover it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • • I really don't know, I've only recently started paying attention to questions like this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it's easier if a price change over time is described with the prices in chronological order. You'd have to be over 40 years old and living in Britain to have experienced '1/6'. I think it's worth having a conversion within the body (perhaps this is a WP-wide style issue). Thus I recommend changing "bring the cover price down to 1/6 from 2/-" to 'reduce the price from 2/- (10 p) to 1/6 (7.5 p)'. Lightmouse (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

        That makes sense to me. I have changed to your phrasing and added a link to £sd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

        Thanks. Good luck with the article. Lightmouse (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• "New Worlds, Nova's flagship title, and Science Fantasy were also suffering from poor sales, with circulation estimated at about 5,000, though a switch from bimonthly to a monthly schedule was also considered that year for Science Fantasy.": I'm not getting the connection between the two parts of the sentence.

  A magazine tends to go to monthly if it's doing well, and drop back to monthly bimonthly if it's doing poorly. It's rather surprising that a switch to monthly was considered if the circulation was as bad as it appears to have been. Is there a better way to make that clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • • Do you have any information on why a switch was considered, or when it was anticipated? Anyone can "consider" anything; if that's all I have, I generally leave it out. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

      The August 1963 editorial said "we are planning on making Science Fantasy a monthly publication as soon as possible", so it went beyond consideration to an announcement to the readership. I don't have a source to support a statement about the inconsistency between this announcement and the falling circulation, but it's hardly controversial so would it be OK for me to insert an explanation, perhaps in a note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

      Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

      OK, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. I had a stomachache tonight so I may have missed things. If someone has a chance to check the spellings to make sure they're all BritEng, that would help. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  My BritEng is a bit faded so I agree it would be helpful if someone else could check. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support An interesting and enjoyable read which meets the FA criteria. I have a few nitpicky suggestions which do not detract from my support.
• Per WP:LEAD shouldn't the other titles in the lead be in bold type too?

  Yes, and mentioned earlier, I think; I've added a clause and bolded the titles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Link fanzine?

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tighten? but Gillings had accumulated a substantial inventory of stories—enough to fill nine issues before the first one had even appeared.[4]

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect most readers today will not be familiar with the old British currency system, so perhaps link the first price in ..in order to cut costs and bring the cover price down to 1/6 from 2/-. to the £sd article?

  This was commented on above -- I've added a link and also converted to modern currency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Say that this was originally an American magazine? In 1958, Nova decided to launch a British reprint of [the American magazine] Science Fiction Adventures, under the same title.?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

• The Stainless Steel Rat Wants You! to wikilink Harry Harrison ;-) (please?)

  Done -- it was linked lower down but for some reason I missed the earlier occurrence; now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with yet more comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The titles were acquired by Roberts & Vinter, who hired Kyril Bonfiglioli as editor" - editor for both titles?

  Clarified, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikilink fanzine in lead? Might also remove "as a department" in the same sentence

  Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• "the final year of Impulse, as it was titled by that time" - didn't you say earlier that the final issues of the magazine were under the title SF Impulse? Or do you mean the last year that it was titled Impulse?

  Well, I was trying to avoid a complicated locution; I wanted to refer to the last year of the magazine, without worrying the reader at that stage in the lead with the slightly varying title. Is that OK or does it need to be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'd probably just go with "the last year of the magazine". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is there an article that "paper rationing" could link to?

  Done; not a great article yet but it seems to be the right target. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since Continental Daily Mail has no article, could you indicate where it's from (I'm assuming it's a newspaper)?

  I think this is an early name for the Daily Mail, but I can't be sure (and that article is no help) so I am reluctant to link. I figure it's a case where the eventual filling in of the redlink will solve the problem. I dug about a bit in Google books but can't prove the equivalence yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  I did a bit more research and found that this is a European edition of the Daily Mail, so I added a note to that article and linked it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Maclaren or Mclarens?

  The former in the source, and I think I'm consistent in the article -- did I miss something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  "The acquisition of Nova Publications by Mclarens gave Carnell access to the publishing facilities of a well-established company"? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oops. Thanks for spotting that; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [31].

---

George Headley

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

George Headley was a West Indian cricketer, mainly in the years before the Second World War. Before he came along, only white West Indian cricketers were highly regarded; he was the first world-class black batsman and his feats on the cricket field had a resonance far beyond the number of runs he scored. In the first part of his career, he racked up some incredible statistics and carried a weak team almost alone; only Don Bradman at the time (and possibly since) could beat his achievements. Later, he became the first black captain of the West Indies, amid a controversy that lasted for the best part of two decades. This article is currently a GA and was peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Any comments and suggestions greatly appreciated! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Watch for minor inconsistencies in reference format like doubled periods, etc

Got them all, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• What is the editorial policy of CricketArchive? That is, is material reviewed for accuracy before publication there?

All of the material used here from the site is statistical: scorecards, aggregates and averages. This data comes from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, which is the leading authority on such information and it is thoroughly researched and reviewed. It is pretty much the most definitive source there is for this data. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• The reference to "Cricinfo" leads to the same main website as those labelled CricketArchive - why is this? Are the two one and the same? If so, use a consistent name

It was a typo, fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bridget or Bridgette Lawrence? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Another typo, fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions should meet same requirements for prose and MoS details as article text. Captions that are not complete sentences should not end with periods

Always miss this one! Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Per the PD-Australia template instructions, "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published". Was Lawrence's book (which by the way still uses the "Bridget" spelling on image description pages) the first publication of the images? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not completely sure about this one. I've never seen them elsewhere, but that doesn't mean much. There are a few possibilities where they may have been published first, but I suspect that the Lawrence book is their first publication. But I can't be 100% sure. What is the best course of action? (And if I had the information, how/where do you add it?) --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you had the information, you would add it to the image description page, either here or on Commons (depending where the image is hosted). If the images were published for the first time in the Lawrence book, I believe this would affect their copyright status (as that work was published relatively recently), but you should consult an image expert or WP:MCQ for help in determining that (sorry, but US copyright laws are not something I know a lot about). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My (very hazy) understanding of PD-AUS is that ANY photo taken before 1 January 1946 is PD, regardless of its publication date; and anything PD in Australia before that date also qualifies as PD-US. But I will check on MCQ. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Any photo taken in Australia before 1955 is now in the public domain in Australia due to copyright expiry by 2005 when the law changed. The USA recognises this under the free trade agreement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is the US copyright status of the image, not the Australian status. PD in one country does not always equate to PD in another (differences in pma durations, rejection of shorter terms, etc). In the case of the US, there is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). Per http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, any work first published outside the US after 1978 and not in that country's public domain as of 1 Jan 1996 is copyrighted for "70 years after death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication" in the US. That explains the template's request for the Australian photograph to be taken before 1 Jan 1946: photographs taken after that date (and published after 1978) were still copyrighted in Australia on 1 Jan 1996, and hence likely copyrighted in the US per 70 years pma or 95 years post publication. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, that shouldn't be a problem as this image was certainly taken before 1946 and would have been PD in 1996. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether an image is uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons, it must either be appropriately licensed or in the US public domain:

• File:George Headley.jpg: From the Don Bradman scrapbooks; the source does not state if this was a private photograph given to Bradman (or taken by him) or a newspaper/magazine photograph cut out by him. If Bradman took the photograph, it would certainly be considered published in 1970.[32] In that event, the photograph would be in Australian public domain on 1 Jan 1996 (pre-1946 photograph), and unless it was registered with the US copyright office, this photograph would also be in the US public domain. If this is, however, a private photograph, then it remains an unpublished work... and has a US copyright of 70 years pma (if authorship can be identified) or 120 years since creation (if unestablished, lasting till 2051/2052).

• File:Grimmett1937.jpg: This photograph is in the Australian public domain (owing to creation greater than 50 years ago). Its status in the US is less clear. This is copied from the original nitrate photonegative; it does not give any indication whether this work has been published. Since publication is generally accepted only if the work was released by the copyright holder, release by the NSW state library cannot be considered as publication. If this work was published (in a newspaper or given away in copies by the photographer), then it would most likely be PD in the US (by virtue of PD in Australia on 1 Jan 1996). However, if it was never published, it is also considered an unpublished work in the US and deserving of 70-years pma (if author is known), or 120 years from creation (unpublished unknown authorship)...

• File:Headley head and shoulders.jpg, File:Headley, Sealy and Hunte.jpg: Taken from a 1995 Leicester book; the question is whether the printing of the photographs in that book is authorized and the first publication. If yes, then these are UK works (first publishing in UK; under the Berne's Convention, the country of origin is the country of first publication) and enquiry should be made to ascertain the identity of the photographer per UK law ("reasonable enquiry"). If the book printing is not the first publication, then the country of origin (i.e. whether they were published and where) should be ascertained first.

Refs:

• Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works: publication is qualified by an authorized release and accessible to the general public (photographs in archives are in likelihood of being unpublished works).
• Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules for unpublished works: Berne Convention lets the signatory country make its own rules regarding unpublished anonymous works.
• Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Non-US unpublished works: simply put, the US copyright duration for any unpublished foreign work is by US law: 70 years pma for known authorship, and 120 years since creation for unknown or corporate authorship (Prosfilaes)
• commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 5#Question about expiration of copyright after author's been dead for 70 years: backs the above

--Jappalang (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, in that case there may be a problem. Re the Bradman photo, I'm not sure if he took it or if it was registered in the US. The other two photos were probably published in Australia at some point, but I have no idea where. Possibly in a newspaper, but I am unlikely to be able to locate it. Also, as far as I can tell, the UK publishers of the book have gone out of business so they cannot be contacted to find out where the photos came from. So, unfortunately, I cannot be sure that any of the images are PD-US and it will be better if I simply remove the images. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Cricinfo, File:George Headley.jpg has neither been taken in Australia nor before 1946. Cricinfo states that it was taken during this 1951 match in England. Does that mean that it should be removed from Commons, or does it depend from when and where it was first published? OrangeKnight (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated, the copyright status in US should be the primary guide. On Commons, there is the additional rule for the work to be "free" as well in the country of origin (basically there are cases where PD in one country does not equal to PD in another). If a work is not "free" in the US and in its country of origin, it should not be on Commons. If it is "free" in the US, but not in its country of origin, it should be uploaded to Wikipedia. I do not know what is the story for the discrepancy behind this photograph, but it is not inconceivable for either Bradman or Cricinfo to mistake the photograph's date. Such problems can usually come up if their source is an unmarked photograph (totally clean of any marks) and they had to place it based on their own interpretation. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I see that all images have been removed, which is something of a shame. I am sure that an acceptable fair use rationale could be made for a portrait of Headley, since he is the subject of the article. It should also be possible to add a few general images, e.g. of the Lord's pavilion, at the ground where Headley made two Test centuries in the 1939 match. There are some pre-rebuilding shots of the Kensington Oval ground where Headley made his Test debut; a little searching might produce a few more such shots to illuminate the text. I did a comprehensive peer review on this, and I think it does a very decent job as a cricket biography, going beyond the scores and performances emphasis of some similar articles. I would like to see the images issue resolved, though, before I commit to a support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I've managed to hunt out a few images and added a fair use image of Headley. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The four images now in use are fine in my view. Please contact Nikkimaria for her opinion. Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, they look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: I have run through the article with a further copyedit. A few points still bother me:-

• "Headley was abused by the crowd, who disapproved of a black captain and jeered his actions on the field. He was also dissatisfied with the impartiality of the umpires, making for an unpleasant experience all round." First, I think you need to specify "verbally abused", secondly, "a section of the crowd". The last comment, "making for an unpleasant experience all round" reads as opinion and should be either attributed or deleted.
• Career figures should be given after his last first-class match, not after his last Test.
• The statement "Headley's successes reverberated beyond cricket" sounds like a quote. As per above it should either be attributed or dropped.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All done (I think). --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: I have chivvied around this article for quite a while, and Sarastro has responded positively to my concerns, with good grace. No doubt the article could be primped further, but I am satisfied that it now meets the necessary criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and thanks for all your help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Have read through most of the article, and what I've seen looks very good. Only a handful or so of small issues to report so far...

• "and 9,921 runs in all first-class matches at an average 69.86." Should "of" be added before the last number?
• "although a combination of injuries and politics meant he only led his team for one Test Match." Don't see why "Match" needs to be capitalized; it isn't earlier, and isn't a proper noun.
• Early career: "arrived to play two first-class games against Jamaica. Jamaica's...". The end of this is a bit repetitive. Try changing one of the Jamaicas, if possible.
• Second tour of England: "top-scored with 51 in West Indies first innings...". Minor, but an apostrophe is needed at the end of Indies the way the sentence is now. Same for the sentence after this. and in "demonstrated West Indies ability to compete at the highest level." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All done, thanks for the comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

After the war: "he had recorded Jamaica's highest score in an match between the Caribbean islands." "an" → "a".

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resumption of Test career: Apostrophe needed at end of country name in "Batting toward the end of West Indies second innings".

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing "to" in "he was unable play in any further matches...".

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Style, technique and legacy: Don't see why Cricket needs capitalization in "In his history of West Indies Cricket".

It doesn't, fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Manley quote regarding Headley's "deepest significance" feels like it has something missing, whether it be some punctuation or a word or two. See if you can track it down in the book cited.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Coaching career: Remove the space following "and trying to improve standards and facilities throughout the country".

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference 40 needs a period at the end of the cite for consistency with the other footnotes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - looking through now - will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Headley's mother took him to Jamaica; she wished him to be educated in an English-speaking school - normally I like semicolons, but I think this'd flow better with a comma + "as" after it instead. Just comes across as a little stilted.

• Rephrased. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The MCC side was not at full international strength - leaves me wondering why....

• It is a little too much to explain in the main text, so I've added a note. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

to the disapproval of some Barbadians who thought his place should have gone to a more deserving local player - was there someone specific in mind here?

• No, just general discontent that he took a place which in their view should have gone to one of their team. Not sure how I can phrase it better at the moment, so I'm open to suggestions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Batting at number three, he played aggressively in the first innings but was bowled for 21, and the crowd barracked him - hmmm, the last clause is odd tacked on at the end - presumably they barracked for him while he was batting, in which case it looks odd mentioning it after you mention he was out.

• Moved the clause. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In para two of the Debut and first Test series section, not sure if the first sentence is necessary as it is a little repetitive. "celebrate" mentioned twice in the first few sentences.

• Cut first sentence. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

When the first Test began, West Indies were bowled out 296 as Grimmett took seven wickets, including Headley first ball. - sounds awkward. I'd change the first clause to "On the first day of the first test (if it was only on the first day) or something like it.

• Not just on the first day, but tweaked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So successful was Headley that he was described by Grimmett as the best on-side batsman against whom the bowler had played --> " So successful was Headley that he was described by Grimmett as the best on-side batsman he had played against"

• I actually prefer the first one; I originally had it as you have, but Brianboulton copy-edited the article and I think this is an improvement. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah figured someone else would - there's a rather long story behind this - subordinate clause bsed on old English vs classical Latin...and the whole ending a sentence with a preposition issue (which I have no problem with), so no a deal-breaker in this case :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support – My two batches of comments above have both been dealt with, and I think this will make an excellent addition to the large group of cricket-related FAs. Writing, sources, etc. are at the high level I've come to expect from this bunch of editors. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [33].

---

Hurricane Ginger

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it was the second-longest lasting Atlantic hurricane. Most of the time, storms last like a day, or two, but certainly not 28 days! Due to the time period and nature of the storm, there isn't much literature on the storm (although it made landfall, it didn't do that much damage). I've had a peer review, a GA review, and a few other people look at it, and I am prepared to put this forth to withstand the rigorous test that is FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the extremely exaggerated nomination statement. ;) Otherwise, some more comments:
• Ginger spent 27.25 days as a tropical cyclone, and lasted from September 6 to October 3. - "and lasted from" --> "lasting from"?
  • Okerydokery. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • ...seriously? :P Juliancolton (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Why so serious? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• east- or northeastward - is the suspended hyphen needed if "northeastward" doesn't even have a hyphen?
  • I was trying to be fancy, but it failed utterly in my face (or hands). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• The convective feature was caused by an anticyclone located over northern South America - I know this may be technically true, but I have a feeling it's probably oversimplified, since anticyclones are not known for producing convection.
  • Well, that's just based on the sources I have, but I agree. However, I changed it to "influenced", which isn't as definitive as "caused" and is still true. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• it maintained an unusually large eye formation - I don't think "formation" is necessary.
  • Mk. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• On September 24, Ginger slowed its forward motion, and the next day began a slow movement to the southwest. - I don't know, this just seems pretty forced. Any way to make it a bit more seamless?
  • I think I made it more seamless. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• The threat of the hurricane in Bermuda prompted the British Navy to evacuate a ship and for two cruise ships to leave early - Sentence structure isn't cohesive.
  • Simplified. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• while along the coast three lighthouses were evacuated. - Who was evacuated? The workers?
  • Clarified who was evacuated and who ordered the evacuation. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Overall, there were no fatalities from the hurricane. - You mention one in the previous paragraph.
  • Oops. I had written that before I saw the newspaper report on that death. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Juliancolton (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support a perfect example of Wikipedia's best work. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

Image and deadlink check

• Article has five images with proper licenses and working source links where applicable. One issue: File:Ginger1971filledrainblk.gif should use an {{Information}} box.
• No deadlinks and no problems in a CorenBot search.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I moved that image to commons. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• Use a consistent date formatting
• Do all those newspapers actually say "Staff writer", or is there just no author listed? If the latter, be consistent in how that situation is notated
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late response, I am away from my usual computer. I believe I am now consistent with wikilinks, in that I linked everything on the first usage. With regards to the consistent date formatting, do you mean in the body of the article or in the references? Yes, none of the newspapers actually say "staff writer", but all references are notated similarly. Lastly, I am similarly consistent for newspapers referencing in terms of {{cite news}}. None of them say "publisher", but rather "newspaper", as per the template. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I meant in the references, which has been fixed. In terms of newspapers, two issues: first, refs 24 and 25 link to a newspaper with the same name, but are noted as having different names. Second, why do some newspapers include publishers (ex. Associated Press, UPI, etc), while others do not? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Wow, good find with the ref 24 vs. 25. As for whether newspapers include publishers or not, I only include it if it's listed. If the newspaper doesn't list what agency they got it from, I can't put in anything for publisher. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have no remaining concerns. Juliancolton (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• It says "3 million bushels of corn and 1 million bushels of soybean". The term 'bushel' which is local to a few countries and obscure for many readers. Conversions into tonnes would help in all instances.
  • You can't convert bushels into tonnes, and the article on bushel doesn't give a good metric equivalent. According to the conversion site I saw, one of the conversions listed would be liters, but bushels are meant for dry units, so I don't think anything can be done (unless you think it should include some obscure term like cubic dekameter). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• The phrase "British Navy" looks odd, particularly with a link. It may be better to make the term and the linking more explicit i.e. 'British [Royal Navy]'.
  • Bah, we fought to leave the Brits 230 years ago, and I'll be damned if I have to abide by their titles and... heh, I wouldn't have thought to check on that one. Thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• The phrase "Record longevity" might be more plainly expressed as 'Record duration'.
  • Ehh, I disagree, I think it's pretty clear. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with duration... longevity is a weird word for that context. Juliancolton (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• The phrase "Its duration surpassed that of" might be more plainly expressed as 'It was longer than'
  • I wanted to be clear to refer to the amount of time. The record does not apply for how long its track was, which is what I would think by reading "it was longer than". Thank you for the suggestion tho. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Albeit a delayed one....I have no qualms with this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lean support, but some minor points to clear up first, some of which may just me thinking aloud.

• "Heavy rainfall flooded towns and left heavy crop damage". Awkward repetition of "heavy".
• With that map, it's quite hard to see which of the end-points is the start. Could this be clarified in the caption?
• "It was also responsible for the formation of Hurricane Fern, Tropical Storm Heidi, and two tropical depressions." I'm assuming the "it" in question is the anticyclone located over northern South America, but I first read it as the convective feature mentioned just before. This could be clearer, as it seems it could be either one?
• "the seventh named storm of the season". Of which season (I suppose, is it the American, Caribbean season? Who names these storms?)
• "about 325 mi (525 mi)". Problem.
• "sometimes 80 mi (130 km) in diameter." Is this a rough maximum, or an occasional average? It sounds vague to me.
• "the fourth ever hurricane to be a part of the weather control experiment."
• "by late on October 1." Does this work better in AmEng than BritEng? To me it sounds wrong, but it might be fine, in which case leave it.
• "Ferry service around the Outer Banks was canceled during the storm's passage". Same as above; I feel it would be better as "Ferry services ... were" or "The ferry service". Could be just me.
• "There were also reports of two missing people in Neptune Beach, Florida." I don't suppose you know if they were found?
• "the highest in associated with Ginger in the United States."
• "losses to the corn crop were mitigated as about half of the crop had been harvested." Presumably half that season's crop, not half the planted crop when Ginger moved over.
• "Heavy damage was also reported to peanut". Peanut crops?
• "Governor Robert W. Scott requested federal disaster aid for 24 counties, which was denied." Any idea why?

I also made some minor changes to the article. Apterygial ^talk 12:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the copyediting, that was a rather fine-tooth comb you used! :) I believe I got everything except for the "October 1" (which is just consistent with the rest of the article's dates), and the federal aid denied. Having done another more recent hurricane article (post-Katrina, so everything is mentioned), it seems that requests can be denied if the damage isn't that outstanding, and it appears this was the case for Ginger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I was referring to the use of "on", but looking at it again it's fine as it is. I notice in response to my third point you changed it to "The weather pattern", but to me (who knows nothing about meteorology) this is still confusing (which of convective features and anticyclones are weather patterns?). The question about whose season it was could still be clearer; I'm interested, if a storm forms in the Pacific and lashes Queensland is it included in this count. i.e., are they defined geographically? (apologies for being outrageously picky!) Thanks for your changes, Apterygial ^talk 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• See the notices at the top of Template:inflation. The template isn't meant to be used without a citation showing where you got the figures. User:Dank/MIL#inflation has links to some discussions by Wikipedians who understand the template better than I do.
• "warmed its thermal structure": I don't follow.
• "turning to a westerly drift": I'm not sure if you can turn to a drift. "before beginning to drift west", maybe?
• "Virginia/North Carolina border": I don't mind since I see this a lot, but WP:SLASH recommends against slashes. All done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. About the inflation, I opened a discussion on the tropical cyclone Wikiproject talk page. We use that template on almost all of our articles. I'd hate to remove that from one article. However, I wouldn't mind removing it from all of the articles, mostly for consistency. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [34].

---

Pigeon photography

Nominator: Hans Adler 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this because so far we are rather short on featured articles in the wider area of animal-based photography. The Czech translation became FA a while ago, and the German translation was featured on the German main page last year. Time for us to catch up! The article passed GA and peer review without any major hoaxing being detected, so I guess FAC is just a formality. Hans Adler 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check the sources that are not available online, I can provide many of them by email. Of course the most important sources are in German. Hans Adler 10:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "The pigeon photographer was a technique for aerial photography" -> In'st a "pigeon photographer" an animal (a pigeon), and hence not a "technique". Isn't "pigeon photography" more appropriate here (and as title)?

  Neubronner called it Brieftaubenfotografie (pigeon photography), and that's still the standard term in German. I believe in English and French the topic was first popularised by the technical journalist Alfred Gradenwitz, who seems to have coined the terms pigeon photographer and pigeon photographe. I have not found any recent high quality reliable sources in English on the topic (only blog posts and dubious stuff from aerial surveillance teachers), so I decided to stick with the original term. I wouldn't mind renaming the article to "pigeon photography" but don't want to rush this. I see how the first sentence is confusing, so for the moment I have changed it to "Use of pigeon photographers [...]". Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• "As photographic techniques made further progress, at the end of the 19th century some pioneers began to employ them in unmanned aircraft." -> Clunky sentence. Unclear what "them" is at first read.

  I changed it to "[...] some pioneers placed cameras in unmanned flying objects." (Maybe change it back to "aircraft", but I got some doubts about the precise connotations of that word.) Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1903 Julius Neubronner (1852–1932)" -> Lots of dates in little space, difficult to read. Are the birth and death dates necessary?

  Removed. This was left from before Neubronner had his own article. Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• "A pneumatic system in the camera controlled the time delay before a photograph was taken." -> What is a "pneumatic system"? Could you expand? Put a diagram?

  The details are described in the patent and in some of the sources: There was a little rubber bag that was inflated before the camera was attached to the pigeon. The air was slowly released, and at some point the photo was taken. The more you inflated the rubber bag, the longer the delay. I will check the sources to see if I can find a diagram anywhere. There is none in the patent. Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  Why not add this information in the article? 206.225.134.57 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  I have now switched from the somewhat confusing patent drawing to a simpler drawing from an article by Neubronner. It shows the pneumatic mechanism and I have added an explanation in the caption. While the drawing seems much better, I am not very happy with the preview. Not sure how to fix this. Hans Adler 07:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Is note 4 meant to be citing Mattison? If not, needs page number

  Yes, fixed. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page numbers for note 12?

  Everything is on pages 23–24, 27–28 and 31. I have added "pp. 23–31" to the footnote, is that enough? The source is very hard to get and everything is in chronological order, so I think the best compromise between precision and space-saving is on the space-saving side. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Formatting for note 30

  This is a problem with {{WebCite}}, but I can't see what is wrong. Will fix this later, if necessary by hand-coding. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Web sources need retrieval dates
• Can we separate the sources that are being cited from those that aren't?

  Probably not without giving up the separation between contemporary and later sources. I can do this, but will wait a bit for further comments to make it less likely that I will have to undo everything. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format
• In general, reference formatting needs to be cleaned up
• Make sure all foreign-language sources are noted as such (for example, presumably "Les pigeons photographes" is in French?)

  Ooops. I found three that were missing. I hope that's it now. Hans Adler 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Does Fribourg have a first name?

  Presumably, but I don't know it. In the previous (and first) part of this paper, it is explained that these are the notes of a talk given by "M. le commandant Fribourg". More precisely, this is an extract of the notes that appeared in "Génie civil". Either the original or the extract was made by "G.M.". I will see if I can substitute this source by a more modern one to get around the problem. Hans Adler 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "63–71, 1910" - is 1910 another page or a date? If the latter, compare formatting to "Les colombiers militaires"

  I am using the same template {{Citation}} for everything. It is formatting the date in completely different ways depending on whether the document has an identifiable author or not. I hate such inconsistencies, but they seem to be a feature of many major citations styles. I don't know how to fix this other than by writing out the references by hand or abusing the templates (putting something else in as author). How is this normally handled for FAs? Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• What's the significance of the indentation of certain patents?

  The indented patents are the secondary ones giving additional protection in other countries. I have included them because they were relatively hard to find and provide translations that may be useful to some readers. They are probably taking up too much space. If nobody has a better idea I wouldn't mind removing them altogether. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether names are given first or last name first

  Done, I think. (I only found this problem in the case of Michel's patents.) Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Publisher for Berger?

  This is a report about the restoration which Berger carried out for a Swiss Photography Museum. It's self-published on his company web site ("Olivier Berger – AMC Art Metal Conservation S.A.R.L."). I guess this makes Berger the publisher, but it seems a bit silly to repeat his name in this way. I could make it "Art Metal Conservation, Basel", but I am not sure that's appropriate. It would make the reference look like a formally published book. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "CIA website" is not an author; "CIA" may be a publisher

  It appears I guessed incorrectly what to do in Harvard citation style when the author is unknown. Apparently the title is used where the author would normally be. I will need some time to fix this everywhere. Hans Adler 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• What is Goldener Spatz?

  A children's media award founded by several important German broadcasters and some minor government entities. In the spirit of the previous point I have changed it to the official "publisher" name "Deutsche Kindermedienstiftung Goldener Spatz", although that's a bit clumsy. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  Nothing, I guess. The sentence supported by this source really follows from the next one anyway, so I have simply removed it. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Further sources issues:

• Hannavy 2008 cited, not in bibliography

  Done. (This was Nikkimaria's first point.)

• Ref 31 needs to be properly formatted. See WP:CITET for ideas as to how patents should be cited (you don't have to use the template, just include the information).
• Ref 42: The cited statement is "In the 2004 BBC program Animal Camera, Steve Leonard presented spectacular films taken by miniature television cameras attached to falcons and hawks, and transmitted to a nearby receiver by microwaves. The cameras have a weight of 28 grams (1 oz)". I can't find all this information in the source. In any event, the source should be the BBC programme, not the YouTube clip. The programme should be dated, and an access date should be given

  "Falcons and hawks" wasn't quite correct. I changed this to "eagles, falcons and goshawks".

  Title and presenter: See meta-information of YouTube clip (from official BBC channel). — (Peregrine) Falcon: 0:16. — Goshawk: 0:20. — Golden Eagle: 1:08. — Microwaves: 0:48. — 28 grammes: 0:54.

  I found the BBC's description of the episode and will cite that. But the link to YouTube should remain since the clip at the BBC site can only be watched in the UK. Hans Adler 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• In bibliography but no citations: Oelze, Revue Photographique de l'Ouest, Äschlimann, Mattison, Schobert, Thürlemann. These need to be separated from cited sources - suggest list as "Further reading".
• Patents: Why is this information given in the middle of the bibliography? How is this information used in the article?

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• My sources concerns have been generally addressed in your reorganisation, which you were kind enough to explain on my talkpage. The purpose of the subdivision in "Further readings" would be clearer if you made the headings, respectively: "Related to Neubronner" and "Related to Michel". Otherwise I think everything is acceptable now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have renamed the sections as you suggested. Hans Adler 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• "Pigeon with German miniature camera, approximately World War I era" - this seems a bit awkwardly phrased
• "The patented camera with cuirass, suspended from harness" - not clear from phrasing whether it's the cuirass or the camera or both that is suspended
• Be consistent between captions and text whether you're using First/Second World War or World War I/II
• "Patent drawing from Swiss patent" seems redundant
• Source link for File:Pigeon_camera.jpg appears to be broken
• File:Michel,_appareil_photographique_pour_pigeon-voyageur,_mode_d'emploi.jpg - who has copyright on this image?
• File:CH192864,_page_6.png uses an obsolete tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues after reorganisation of sources

Based on the input above I have reorganised the sources in a more standard way (no more use of Harvard references, inline references and further reading are now clearly separated). In several cases (e.g. patents) I have fundamentally changed the style in which they are cited. The following issues remain:

• Possibly rename article to "pigeon photography". – Works for me, but I will only do it after more input. (See comment above for rationale for current title.) – Now done 08:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Web sources need retrieval dates." I think all web sources have retrieval dates or have been archived with WebCite and have an archiving date (in which case an additional retrieval date would be silly).
• Berger (2008) still has no publisher because it's just a report, found on the conservator's website. I hope that's OK.
• "Be consistent between captions and text whether you're using First/Second World War or World War I/II" – I don't understand this. To me these are just synonyms, and it would appear normal to alternate between them in the main text as a matter of good style. In all exposed positions (section titles, image captions) I already used the same style (World War I/II) consistently. – Now done 08:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Source link for File:Pigeon_camera.jpg appears to be broken" – Yes, it is broken. (A stupid law obliges the German public broadcasters to regularly purge all interesting content from their websites.) But it's where I got the file from before it was broken, so I am not sure what I am supposed to do. I have already researched the book where the photo was originally published. It's clearly free, and the file is free as a 2D representation.
• "File:Michel,_appareil_photographique_pour_pigeon-voyageur,_mode_d'emploi.jpg - who has copyright on this image?" – I don't know. Unlike Neubronner, Adrian Michel had a company and wasn't just an enthusiast, so it's not clear who created the manual cover. If it's really relevant to this fair use image, I can try to solve the issue, most likely by not using the image in the first place.

Everything else should be fixed by now. Thanks for everybody's help so far. Hans Adler 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(First/Second) World War (I/II) - while these are synonymous, we generally treat them like WP:ENGVAR and prefer that you use one or the other consistently (IIRC First/Second is preferred for European topics). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! As a non-native speaker I missed the UK/US dimension. I have now changed it to First/Second World War everywhere. However, the article uses American English orthography as it started that way and there seem to be more connections to the US than to the UK. If that's an issue I am happy to use British English (which I prefer anyway, and I believe I have the right to make such a change) or to switch to World War I/II. Hans Adler 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

MOS review (not a prose review) per standard MOS disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. Comments. I'll be happy to tackle some copyediting if this has passed a source review ... I can't tell. I agree with those above who say the article probably has the wrong title, and I probably can't support before the page is moved to Pigeon photography. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't tell either. I have done everything I could and have highlighted all points where it's conceivable to me (an FAC newbie) that the reviewers might not be fully satisfied. I think everything should be resolved, but I am waiting for feedback whether that's true. Hans Adler 08:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, sourcing issues have been addressed. Since Brian also commented on this area, you may wish to ping him to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See my final comment above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm getting started now. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• There seems to be plenty of support for translating the Dresden Internationale Photographische Ausstellung as the "International Photographic Exhibition". I made the edit; feel free to revert. There's a good case to be made, though, that the German name should appear somewhere in the footnotes or notes, to help anyone searching for more information. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  Excellent, but I think once you get to the Julius Neubronner section you will see what led me astray: Maybe Internationale Luft- und Raumfahrtausstellung has the wrong title? I think the most common translation of Internationale Luftfahrtausstellung is International Aviation Exhibition. Hans Adler 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see your citation style (adding page numbers to superscripts) often. I don't see it listed at WP:CITE or WP:CIT. Does anyone know if it's been discussed before?
• "orthogonal directions (forward/backward)": forward and backward aren't at right angles to each other, so I don't know what this means.
• I don't follow what "awareness" means in "the awareness that an ancillary technology ...".
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick response to two of your questions before I go to bed. Yes, {{rp}} is not well known, and I only discovered it by accident. For me it's the perfect solution for an obvious problem, and I am surprised that some don't like it. I searched the FAC archives and found two FACs where this has come up before: White dwarf (September 2007) and Joseph Barbera (September 2008).

In principle I would be open to putting all the page numbers into the footnote texts, but that would inflate the number of footnotes by about a dozen.

Thanks for your work so far. The right angle is between 45° forward and 45° backward. I see it's a poor formulation. Will look at it again tomorrow unless it's magically fixed by then. Hans Adler 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your solution to the angle problem is fine. "Awareness" was too close to Neubronner's own words; what he meant is he felt satisfaction (fixed). I have fixed the year (1909, not 1910) and name (aviation, not aerospace) of the Frankfurt exhibition. Maybe you were misled by the book about it, which appeared in 1910. Again, thanks! Hans Adler 09:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, MOS review only. No opinion on the citation style; I haven't seen it enough to gauge reactions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "30mm × 60mm". There should be a space before the unit name i.e. '30 mm × 60 mm'
• It has two links to 'First World War'. World wars are amongst the most linked terms on Wikipedia, perhaps one is enough.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Both fixed. The second was a clear case of overlinking. Regarding the first, I have also done this for the shutter speeds (in seconds, with unit symbol s). Since there was a range involved, I have now also introduced spaces in the range, and as there was another range in the vicinity (with ° as unit, which I believe does not require a space), I have added spaces there for consistency as well. Maybe you want to look over this again to see if you agree. Hans Adler 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to contradiction but I think you've done the right thing. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• "This may have been one of the first cameras with a clockwork." With a clockwork what? Timer? Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  With a clockwork "mechanism that controlled the delay before the first exposure and transported the film between exposures", because that's what the cameras have. The claims in the source are actually stronger (my translation from German): "By including a clockwork mechanism, Adrian Christian Michel managed to automate film transport and shutter control, making it possible for the first time to do serial shootings from the air. In my opinion the camera from Walde may have been one of the first photo cameras ever with a built-in clockwork motor. The initial drafts from 1933 certainly indicated this." Maybe I was thinking too much in German here; the German word Federmotor is more explicit about the feather and motor aspect than its English translation clockwork. Hans Adler 08:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Then could we say something like "with a timer operated by clockwork"? Now you explain it I see what you mean, but when I see "with a clockwork" I'm seeing "clockwork" as an adjective rather than a noun, as in "clockwork timer", particularly when by prefixed with that "a". I suppose that "This may have been one of the first cameras with clockwork" could work equally well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Very good, that makes sense, and I think I see precisely what you mean now. The indefinite article was a Germanism so I have simply removed it. If you change your mind and feel this wasn't quite enough, just do whatever you feel is necessary. I see that you are doing a lot of excellent work improving my style. Thanks! Hans Adler 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Excuse me butting in here but I'm sorry "This may have been one of the first cameras with clockwork" still sound clumsy to me. I am sure readers will wonder what was clockwork. Federmotor is clearly a noun while clockwork appears to be an adjective though clockwork can be a noun, but I really think you need to add a noun for clarity, such as motor, mechanism, assembly, workings, components, or similar. ww2censor (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  I thought a clockwork was a motor operated by a spring, but maybe the word has too many other connotations. How about "one of the first clockwork cameras"? Hans Adler 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Can I just clarify something with you Hans. Are we saying that this was the first camera to contain a clockwork mechanism for any reason, the first to contain a clockwork timer, or all of the above? What's the important point to be made here? Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  The important point is that at the time, clockworks were not a normal feature of cameras at all. I am not sure what a clockwork might be useful for in a camera other than for the timer and maybe the release. We don't know that it was the first camera with a clockwork. With all this long discussion I am beginning to think that maybe it shouldn't be mentioned at all. The author of the article speculated that this was one of the first cameras with a clockwork, presumably based on his (possibly limited) knowledge of historical cameras and the fact that he didn't know any earlier camera with a clockwork. I would feel more comfortable just saying that cameras with a clockwork [timer] were unusual for the time. We can't say that other cameras with a clockwork were rare (=> existed) or didn't exist at all, because the source tells us neither. Hans Adler 07:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  OK. I've been bold and changed the text to "... and may have been one of the first to have a timer operated by clockwork". Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, this sounds good and I think it's not bold at all. I don't own this wiki... Hans Adler 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  I initially thought the same as you Ww2censor, but then I looked up "clockwork" in the Collins dictionary that's lying conveniently on my desk, which clearly says that clockwork is a noun. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed it is a noun but other readers may not have a Collins or dictionary.com, that I just checked with while on the bus, available to look up and may assume the use is odd. Oh maybe they will look it up and educate themselves! It is correct but I still suggest for clarity to use something additional. Either way is really fine. ww2censor (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  See my question to Hans above; I'm sure we can come up with a form of words that will satisfy all of us. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. I'm happy to be the first to support this article's promotion. I've followed it since it was a little acorn at DYK and I've frankly been amazed at what Hans has developed it into; I doubt that any other editor could have done the same. If this isn't an FA then I don't know what is. The quality of the research on display here is quite simply outstanding. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support No issues with jargon or prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I love quirky articles like this, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. As Malleus says above, the quality of research is impressive; the images alone are fantastic. I also found the technical aspects easy to follow. One quick suggestion: that there is a "tiny room" in the International Spy Museum dedicated to pigeon photography caught my eye, because "tiny" seems oddly suggestive as opposed to other adjectives. In my mind I pictured a pigeon-sized room, but surely that can't be right. "small" may be a better choice, unless the room is of course intended for little birds. ;) Also, I feel I must state for the record that I honestly can't stand {{rp}} as a citation style, and find its usage (especially in FAs) unfortunate. However, that's obviously my personal view, and certainly not anything to oppose over. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course I was very lucky with the topic. The room is now small. While I personally still like rp and might insist on it in another article, it's not absolutely necessary for this one. Getting rid of it will add about a dozen footnotes, though with some care it may be possible to reduce that number. I don't have the time to do it now, but I plan to do it in the near future. If anyone feels strongly enough about the matter to do it right now (and preferably without introducing new problems), then that's also fine. Hans Adler 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue I have with rp (and others might agree) is that it potentially requires more scrolling back and forth within the text. You click on the citation, and you're brought down to Footnotes/Notes/References, but then you have to go back up to find the relevant page number. I would much rather click the citation, be brought down to Footnotes/Notes/References to read the shorthand citation, and then have to scroll down a tiny bit to consult the Bibliography. However, this article isn't very long, and doesn't contain too many sources, so I don't personally find it as annoying as other articles that may use rp. Like I said, it's nothing to oppose over, and I would never suggest that someone overhaul their preferred -- and although rare, perfectly acceptable by Wiki standards -- citation style. If you want to hold onto it, that's fine with me. I just wanted to agree with whomever mentioned it above, for the record and everything. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [35].

---

Charles Holden

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles Holden was an early modernist architect who left a lasting architectural legacy in London. Starting out in the Arts and Crafts Movement at the beginning of the 20th century, he progressively simplified and stripped down his style to its bare elements. He was awarded the Royal Institute of British Architects' highest award, the Royal Gold Medal, in 1936 and declined a knighthood on two occasions. In the 1920s he was one of the principal architects designing the war cemeteries in France and Belgium for the British war dead of the First World War. His largest buildings in London remain prominent examples of the 1930s monumental style, but he is probably best known for and had the longest lasting influence with his stations for London Transport. This is a second nomination, as the first ran out of steam and was closed.--DavidCane (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Have reviewed the changes made since my support in the previous review, and following the discussions and changes made during that review, especially the addition of material from the book by Karol (which the nominator obtained at the time of the last review) I am happy to support again here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources look good quality and wide-ranging, and citation formats are generally OK (they were checked out at the last FAC). A few general points:-

• There is quite a lot of "as quoted in" in the citations. This is OK if, for example, a whole letter or lengthy extract is given in the cited source. Otherwise there can be difficulties in establishing that what is quoted is accurate and in context. Is it possible in any of these cases to cite to the original?
  • Karol uses quotations in a couple of ways: direct quotes of a just few words dropped into a sentence and longer quotes in notes. I have had to return the book now, but I took some scans of parts of the book so I will see if any of these can be expanded in the notes or text.--DavidCane (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the bits I have scanned don't cover any of the pages that the quotes have been taken from, so I can't expand the quotes any further. In several cases the original sources are unpublished - letters or journal entries in the RIBA's archive of Holden's papers or in private hands.--DavidCane (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• The Guardian articles of Glancey and Jenkins would be better referenced to The Guardian itself, rather than to the paper's website which hosts them
  • OK. Although the article publication histories for these on guardian.co.uk are ambiguous.--DavidCane (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Capitalisation in book or article titles should follow the original's format. Thus Pevsner and Cherry 1973, "cities" follows the style of the Google reference, but not the original per the book. Also, Cherry is the editor, not the co-author.
  • The capitalisation is probably my fault. Bridget Cherry is not listed as editor - the cover and title page list her as the reviser and the foreword to the third edition states that "Mrs Charry is responsible for nearly the whole of the revision needed to bring the volume - within limits - up to date." The copy I have to hand at the momement has both names on the spine. All this seems to qualify her as the co-author. --DavidCane (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Refs 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 41, 45, 46, 47, 64, 72 lack publisher (English Heritage in each case)
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 91 Mendelssohn? Where defined?
  • From a letter he wrote to Holden in 1938. Now stated. --DavidCane (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 114: We should have pub & date details for the original article.
  • It was 1957 and I, think, the architectural review, but don't remember Karol saying which edition and I can't check now. --DavidCane (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the "Notes" contain uncited information
  • 1. was added because a comment was raised in the previous review. These are just specific dictionary meanings.
  • 8. A trip to the site or a view on Google street maps shows that the adjacent 1960s building hides the view seen in the postcard.
  • 11. Again, trips to the stations would show show some have been rebuilt. I'll find sources for the rest having new façades.
    • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 15. Sources added. --DavidCane (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 17. Source added. --DavidCane (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Per the instructions listed on PD-UK-unknown, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was."
  • These were discussed in the previous nomination. I have added the explanation given there into the images. The three images from the BMJ are almost certainly public domain in the US anyway because the journal is published there as well and they were published without attribution before 1923. In the book that it was sourced from, the postcard image of the hospital gave an attribution to a library collection, but not a photographer.--DavidCane (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• According to this site, the London Underground logo is copyrighted
  • The underground logo is captured in panoramas. The UK has freedom of panorama, so there is no infringement.--DavidCane (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not crazy about the layout either - there's a fair amount of both white space and sandwiching on my screen. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have tried various layouts, but want to keep the images in proximity to the relevant text rather than have a string of unrelated pictures down one side. I assume that you are seeing white space alongside the centred groups of images if you have a wide screen. I have done this to avoid the sandwiching problem that occurs if they are moved to one side or the other. Where are you seeing sandwiching at the moment?--DavidCane (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • At the moment, between the British Medical Association and the Bristol Royal Infirmary, and between South Wimbledon and the UERL. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I have moved the Bristol Royal Infirmary down a bit. At standard text size, that now does not sandwich on anything less than 1440 px wide. The other problem does not seem to occur until the screen width gets above 1700 px wide. In both cases though the text between is still a readable width, so I don't think it causes a problem with crowding.--DavidCane (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Extended prose discussion moved to talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, with the understanding that you're going to replace "elevation" where it doesn't refer to a drawing. These and these (plus the last two, mentioned above) were my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Change made.--DavidCane (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Please consider providing unit conversions. I saw an instance of 'mile' without, there may be more. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks. Looks good. Lightmouse (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead is good. After a brief yet productive review, which can now be found on the FAC talk page, it is my opinion that the lead is balanced and well-written. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Support I supported this article at its last nomination, and it has improved since then. The architecture is well described and the comments about his work includes a balanced view. An interesting read.— Rod ^talk 08:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the prose somewhat comma-heavy, making it hard to get through, but I guess that's a personal preference since it didn't seem to trouble any reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the commas removed here? "They were introduced by Holden's older sister, Alice, and became friends through their common interest in Whitman." - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, if there are any specific bits that you think are particularly flush with commas, let me know and I will see if I can do something about them. --DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [36].

---

U.S. Route 131

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a first for me... a highway article that spans two states, although I honestly prefer to discount the Indiana segment since it's 1/400 the length of the Michigan section. US 131 is a 266-mile (428 km) highway that follows a major corridor in the state of Michigan. I welcome the feedback and reviews. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have reviewed this article at both GAN and ACR and feel that is is referenced to several high-quality sources, well-written, broad in its coverage, and illustrated with interesting images. The only possible suggestion for improvement I can offer is for another image or two showing the actual road in detail to be added to the article. Dough4872 01:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Some sandwiching of text between images on my screen - try to avoid that
• File:Flag_of_Indiana.svg - source links are dead

Other than that, images appear unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've viewed the article on varying widths on my laptop and my iPhone, and I can't make the text sandwhich. As for the flag, I've fixed the deadlink. Thank you for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 8 has a dead link, otherwise DAB, EL, and ALT check out fine. –Fredddie™ 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that INDOT's server was temporarily down (maintenance?) but the site is up now. Imzadi 1979 → 05:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all are fine now. –Fredddie™ 17:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support (critical) issues resolved. --Rschen7754 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Note previous comments moved to the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally all seems well, subject to a couple of small points:-

• A large number of the references are to maps. To assist verification, grid references or equivalent should be provided. This has been done in most cases, but not in all. Is it possible to add such information?
• Ref 74 "Bauz"; others refer to "Bauza"

Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The maps that lack grid references do so because there are no grids provided on those maps; the MSHD didn't provide them until the mid 1930s. Several of the PDF maps lack them as well. Thanks for catching the typo. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comment: As far as I can tell, the lead does not summarize any information from Memorial designations or Historic bridges. WP:LEAD states that "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." A common rule of thumb is that every major section in the body should be represented by at least one sentence in the lead; in this case I would not be opposed to having both sections summarized by a single sentence since Historic bridges is so short. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Some extra material has been added to the lead. Please let me know if anything addition should be added, or if anything should be changed in my addition. Imzadi 1979 → 17:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I think "The oldest[, the Mackinaw Trail,] originated from an Indian trail in the area while some other names honored politicians." should have the name of the trail inserted either at the bracketed location or somewhere else. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Any other suggestions? If not, thank you for the comments. Imzadi 1979 → 18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Works for me. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Most comments moved to talk per this - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• "... the Shoe Tree. A local landmark since shortly after the turn of the 21st century the origins of the artwork are unknown, but the owners of the property call it "the best landmark in Northern Michigan"." What gives it historical value? Do you have any references other than a brief mention in the Traverse City Record-Eagle?
  • I am a former resident of the area, and while my personal observations can't be used as a source, that tree is well known and much discussed by members of the community. There are aboute 2,500 hits on Google for that specific shoe tree, most of which don't satisfy WP:RS. It is mentioned in a travel book, Weird Michigan: Your Travel Guide to Michigan's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets and even a short film. It was covered by WLUC-TV, a station based in the Central Upper Peninsula, in a video that's no longer available on their website. There is also an article about it from the Petoskey News-Review on a site that also aggregates articles from the Gaylord Herald Times and the Charlevoix Courier. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • As long as it meets your wikiproject's standards for inclusion, I have no objection, but the text is problematic. I think it was in the source that I read that motorists stop from time to time to throw their shoes into the tree; you're giving the impression that the end result is "artwork". And we shouldn't be borrowing the term "landmark" from the owners of the property. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Larry Brown ... pleaded no contest on a sexual assault charge, which prompted MDOT to remove his name from the rest area when notified of his conviction." Per the logic of WP:BLP1E, I'd prefer to leave this out. Is he known for anything other than sexual assault and lasting long enough at MDOT to get his name on a rest area? - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • My logic in including that is to add something more than the dry statistics and boring "X road segment at Y location was realigned in Z year" changes to the road. Here we have a human story about a mundane aspect of a pedestrian topic. The fact remains that the only press source that I've ever found that details the numbers or types of rest areas, let alone how the names are assigned is an article about Mr. Brown. The title of that article directly references this situation, and I think leaving that title in the reference list without addressing the subject matter just invites questions. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll reply below. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Done; Here's the diff of my work. I can support per FAC disclaimer if you have a chance to respond to my questions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and the copy edits. Please let me know if I've answered your questions. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per FAC disclaimer. I see your dilemma, and I can support on prose only, but I'm hoping other reviewers will weigh in on the potential WP:BLP issue here. I see nothing to indicate this guy is a public figure or notable. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose by karanacs. Let me start by saying that the sourcing fro this article is MUCH better than many road articles I've reviewed. You've obviously done a lot of work seeking out non-map sources. My concern is that there is still a large part of the history section sourced to maps, which led the section to read sometimes like a list of changes. It left me with a lot of questions about why something happened, or the impact of the change.
  • Sadly, unlike a younger highway (Capitol Loop), this one's history isn't covered in readily archived press sources. I've spent days at several libraries looking through microfilm for additional sources and they just don't exist for the early history, and I haven't found replacement sources for the other freeway segment openings. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Update: I found a single mention in MDOT's book on the history of the department and the state highway system that explains that the state department was shifting emphasis by the end of the 1930s "to expand and upgrade the trunkline system to make it safer and smoother for burgeoning traffic volumes." Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Probably ought to wikilink Mackinaw Trail in history - I see that it's linked later, but that seemed odd.
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm confused...are those plank roads the precursors to US 131, or is it just a history of state-maintained roads? Were these plank roads on the Mackinaw Trail or parallel to it?
  • Both. There are a few specific plank roads mentioned that are precursors to parts of US 131, but the 202 number is statewide. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Were all of the 202 chartered turnpikes ever in operation...sometimes a charter is granted and nothing happens.
  • Sources say that many were not in operation, but no source specifies how many were and how many weren't. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• How far in miles did US 131 first extend? I don't know how far it is to Acme from the state line.
  • I can add a rough estimate, but nothing very precise. The problem is that the Fife Lake – Acme section on the federal map doesn't follow any roads that existed then or now. In fact, the Michigan maps of the time show US 131 stopping at Fife Lake for that very reason. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know what this means "The highway's northern section was not designated in the field "
  • See the reply immediately above. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm confused about the impact of the 1931 Public Act....what does that mean, exactly?
  • Should be clarified now, but the City of Grand Rapids had an annoying habit of just moving the routing of state highways through the city arbitrarily whenever they felt like it until the act was passed. Several maps prior to 1931 all show different routings on the Grand Rapids inset. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I question whether a map is an appropriate reference for "the first state-maintained highway along the path of US 131". Yes, the map will tell you that it was A state-maintained highway, but can it really tell you it was the first?
  • There first state highways in Michigan were signed in 1919. I added an explanatory footnote that contains a citation to "Michigan May Do Well Following Wisconsin's Road Marking System". Grand Rapids Press. September 20, 1919. p. 10. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Why did Michigan want to extend the designation to Indiana? did that have any effect on building of roads, or was it just adding the designation to existing roads? What's the point of doing that - and why was it important to connect with US 31?
  • Ok, re-reading it, gives a tourism related benefit in fine print in the article. No other reasons or effects were given in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Don't we already know that the IHSD people were "receptive" since we're already told the designation was extended?
  • They only extended the designation the 2/3 of a mile into the state, but Michigan asked Indiana to go all the way to Indianapolis, something that has never been done, even though they were "receptive to the idea" of such a longer extension. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Check your refs, please, to make sure newspapers are always italicized.
  • Found one (oops!) and fixed it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a possibility of getting a map for the Grand Rapid paragraph (1962s)? I am not familiar with Grand Rapids at all, and the listing of lots of names of streets doesn't help me at all. I can't picture in my head at all what this is supposed to look like.
  • MSHD copyrighted their map after 1958. I can post a scanned copy of the 1957 Grand Rapids inset, otherwise I will have to rely on another project member to put together a map for me. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Since it's been two weeks without a reply, I went ahead and posted the most recent (October 1, 1957) inset map from the MSHD that I can use and added that to the article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think this can be appropriately sourced to a map: "Freeway construction continued through the 1960s"
  • Well, considering that every annual edition of the map shows increasing mileage of freeways opened each year compared to the previous year, yes, I think that statement can be sourced. It's more of a general statement in that paragraph though. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• "The following year, a business loop in Kalamazoo was created." - was it really built in a year, or did it get finished and added to the map in a year? The map cannot be a source for finished in a year assertions.
  • In 1963, the business loop is not even shown on the map. In 1964, it is a dashed set of lines on the map. In 1965, it is shown complete and open to traffic. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Is there any information about why the people of Petoskey didn't want the freeway? Any local newspapers from that time?
  • I added an explanatory footnote about why the area opposed any freeway near Petoskey. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Why did the I-296 signs get removed? That seems like a big thing, especially since the designation is still there.
  • There are no news articles about the sign removal. My educated opinion is that MDOT wanted to eliminate the possibility of motorist confusion for people driving along US 131 suddenly finding themselves on I-296 when nothing about the freeway changed beyond a sign. Without a reliable source though, I can not confirm that opinion. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• For S-curve replacement, it says there were construction delays, but then that everything opened up early. What kinds of extraordinary measures were in place to make that work?
  • The Grand Rapids Press did not list anything specific in their coverage of the project beyond the fact that the contractor just accelerated the schedule. I added that with a direct quote about "employees [who] have been known to work 13-hour days and 100-hour weeks" on projects, which although a general statement from the article still illustrates the kind of company that performed the work. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• There's one mention of the US 131 Association - what is that, when was it created, what impact did it have? That would be interesting information to flesh out the history section.
  • There aren't many additional sources on them that I've found. I've found one news clipping from 1972 showing that they lobbied Congress for freeway funding and a high school scholarship in honor of a group member. Unlike the various citizens' groups that formed in the wake of the M-6/South Beltline, this one operates/operated very much under the radar. In fact, there is a billboard near the town of Mancelona with the message "Don't you wish you were on a freeway right now? Only XY miles to go." with the two different mileages indicated, and it listed their website address, but that site has been offline for the last 7 years at least. (They did have the good sense to update the mileage after the Cadillac and Manton bypasses were built, but that's it.)Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Note I left a request for Karanacs to reply here on April 13, and her last edits were to this FAC on April 7 and a discussion page on April 8. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Some comments (figuring I'd comment on another FAC while mine is still up) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, most of that works. The only thing I'm still a little iffy on is the highway/freeway/expressway thing, which AFIAK didn't have significant differences (and I do know a fair bit about roads to begin with). That said, it shouldn't hinder the article too much, so I'll be happy to support it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Previous resolved comments moved to the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments. Support on 1a—improvements made. Tony (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The prose needs a careful sifting through by an independent editor. Otherwise, it's a creditable piece of work. Tony (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note detailed comments moved to the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "US 131 extends 0.67 miles (1,078 m)", "all but 0.67 miles (1.08 km)", and "the proposed five-mile (8.0 km) highway". Precision is part art and part science but in the these particular examples, I'd recommend matching significant figures to make it '0.67 miles (1.1 km)' and 'five-mile (8 km) highway'.
  • Many times adding one level of precision to a small miles-to-kilometers measurement is beneficial, although in this case it probably doesn't matter. The one conversion has been fixed to match the previous one (I think it was previously using a feet-to-meters conversion and wasn't updated fully when switched to mileage.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• It says "approximately 172 miles (277 km)" and "about 213 miles (343 km)". There are many instances on Wikipedia where terms like 'approximately', 'about', 'roughly' are followed by apparent precision. This creates an apparent contradiction when I read it. If the statistic is valid, then I think we should just say it without the fuzziness of 'approximately' and 'about'.
  • The actual freeway length is 172.132 miles (277.020 km), yes to three decimal places. SandyGeorgia does not like that precise of measurement in the prose of a road article, which is why it is rounded to the mile. I will let others argue this point and follow, but the precision of that measurement has been rounded off. As for the 213 miles, that is a fuzzy measurement because it involves roads that made up the highway in 1926. Because of the length of time, even though I can generate a measurement to 3 DPs, it wouldn't be appropriate to express that level of precision. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• The paragraph about rest area naming and denaming has more detail than is appropriate for a road article. It might belong in a focussed article about how rest area names are added and removed, or in an article about the particular rest area, or an article about the people concerned. I'm not sure that this route article is the right place for publishing the names of people convicted of crimes unconnected to the route. Furthermore, the paragraph is time dependent because it contains the phrase "A new honoree will be chosen".
  • The time-dependent issue will be eviscerated when the new name is chosen and the article is updated. As for the remainder, I disagree with completely removing the paragraph. At most, removing the name might be acceptable, but removing the paragraph with the "denaming" reduces the entire subsection to yet another dry recitation of statistics and facts. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I've gone through the entire article, proverbial pencil and eraser in hand, and made mostly minor changes and edits where I saw fit. In general, the article is well-written, informative, substantial, and generally clear (although I got lost in the freeway conversion section), and my copyedits were usually of a trivial nature. Juliancolton (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [37].

---

Hygeberht

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I'd like to introduce Hygeberht, the only Archbishop of Lichfield ever. He's a very obscure little guy, but he held an office that only existed during his tenure of it. We get papal intrigue, royal prestige-seeking, and wild accusations of ... well, you'll have to read the article to see! It's been copyedited by Malleus like four times, because Hygie-boy kept getting put off for other projects, as well as a wonderful review by Mike Christie. He's fairly light reading, nothing dense, and only one illustration. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments There are no issues with the links (external or dab) nor with redirects. The lone image also checks out as having an appropriate license status for use here. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this article a while ago and it's fine work. I have a minor comment or so, but I see nothing that should hinder promotion.

• I'm not crazy about the last couple of sentences in the lead. How about: "petitioned the pope to have Lichfield returned to a simple bishopric. The pope agreed to do so in 803, by which time Hygeberht was no longer even considered a bishop: he is listed as an abbot at the council that oversaw the demotion of Lichfield in 803."
• I know this is a sentence I wrote myself, but I think this needs fixing (sorry!): "Among Offa's motives may have been his dislike of Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the men of Kent. A letter to the papacy written by Coenwulf, who succeeded Offa's son Ecgfrith to the Mercian throne, claimed that the idea derived from Offa's hatred of Jænberht and the Kentish people". The second sentence simply repeats the first with the source being Coenwulf. Can this be compressed to: "A letter to the papacy written by Coenwulf, who succeeded Offa's son Ecgfrith to the Mercian throne, claimed that Offa's motives were his dislike of Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the men of Kent."
• "free it from ecclesiastical dependence on Canterbury, in the recently subjected Kentish kingdom": how about "free it from ecclesiastical dependence on Canterbury in the kingdom of Kent, which Offa had recently brought into subjection" (or "brought under Mercian control") -- readers unfamiliar with the period may not realize it was Offa who is the subject of "subjected".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Took your suggestions as above (I opted for Mercian control" rather than "brought into subjection") Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  Looks good; I restored a sentence at the end of the lead that I didn't mean to suggest should be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I looked over the only two things I feel comfortable doing (sources and files) and I have to say they pass the standards with flying colors. The article reads well but I can't comment on prose due to my dyslexia. Great job. --In actu (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on citation quality and sourcing. From an n-dash perspective, does the date span in "Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650-c.850." require an n-dash (see, "Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England c. 500–1066"). Is this spacing correct on A. D., or could it be A.D.? "The Period of Mercian Rule in Kent, and a Charter of A. D. 811". DOI Works; I don't check plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The dash script didn't insert a dash there, so I guess not. The A. D. spacing should be correct for that source (I have to admit it's a pretty obscure little journal, but it occasionally has little gems like this article) but it's also very old-fashioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Jaenberht or Jænberht?

• Fixed to the ligature. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "the recently subjected Kentish kingdom" - subjected to what/who?

• Fixed per Mike's suggestion above (now reads "... which Offa had recently brought under Mercian control." ) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "to provide for poor people in Rome and to provide lights for St Peter's Basilica in Rome" - the "in Rome" seems a bit repetitive

• removed second "in rome" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• For those of us who aren't knowledgeable in this area, you might need to clarify archiepiscopal versus archbishopric versus archdiocese, if these mean different things

• They are all referring to the same thing - archiepiscopal is the adjectival form, the archdiocese refers to the actual territory controlled by an archbishop and is a synonym for archbishopric. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Does "affirmation of faith" refer to faith in the Catholic church or loyalty to Canterbury? If the former, I don't follow the logic of that being because of the elevation of Lichfield; if the latter, perhaps word differently?

• The source states "profession of faith", I can switch to that but I was wary of too close paraphrasing here. it's not a profession of obedience (as these were required after the Conquest and were considered an innovation then...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Citations note Swanton as a translator and editor, References only as a translator - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support conditionally. Well done! An embellishment to the Project. Just a few things jumped off the page at me:
  • "Jænberht" is of course correct, but "Archæologia Cantiana" should be without the ligature (see WP:MOS; and for searchability).
  • The source has no space for "A.D." in "The Period of Mercian Rule in Kent, and a Charter of A. D. 811".
  • The source has no space after "c." in "Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England c. 500–1066".
  • Please check the source for "Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650-c.850". For the date range: spacing of all elements? en dash or hyphen? (Cited in many different ways.)
  • Period missing after initial in "Dugmore, C. W".
  • Latham is normally cited (correctly, I believe) without a colon after "Word-List", and with lower-case "from": "Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources".
  • Fix doubled period: "In Lawrence, C. H.."

Noetica^Tea? 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • The actual name of the journal is indeed "Archæologia Cantiana" and it should be cited as that, not under a different spelling.
    • Fixed.
    • Yes, the source does. There is a space equivalent to the "o" in "Conquest" which is directly above the "c. 500-1066" line on the title page. If needed, I can scan the title page to prove this.
    • This is correctly spaced as given on the title page. (missed this first time around) I assume that the slightly longer than an "h" is an endash, and have so changed it.
    • Fixed.
    • Latham's title page has the title in all capitals, all of equal height, making it difficult to decipher what was intended. Personally, I prefer the capital, as it makes it clearer that this is the start of the subtitle, but if it's a major issue, it can be changed.
    • This is an error in the cite template ... it places a period after the editor's name, thus doubling the period. I do not wish to remove the initial's period, lest the template change later to remove that extra period and the citation be off.
      • Thanks for the review, hope you enjoyed the article and learned something... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Some responses, Ealdgyth:

• The ligature "æ" is not orthographically significant for that Latin word, but a typographical choice that is subject to change. The publisher of the journal itself adopts the standard convention, which is to replace the ligature with "ae" in citation, especially on the web. See also our article Kent Archaeological Society, which has the ligature nowhere on the page. See also major university library catalogues. See also Google Scholar practice. See also WP:MOS.
• I accept your word, of course, about "c. 500-1066". I was relying on the cover, where the space is lacking, and on the Amazon citation. But the decisive form to use is the form (if any) on the verso of the title page, right? Does that have the space?
• I am not able to check my copy of Latham till tomorrow; but the vast majority of hits in Googlebooks have no colon, and lower-case "from" (which has not been interpreted as the start of a true subtitle). Note especially Mantello and Rigg's definitive guide.
• As for the error in the cite template, that cannot be allowed to blemish the article as it appears to the reader, in a featured article. I suggest that you change your citation so that it appears correctly, and include a hidden note to warn subsequent editors not to alter it.
• Finally, yes of course: I always learn from these things (as we all might ☺). It is a beautiful article, and I congratulate you on your fine work.

Noetica^Tea? 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• • As for the Archæologica, quite honestly I much much prefer to go with the form used in the source I used, but if it's a major big deal, I'll not fight someone changing it. (Training as a historian makes me shudder at the thought of changing something like this... just .. ugh.) As an aside, the citation for it includes a link to the ISSN and this will take a person directly to WorldCat's holdings of this journal, obviating the need to type in the search term. (Besides, is it really that different than the requirement to insert en-dashes, which are also a typographical choice?) On the Kingship, the CIP data does indeed include the space. You are correct that there is no colon in the Latham, however, the "From..." section of the title is clearly a subtitle (it is in a smaller typeface than the main title). As for the cite template error, in the past, when citation templates have had issues at FAC, they have indeed been allowed to have their foibles. I hardly think that it blemishes the article for the author to be correctly listed, which it would not be if the name was changed to omit the last period. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Ealdgyth, I am at a loss on three points here:

• The publisher itself and the huge majority of sources online change the ligature into "ae"; WP:MOS recommends dissolution of such ligatures. I have already said this is "not orthographically significant for that Latin word". If we are asked to spell "encyclopaedia" the British way, we are not required to say whether we are envisaging a ligature along the way! It is simply not a part of spelling, but a matter of typographic choice – which is in the hands of the publisher or the cataloguer (and the publisher is Wikipedia, in this case). Do you disagree? Very well, disagree.
• As for Latham, I have now been able to check my copy. The words after "Word-List" are indeed in smaller capitals than the earlier words: on the dust-jacket and on the title page. But if we are to take that evidence seriously (and very literally literally, in accord with your approach to optional medieval ligatures) we would be compelled to reproduce all of the title in capitals! I don't understand your reasoning: the great majority of academic sources (including many fine medieval scholars and Latinists) and libraries list the work as I have suggested above, so it is not necessary for us to come up with our own aberrant interpretation from scratch. Perhaps we should think, finally, that the publisher (OUP) knows best.
• For your strange insistence on constructing a reference so that the reader sees two periods after an initial, I am so completely at a loss that I will attempt no further comment.

I have twice congratulated you on the article. I have made sound points concerning the citations, based on common publishing standards and Wikipedia guidelines. And I have given my conditional support. I can do no more! The decision is not mine anyway. Do what you will. Good luck with your monumental efforts in producing fine articles.

Noetica^Tea? 13:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Excellent work all around on this article, which deserves the star. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [38].

---

Green children of Woolpit

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk); Ealdgyth - Talk; Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been labouring over this for some time now, prompted by my fascination with Herbert Read's novel The Green Child, which was inspired by this story of extra-terrestrial aliens who landed in 12th-century England. I've been helped immeasurably by Ealdgyth and Drmies, who both deserve credit for this effort, but any blame is down to me. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Image is cc-by-sa, no issues. Links are mostly fine, just one dab to Fuller. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed the dab link. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Why no date for Lawton in Footnotes?
• Walsh 2000 or 2006?
• Why include location for Briggs 1967 (note 3)?
• Which Clark 2006 is which (footnotes 3 and 6)? Also, why is Cohen between the two Clark entries in the Bibliography?
• Be consistent in whether you use the citation or the cite journal template for Bibliography entries
• Why include publisher for Sewanee Review but not the other journals?
• Publisher for Haughton?
• Does Analog have volume or issue numbers?

Overall, looks like a great article. I'll likely come back later with a full review. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Reply. Thanks Nikkimaria; I think that all of these issues have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Great. I think the only thing is that Haughton still appears to have no publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I missed that one; now fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - A fascinating read. Utterly bizarre... but refreshing. Nice work. ceranthor 14:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments Interesting article, I'll resist the temptation of a Norfolk joke, and go straight to a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Village sign depicting the two green children — how do we know that the children on the sign are meant to be the greenies?

• The village website makes this claim. Should that be added as a link? [Drmies]
• I've added a citation for that. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• one of the wolf pits that gave the village its name. — there's a ref for this in the Woolpit article. Worth adding?

• Good idea, done. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• a land where the sun never shone, and the light was like twilight — link to Manchester?

• Very funny! Actually it's a beautiful warm sunny day here, and it's been like summer for here some time now; can't remember the last time I saw rain. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Other theories include the suggestion that the children might have been aliens, or came from a world contained within the Earth. — I find it difficult to see in what sense these fantasy suggestions can be considered historical. Move to Folklore as modern examples? Change heading? I don't mind, I'm just not happy with these being given equal status with the theories that could be possible

• That's a fair point, moved. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• No other queries, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for taking a look, and of course for your support. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I read it through and it looks very comprehensive to me. The story itself forms only a small part of the article; is absolutely everything about the children included? Also, I did a quick search of the internet to see if I could find images of the manuscripts which describe these events, and I was partially successful - although the text isn't legible to me so I don't know if the manuscripts scanned cover the story. Is it possible to find out, as an image of an old manuscript would certainly be of interest. Otherwise, support. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • All that's known about the children comes from the rather short accounts written by Ralph and William, which isn't very much to be honest. Everyone else just re-hashes them, although Lunan's investigation into the fate of the green girl has been included. I'm not aware that there's anything else to say about the kids. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I know that William of Newburgh's account is part of the British Museum's Harleian collection, manuscript number 3875, but I have no clout with the museum. Maybe someone who does could ask for a properly licensed image? Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I can certainly try. Thank you for your support, Parrot, and Malleus, thank you for the unintentional reminder that I needed to write up Harley Lyrics, if only as a stub. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is a prose point rather than a substantive one. In "Between then and their rediscovery in the mid-19th century", when is "then"? I see that the Chronicum Anglicanum "begins at 1066, his own share at 1187".

• I've added "written in about 1189 and 1220 respectively" to the end of the previous sentence, to give some context for the "then". Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• "but the boy was sickly and died": I'm not sure what the "but" is in opposition to ... unless he died before baptism, in which case I'd add "before the baptism" to the end of the sentence.

• The boy died shortly after being baptised; I've hopefully clarified that in the text now. Malleus Fatuorum 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• "St Martin's land": You capitalize "Land" in the lead.

• Good catch, fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The Green Children resurface another story that William had been unable to tell, one in which English paninsular dominion ...": I'm not sure if we need a couple of [sic]'s here, or if the reader already won't be expecting modern English.
  • No, please don't "sic" that. "Resurface" is used as a transitive verb here, and I think Cohen is tenured enough that we should give him that license. I don't much like it either, but there it is. (And his analysis is actually the most cogent and insightful of them all--read it and you'll see!) [Drmies]
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Support with yet more nitpicking and some queries. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Richard de Calne or Sir Richard de Calne?
• "Scholars such as Nicholas Orme..." why source this to Oman instead of Orme himself?
• "folk tale" or "folktale"?
• "E. W. Baughman lists it as the only example of his category F103.1" - this should probably be explained a bit, given that we've no article on it. What is he categorising? This can be inferred from the title of his book, but it might help to give a few words here
• Can the Picts, etc really be considered separate races? I've more often heard "ethnic groups" or "tribes" (as a non-UK resident, maybe it's seen differently there)
• "genetically modified alien plants" - were these plants actually genetically manipulated, or are they simply different from our own (as is implied by "alien")?
• "a stranger named Juxon buys the girl's freedom" - in the original story she was a servant, in this one is she a slave or indentured? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Replies

• I've called him "Sir Richard de Calne" on first encounter and "Richard de Calne" elsewhere.
• [Drmies:] Orme/Oman--well spotted, thank you very much. Correction made; the "Tales of mysterious lands reached through caverns" is in fact from Oman. Orme/Oman: Rome/Moan!
• I've opted for "folk tale".
• I've elaborated as "... his F103.1 category of English and North American folk tales".
• [Drmies butting in on race:] Cohen uses "race" specifically, arguing that the term had a historical reality to the people employing the terminology (he denies that it has any biological meaning, BTW): "I believe that the word is appropriate to a medieval context, especially eleventh- and twelfth-century Britain, and not only because differences among the island's peoples were imagined as primal and enduring." Also, but this is even more nitpicky than your original question, "racial difference" (which is what the article currently says) doesn't necessarily mean different races. Having said that, "racial differences" might as well be changed to "peoples", which is kind of putting the card before the horse, but the term "peoples" is probably vague enough to not carry any of the connotations of "race," which are definitely there.
• Yes, he suggests that the plants were genetically manipulated to suit the harsh conditions on the green children's home planet.
• She's an indentured servant in Maxwell's verse play; I've clarified that now.

Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: A fantastic article and incredibly interesting. I've read it a few times and can not really find anything wrong. Only one minor point:

• "Brian Haughton considers Harris's plausible explanation to the one most widely accepted,[23] but not without its difficulties.": Unless I'm missing something (which is possible!), this doesn't make sense. Also, another "consider" follows in the next sentence. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to have a look. The sentence makes perfect sense to me, but then of course it would, as I wrote it. I've changed the consider" in the following sentence to "suggests". Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On reflection, perhaps changing the "but" to "although" might make it slightly clearer, which I'll do. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I actually meant is the "to" after explanation supposed to be there, or should it have "be" after it. Or am I just completely misreading the sentence. If so, no problem! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Just realised it has been changed anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I love stumbling across things like this. One quick note to clear up (possibly my misunderstanding):

• Under "Story", "...by the sound of bells eventually emerged into our land." The "our" seems a bit unclear. Is it the authour's opinion, or an acknowledgment that the children were from another world? Canada Hky (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's what Ralph of Coggeshall says; the sentence begins "Ralph says ...". Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• So it does. In the interests of clarity, might I suggest quotation marks? While the quote is attributed to Ralph, the cite is to a science fiction anthology (not doubting the source, just the possible misunderstandings of the word "our"). Canada Hky (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant. I've agonised similarly over the phrase "and the light was like twilight". Twilight where? Added to which Ralph's account was written in Latin, therefore it couldn't be attributed to him. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, its just rather jarring to have the informality in there. With a cite at the end, but no quotes, it very closely mimics the appearance of a fact. Canada Hky (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• But it's very clearly in the section headed "Story". We don't necessarily expect stories to be factual. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• True, but any "Story" or "Plot" section should not make reference to "our" world. A reference to "Ralph's" or "his" world would be less ambiguous. Canada Hky (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't really see how using the phrase "Ralph's world" is in any way an improvement, as it implies that Ralph's world is in some way different from our own. The fact of the matter is that Ralph used a Latin phrase that has been translated as "our world land", evidently to distinguish it from the green world the children described. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ralph's world is Ralph's world. Our world is our world, which includes modern readers, and I have my doubts that green children from another world visited my world at any point. The "our" includes way more than just Ralph. If the translation doesn't make sense, it needs to be explained. Canada Hky (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• What about putting "our land" in quotation marks? Drmies (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Attributed to whom? The sentence in which "our land " appears already begins "Ralph says ...", so the phrase is already attributed to him. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• It can be attributed in exactly the same way, just make it clear that when Ralph said "our world" (his world) he was expressing an opinion, as opposed to it being unclear, and possibly attributed to the science fiction anthology. Canada Hky (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not getting this, but perhaps it's just me being dense. The sentence in question is "Ralph says that they had become lost when they followed the cattle into a cave, and after being guided by the sound of bells eventually emerged into our land." In other words "Ralph says that they ... eventually emerged into our land". We already know that Ralph was a 12-century English monk, so when he says "our land" surely any reasonable person would assume that he meant England? Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• I've just noticed a continuing confusion here. The phrase used isn't "our world" but "our land". Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I keep saying "land" in my head and typing "world", which certainly isn't helping things. Its not that he meant England, I do not dispute that. Its that by saying "our land" in the story section, without the quotes, to me the placement of the cite implies that the other world ("their land") is a fact, rather than part of the story. Canada Hky (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Canada Hky (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm amazed that I've never heard of this.

• "Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes" Presumably he's not worth a redlink, but perhaps the place is?
  • Hmmm--that's not as simple as it sounds: see Wykes.*
• "Ralph says just the surviving girl" You're yet to mention (apart from in the lead) anything about the boy dying?
  • Valid point. I put a note in there, but MF may feel differently.*
    • I've moved a bit around, think it's OK now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, well done.*
• The subject isn't mentioned at all in Richard Barre, despite the fact the girl apparently married him?
  • Well, apparently--but see your comment below on the reliability of Lunan... Incidentally, MF and Ealdgyth are working on that article.*
• "the green children are associated with the Babes in the Wood, who were left by their wicked uncle to die" The Babes in the Wood is the name of the story, and separate from the characters- for comparison, you would not say "Rowling wrote Harry Potter, who is a boy wizard". You'd say "Rowling wrote about Harry Potter, who is a boy wizard" or "Rowling wrote Harry Potter, which was about a boy wizard".
  • Good point. I've removed the formatting. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm missing something, but, surely, Lunan has something of a fringe view? Is he seriously suggesting this story is evidence for alien life? Perhaps mention the historical figures with that idea first?
  • True, true. Seriously fringe. I can't speak for MF, who organized those sections (not an easy job), but placing it at the end of the folklore section sort of indicates how serious this is to be taken. He does say it, and it was printed--MF's argument for including it in the article is that this prevents it from being slipped in as popular culture or trivia, and I agree.*

Lovely. Very well written, very interesting subject. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reading. Answers marked * by me, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for your replies. Fascinating story, I really want to roleplay it now... J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, perhaps the authors of this article could give Woolpit a quick clean? There is currently a rather badly referenced section on the children there... J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed poor, but what's worse is that it's been cut and pasted from here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten that section in the Woolpit article now. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few things as well; there's more to be found. Malleus, I found this, with a nice and far-fetched allegorical reading of the girl's marriage to "a man from Lynn". Drmies (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't read that, but if you think it's important then stick it it in. Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [39].

---

Trade dollar (United States coin)

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The trade dollar was one of the most reviled coins in the history of the United States, and that's saying something. It was a coin created out of the greed of the federal government and helped feed the greed of businessmen who unleashed the unpopular coins upon the nation. Its original use was to compete with the Spanish dollar and other large silver coins popular in the Orient. Due to bullion depositors dumping the coins into circulation, the trade dollar became the first and only United States coin to be demonetized, though its legal tender status was unintentionally restored in 1965. Thanks in advance for any reviews and comments, and I hope you all like the article!-RHM22 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Can References be two columns?

I'm not sure what you mean. How do I put them in two columns?-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I know what you mean! I've seen people use that before, but it doesn't show on my browser so I didn't know what the purpose was. I've made it two columns.-RHM22 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated, and whether "NY" is included for NYC or not

Ah! I thought I got all of those, but I was wrong! Sorry about that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Mint" - is that the correct order? The reverse seems more logical to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It does sound odd, but that's how it's given in the book.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Harper's Weekly should be italicized

Nice catch! It's now fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• File:U.S._currency_icon.gif - source link is dead

I just removed that from the template, since it seems really unnecessary and maybe even a little confusing, since the coins and paper depicted in the picture aren't obsolete at all.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• For images of coins, you need to identify the copyright status of both the coin and the image. In most cases, the coin should be PD-USGov-money. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I knew better than that, but I forgot to add them.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and image review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The coin was first struck in 1873, with most of the production being sent to China." Never been a fan of the "with ... ing" sentence structure, as it leads to wordiness. I don't even think "being" is needed here; "with most of the production sent to China" is perfectly fine.
• "causing frustration amongst those who were given them in payment of services." Also not a fan of "amongst" when you could just have "among".
• Throughout the article there's a serious case of over-citation. I know we have strong citation standards, but when the same reference is used for four or five sentences in a row, you don't need cites to the same source for all of them.

I understand where you're coming from, but I would prefer not to remove citations from the sentences. It's just personal preference, but I like having any possibly challengeable statement cited. If you think it's really bothersome, I could remove some.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Background: "and responsibility for each mints was handed over to a superintendent." I believe "mints" should be singular here.
• Production: "noting that such a change would be difficult to carry out because Congressional approve would be necessary and that it might cause the coin to lose favor in the Orient." "approve" → "approval".
• Reception: "allowing the Treasury to pay out silver coin in exchange for paper currency." I feel like "coin" should be some type of plural word in this context. Perhaps "coinage"?

I reworded it. "Coin" is sometimes used in that context, but it's slightly archaic.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• En dash needed in Bland-Allison Act (two times).

This I'm not sure about. I've been studying endashes and hyphens ever since my great embarrassment on the FAC for Sacagawea dollar, and I don't believe that the endash is needed in "Bland-Allison act", since it's not a range. I could be wrong though. SandyGeorgia was the one that told me about the mistake on Sac, so I'll ask her and see if she knows what to do here.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Butting in here, but our own article on the act seems to use an endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the only thing that makes me doubt the hyphen. What do you think?-RHM22 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I misunderstood the endash rules! My apologies to Giants for the error. I didn't mean to question your judgement here, but I was just being overly cautious after my last endash fiasco earlier.-RHM22 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• "preferring to sell newly-mined silver instead". Remove the hyphen after -ly, as I don't believe this is a compounding element (the only time such a hyphen should be included).
• "in order to" is another bit of wordiness that can be chopped to just "to".
• The em dash in the sentence can be changed to an MoS-approved en dash. Even though it's in a quote, WP:MOSQUOTE allows for reasonable fixes to be made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions! I've fixed everything except the things that I've left notes on above.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Support – My concerns have all been addressed to my satisfaction, and I think this is another nice coin article. Writing, sources, etc. look up to standard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please have a look at the newly-created {{Coinage (United States coin)}} and make sure it meshes with the other content in the article especially, the succession boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support! After working through a handful of concerns with the author, I am happy to support this article. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: All of the items I found have been addressed directly or explained why they are like they are.

Comment: Looks like a pretty good article, but I do have a few questions:

1. The eagle has three arrows in the right claw and an olive branch in the left, a reversal to most other US silver coins of the era. - Do you have a list of which coins were (or were not since it would be shorter) of that design?

   I don't have a list, but all the contemporary coins used the opposite eagle type except for the twenty-cent piece (United States coin). Would you like me to add that?-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

2. Linderman asked that production of trade dollars be hastened because Mexico was preparing to issue another series of dollars with the older design popular in Asia, a design that was discontinued in 1866. - What was this design?

   I'm not sure about this. I believe that they put the portrait of the ruler on (it was an eagle and a scale), but I'm not positive on that.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

3. File:ALoudonSnowden.JPG - caption seems rather short. It should breifly list why he complained.

   I've expanded the caption.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

4. File:1876TradeDollarPattern.JPG - The caption doesn't make it clear that Paquet didn't reject the desgin because of those fears, but the text does. The caption should be rephrased to clarrify that.

   I'm not sure what you mean here. Pacquet himself didn't reject the design, Linderman did because he feared Chinese disapproval.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   I read the caption before I read the prose. From the paragraph I got the impression Pacquet decided at some later point to withdraw his proposal because of the feared Chinese disapproval. That's obviously not what happened and that's what needs to be clarified.陣内_Jinnai 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   Oh, I see what you mean now. I have added to the prose to clarify that.-RHM22 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

5. Lede should include some info on the Bullion producer's impact on the coin and the contemporary reception.

   Good idea! That does seem relevant, and I've added a section about it to the lead.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

6. Is there any other contemporary reception of this beyond Breen?陣内_Jinnai 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   I'm certain that there are some, but I wasn't really able to find anything. I did add the Harper's Weekly cartoon to give an idea of how unpopular it was with the American public.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've addressed them above.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why do the Trade dollar (United States coin) and Peace dollar, which are both at FAC have different infobox formatting. One uses two parenthesis to increase the detail and the other doesn't--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I modified the Peace dollar infobox slightly to be a little more consistent with the other dollar coin FAs.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I did some light copyediting earlier on but it really didn't need it. Another worthy coin article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [40].

---

Macrotarsomys petteri

Nominator(s): Ucucha 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This rat has only once been collected live, but we know from subfossils that quite recently it was fairly widely distributed on Madagascar. Its dramatic range shift may have been the result of climate change, and even its current tiny range is threatened by human activities. The article covers what little is known about the species and underwent a rigorous GA review by Casliber. Thanks for your reviews! Ucucha 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Source/Image review

• Goodman 2010 in References, seems to be 2008 in Literature
• Images are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Goodman corrected. Thanks for the review. Ucucha 02:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support—My main concerns were addressed. Comments—It looks pretty good to me, albeit brief. Here's a few observations:

• The ordering of the lead seems backwards. I would think you'd want to describe the creature before detailing why it has had a shift in distribution.
  • Lead rearranged. Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why is Goodman, Vasey and Burney 2006 in the "Literature cited" section but not in the References? Can this source be used?
  • It is in the references (numbers 11, 14, 15, and 16). Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry.—RJH (talk)
• Isn't there an image of the living specimen that could be presented? If not, how about a sketch?
  • None are freely available. Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Currently this article doesn't appear to satisfy the WP:GNG requirement for independent/secondary sources. You may want to hunt up a couple of such sources to keep this out of WP:AfD. (I know, this seems daft. But it does happen. :-)
  • I have no plans to do anything to fulfill silly rules or appease people who think they can improve Wikipedia by deleting the most comprehensive freely available account of this species in existence. In any case, it already cites independent sources (none were written by the rats, as far as I'm aware) and secondary ones (Garbutt, 2007 and Goodman, 2008). Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I find the whole issue of "independence" to be a tad subjective.

• FWIW, it's standard practice on Wikipedia that all animal and plant species are notable by definition. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That may be. I know it's true of geographical locations. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments Just a few quibbles, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Forêt des Mikea — why the French name instead of the English used in the site's own article ?

• Many English sources use the French name. However, we decided with the Mikea Forest article that the English name was common enough, so I've also changed it here. Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the only differences fromm ingens is being a bit bigger and a different tail tuft colour. Is that all? If so, why is this split from ingens on the basis of one specimen and some bones?

• It's pretty significantly bigger, actually (body weight is about 5 standard deviations above the average for M. ingens), and the tail tuft is quite distinctive (Goodman & Soarimalala, 2005: fig. 3). Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Other small mammals known from the Forêt des Mikea... — can you clarify the significance of this with regard to the rat?

• It's placing it in the context of the small-mammal community it's part of. Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• ''trap-nights — Is it actually worth red-linking? The concept is self-evident and barely merits an article.

• Removed.

• birds of prey — link?

• I think we can assume readers of this article know what a bird of prey is. Thanks for your review! Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I've just been asked to link it in Fiji Parrotfinch, where it's even more likely that a reader will know. Not enough of an issue to withhold support though, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Support with regard to Criterion 1a, but I would prefer "in addition to" instead of "coupled with". Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I simply changed it to "and", which seems even better to me. Ucucha 12:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Support was pretty good at GA review and I can't think of any other tweaks to improve it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• The image caption says "Range of Macrotarsomys petteri". Image captions are useful when people that aren't accessing images. It might help to be more explicit and add something like '...in Madagascar'. This would give a better idea of the image when you haven't seen it.
  • Added "in Madagascar". Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• The image caption says "Red: find of a living animal; green: subfossil material; blue: subfossil material". This single coding method isn't accessible, and it has a notorious combination of red and green. It might help if the primary coding method used shape, e.g. squares, triangles, circles. It might also help if the relevant region was a higher proportion of the image.
  • I'll look into it. What color combinations do you think would work best? I'll have to look into SVG syntax to create different shapes. Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• It says "will likely qualify". I think that 'will probably qualify' is better. Even better still, 'may qualify' has the same meaning and is more plain English.
  • Used "will very probably qualify". "May qualify" seems to weak; the source says it "almost certainly" will. Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• It says "The Mikea Forest is one of the largest remaining forests of southwestern Madagascar, but it is not protected and is threatened by logging, pasture, and conversion to agricultural land.". I think that sentence is quite a lot to take in and might be better as two or perhaps three.
  • I think the length of the sentence is fine; it's not even longer than the preceding one. Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no redirect at Petter's Big-footed Mouse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [41].

---

Peace dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is the fourth in what will eventually be a ten-article topic about the Great Redesign of US coinage from 1907 to 1921, and it skips to the last denomination to be redesigned. The Peace dollar has never been the sexy silver dollar, that always seems to go to the Morgan dollar. Yet it was heavily struck in the 1920s and is familiar to anyone old enough to remember silver dollars circulating (and these days, that means you've been around a fair piece). It became controversial when its design was announced in 1921, and also when it was going to be restruck in the mid 1960s, otherwise its existence has been pretty quiet. Prior to its rename from "Peace Dollar", it was a former good article (still is, I guess) and it's had a recent peer review, which I just closed. I currently have a solo article, but it is pending promotion and is backlogged; Sandy kindly granted permission.Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• Can you tell me a little bit about the decision to lowercase "dollar"? I'm not one of those grammarians who wields style guides like a club, but I'm just not seeing it. The first 80 hits on a gsearch all either uppercased "dollar" in the snippet or led to a page that mostly uppercased "dollar". The general rule on capitalization is that if you capitalize anything, then you have to capitalize enough to refer to a single thing ... so for instance, I get some significant hits on the capitalization "Loony dollar", because "Loony" all by itself is enough to specify what we're talking about. "Peace" isn't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason that we don't capitalize the denomination is because all denominations are considered regular, and not proper nouns. Wehwalt will probably expand on that, though.-RHM22 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it. It's a straight grammar issue, to my mind. All of the eight FAs on US coins adopt this convention.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some research. I've decided I really can't get by without the SOED (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary), and that's on the way; I'll look it up when it gets here. So far I can find support for "peace dollar" and "Peace Dollar", but not "Peace dollar". - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest deferring to terminology in the trade. See for example, here (Coin World has long been the leading coin weekly).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deferring to hobbyists for capitalization rules is always a bad idea. I'm not saying that hobbyists aren't as smart as we are, I'm saying that everyone discards nonessential information as they read, and for most people, that includes spelling, punctuation and capitalization details. Errors (at least, "errors" as defined by style guides) proliferate especially among members of any special-interest community (including some pockets of academia) that don't submit their work routinely for professional copyediting and publication, because they're feeding off each others' mistakes.

The capitalization of for instance "Peace dollar" isn't a very important clue for specialists, because they're not going to use the capitalization to tell them what the proper noun is, that is, how they should refer to it; they'll pick that up from their reading. For the general reader, it's pretty important: the capitalization will provide their first impression on what to call the coin, and first impressions are important. If we write "Peace dollar", we're saying that "Peace" is (per AP Stylebook) a "unique identification" or "integral part of the full name", but "dollar" isn't, meaning either that it's commonly called just "Peace" or that the second word varies ... "Peace coin" for instance. Is that true? I have no doubt that when coin hobbyists say "a Seated Liberty", they know exactly what they're talking about ... but the general reader doesn't, which is another reason we might need to capitalize differently in Wikipedia than they do. Of course, the common names of most coins start with a proper name ("Eisenhower dollar"), so I can see how the tradition among hobbyists of capitalizing the first word got started.

What I did mainly was skim Chapter 8 of Chicago, which concerns mostly capitalization. I couldn't find a single example of a two-word phrase where both words were integral to the phrase and the first word was capitalized but the second word wasn't. That (plus the fact that 0 out of the first 80 ghits support "Peace dollar") probably settles it for me, but I want to see what the SOED says. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. It's clear that "dollar" is not a proper noun in any case. A case could be made that "Peace" should be lowercase, but the dollar/Dollar bit has little merit to me. As far Coin World, I wouldn't agree that it should be ignored. Though it may be a hobby publication, it is largely written by people who are widely considered experts in their field. There are no degrees in numismatics (that I know of) like there are for zoologists or scientists, so the merits of an author can only be judged by determining how respected they are within the numismatic community. Personally, I believe the Numismatist to be the best numismatic publication currently in print, but Coin World is also very good and well respected. It's certainly not some garage-based magazine published by one person.-RHM22 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes it clear that "dollar" isn't a part of the proper noun? We don't write "Pennsylvania avenue". - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't general rules yield to specific usages in the field? I should add that I can trace similar usages back to 1922 anyway, see one of our sources here (to The Numismatist!), there are references to the "Buffalo nickel". We may slip into a debate about "proper" versus "common" usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That source doesn't support "Peace dollar". Most of the hits are "Peace Dollar" or "peace", and of the remaining hits to "Peace dollar", most are quoting someone else, sometimes in letters and sometimes from meeting reports. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Red Book series of coin guides uses this usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm on board with "Peace dollar" now. I can't see the index of the Red Book (Redbook?) on Amazon, but I can see the index for Coin Collecting for Dummies, and the "Dummies" series generally has excellent copy editors. That index generally capitalizes the first part of coin names but not "dollar", "coin", etc. I can see the reason: the names they're using vary quite a bit: "gold coin", "coin", "dollar", "piece" etc., and if that's the case, if the last word tends to vary, then it definitely shouldn't be capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing. "The public believed ...": With no qualifier, this means something like "almost everyone". But in the relevant section, it only says the Mint got a lot of angry letters. Is that all we know, that there were a lot of angry letters? - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Editorials and letters. The Mint and the rest of the Treasury basically panicked. Would you be OK with "Many members of the public"?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Get any second commas please. For instance, in "Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon", either two commas or none would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Consistency: US vs. U.S. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of two "U.S."'s in titles that I can't change, those things are done to the best of my ability. No one is a perfect copyeditor for themselves; I will ask RHM22 to doublecheck to ensure I have not missed out any second commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I could use some information from the source here: "[a]pparently, this was the first time that a coin collector ever wielded enough political clout to influence not only the Bureau of the Mint, but Congress as well". Is the first "a" capitalized in the source, and is there a period after "well"?

Yes and yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Unanimous Consent Calendar": my guess is it shouldn't be capitalized, but I'm not sure enough to change it.

Although this source from the House of Representatives calls it the "Consent Calendar" only, it is clearly capped.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The sculptor based the design for the obverse design of the bust of Liberty on the features of his wife, Teresa de Francisci. Due to the short length of the competition, he lacked the time to hire a model with the features he envisioned for Liberty, and instead used his wife as a model." Sounds repetitive.

I'll strike the final phrase from the last use of "and" onwards.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "radiate crown": Is this a translation of corona radiata, or do all the sources use this term? I wouldn't need a link for "radiant crown" since readers would take that at face value, but "radiate crown" probably needs a link. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a note, but "radiate crown" is usually used to describe ancient coins. In ancient Roman times, it was common to place a radiate crown on the head of the emperor, probably to suggest divinity or some such thing. The term is rarely used to describe modern coins, but that's probably because the radiate crown is no longer a common design feature, at least not on American coins.-RHM22 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • A link to the phrase in either Wikipedia or Wiktionary would work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't believe that there are any currently. Diadem would probably be the closest thing that we have a link to. "Radiant crown" is probably a better term, though, because it's accurate and more contemporary.-RHM22 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I interwiki linked to radiate as an adjective. It's probably properly an aureole, as that is the correct term for the rays of the Statue of Liberty, see that article (I can vouch for accuracy).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the link (what's "wk:"?), and also linked directly to the "Adjective" subjection of the entry at Wiktionary. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "while modeling the design": while she was modeling, or while he was modeling something? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that sentence is unclear, but I will make a slight change for clarification.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You use "model" 3 times nearby in the sense of what the wife does, but the sentence structure suggests that he's the subject of the clause, so some readers will stumble. It's better not to make the same word do double-duty in such close proximity. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "a technician form Tiffany's": typo or [sic]?

I do not believe either. While that is not, of course, the formal name of the company, it is how it is commonly referred to. Three words: Breakfast at Tiffany's. I think a sic template would puzzle the reader and distract him from the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed form -> from. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, all that's left is the question about "model". - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you look at it again? I took out one of the uses of the word "model" that seemed unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See if you like what I did.

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for again giving a thorough review. I changed your final edit, I could give you a pedantic explanation but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Though I understand that my support might not mean much (I added a little bit of info and copyedited the article), I would like to add my support to this high quality article, which is another fine piece of numismatic prose, and my personal favorite dollar coin article.-RHM22 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I thank RHM22 and point out that each of his three FAs on dollars exceeds this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Strike two: I have two dollar coin FAs!-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Laser Brain is bound to promote soon, and then it will be three.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No dabs, no dead links. Images check out with correct licenses and captions. Used to illustrate aspects of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Having now read the article several times, I am more than happy to support its promotion as I feel that it meets all of the FAC criteria. Sources are reliable, article is well referenced and the prose is very good. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Ref 15: is there a reason the title isn't italicized here?
• Retrieval dates aren't required for print-based sources, but if you want to include them you should add one to ref 16
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publisher or not, and if you do so whether states are abbreviated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Nice one; only saw a couple picky things...

• Design: Is "a" or "the" missing from "and instead used his wife as model."?
• The sentence "Baker approved the designs, subject to these changes" is missing a period at the end. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Support – Writing, sources, etc. all look good. Another in the series of fine coin articles that have been seen at FAC recently. I hope there's more coming in the future. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments: another absorbing numismatic article. Some minor issues (mainly prose), and clarification requests:-

• "The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921..." It's not clear who approved it.
• "Idea and regeneration" section, second sentence. The words "In the article" are unnecessary; omitting them avoids three successive sentences beginning "In..."
• "...favored the use of the silver dollar, as that coin had the most room for an artistic design." Not sure what is meant by "most room"; is it just that the silver dollar was a larger coin than others?
• Superfluous comma after the word "supportive"
• It's not clear why unanimous Congressional sent was sought or required. Why not a majority?

Vestal sought, unsuccessfully, to use an expedited procedure for noncontroversial bills. It isn't clear why Mann had a problem with it, no one really knows and Mann died soon after.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• "...before they are approved by the Treasury Secretary" → "...before approval by the Treasury Secretary" (Smoother, avoids tenses conflict)
• "President Harding was about to formally declare the war with Germany at an end" That reads a bit clumsily; could it be: "President Harding was about to make a formal declaration of the end of the war with Germany"?
• Do we need the editorial comment: "Events thereafter moved swiftly forward"?
• "Fraser notified the participants..." Add the words: "in the competition".
• I'm not sure the Maine dollar image is really worthy of its place. And it leads to squeezing of the text.
• You are referring to both Mr and Mrs De Francisci as "De Francisci" in close proximity, which is confusing
• "...it mentioned no removal, but simply stated that the broken sword which had appeared on de Francisci's alternate reverse would not appear on the issued coin." Er, isn't that mentioning a removal?

The public did not see the original approved design (that is, the present coin with the broken coin inserted) until long after anyone cared but numismatists. As the announced description was so vague it fit either the approved design or De Francisci's alternate reverse, they avoided admitting a mistake by hinting that a mistake had been made in the announcement. It fooled Zerbe.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence entirely defeated me; can it be simplified? "The models he prepared were reduced to coin size using the Mint's Janvier reducing lathe, although even after fifteen years of possessing the pantograph-like device, the Mint had no expert in its use on staff."
• Re "GOD": "only the one word was done." Does this mean "only the one word was boldened"?
• To avoid charges that the article is "eastern-seaboard-centric", perhaps the sentence "Except in the Western United States, where coins were preferred over paper money, the Peace dollar saw little circulation" could be rephrased in positive rather than negative terms,e.g: "The Peace dollar circulated mainly in the Western United States, where coins were preferred over paper money; it saw little circulation elsewhere". (You would then need to rephrase the start of the following sentence).
• The Peace dollar is referred to as "it" and "they" in successsive sentences.
• "Production resumed in 1934, due to another congressional act; this one required the Mint to purchase large quantities of domestic silver, a commodity whose price was at a historic low." "Due to", the semicolon, and "this one" are inelegant; suggest: "Production resumed in 1934, after a new congressional act required the Mint to purchase large quantities of domestic silver, a commodity whose price was at a historic low." Smoooooth.
• "...his successor, Henry H. Fowler was immediately questioned by Mansfield about the dollars, and assured the senator that things would be worked out to his satisfaction." Grammatically, this requires a "he" before "assured".
• "However, they have been privately restruck using new dies and genuine, earlier-date Peace dollars." Meaning unclear; does it mean "new dies based on genuine..." etc?
• What does "clad composition" mean?

I will be happy to support when these are resolved. Can you ping when ready, as my attention is a bit divided at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've completed all of these except where quibbled. Regarding the lathe, I've rephrased, but the concept is simple. The Mint has to get to a plaster model such as de Francisci and Baker are holding, usually about eleven inches in diameter, to a coin-sized piece of steel from which a master die can be made. The lathe traces the plaster model and delivers equivalent cuts to a piece of mild steel which is then hardened. From what I read, it requires a very fine touch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are still a few phrasings I'd have preferred to see amended, but they are not critical. Overall the article reads crisply and professionally. Support registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are any you feel strongly about, drop me a line. Thanks to the reviewers and supporters.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they're matters of personal choice/style. You're entitled to disagree, Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a second look anyway, once the rush slows down.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please have a look at the newly-created {{Coinage (United States coin)}} and make sure it meshes with the other content in the article especially, the succession boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to delete the succession box here, I don't see what good it adds.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but would it be possible to leave the succession box in the article? All the other dollar coin articles have one as well.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything's possible, as long as I don't get caught between reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if someone suggests you remove it, that's no big deal. I don't think it's really crucial in any of the articles.-RHM22 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just checking back in. Deleting infoboxes for currency articles seems nonsensical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just realize, I misread above. I thought you were going to remove the infobox. Yes I believe succession boxes that are totally redundant with infoboxes should be removed. I would prefer it be removed, but am not sure about why RHM22 wants it kept. I apologize for misreading above. Not sure if that is what you are interpreting as conflict.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not interpreting that as conflict. Perchance our other heated discussions might be interpreted as same? Do you want to withdraw the word "nonsensical" now? It is unlikely that you will draw RHM22, whose position you described as such, into this dispute, he has shown himself too level-headed, but still it might be a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You cherrypicking your GA reviewer is not what I call a conflict, but I already stated I misread your 22:35, 21 April 2011 response and my 21:47, 25 April 2011 (timestamp duplicated above now) statement about deleting infoboxes is moot. I have two real editorial issues that I am putting forth that would be worth getting back to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My reason for wanting the succession box kept is because that all my dollar coin articles have them, and I would like to keep them all uniform for my upcoming featured topic. It's not really a big deal though, so I would not object outright to removing them.-RHM22 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be better to remove them in all of the articles. It is pretty common to remove succession boxes that are redundant with navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) I'm also concerned about consistency. Part of my concerns with Tony's demands are that both affect the consistency of this article with others and really should be addressed to a broader audience.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am making no suggestion to this article that is not for the benefit of a WP:FT. I would encourage entire topics to follow each suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, could you state in the LEAD that this coin upheld the tradition of U.S. silver dollar coins being 38.1 diameter. Something like "this coin upheld the tradition dating back through x different mintings of US silver dollar coins that dates back to YYYY of a 38.1 diameter."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't shout, Tony, it's bad enough with the conflict we've been engaged in over the past 36 hours without you coming here and shouting. You state no rationale for the proposed change, but you come here and shout at me. Why are you here, within hours of conflict with me? It seems a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please point to the diff where I was shouting. I think that it is important to state that this currency is consistent in size with historical silver dollars, more recent dollar coins are different sized and a 21st century readers need to know that this was once the longstanding size of a dollar coin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I was not a collector in the 1965 era that you mention had a silver bullion runup (since I was born in 1965). Is this a linkable runup?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I think I have to ask for guidance from the delegates and community. It seems to me that Tony's first change would be utterly ill advised, and what is more he knows it. There is also a very serious WP:COI issue here, it strikes me that it is very much open to question whether Tony is editing here to improve the encyclopedia, or to advance a personal conflict. The fact that he has begun a substantive review here with conflict running high speaks for itself (notifying about a template is not a review). I would welcome guidance from the community and delegates.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• What is the COI? I am making pretty run of the mill editorial suggestions. Not sure what the big deal is?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "he knows it" Are you instigating. at both 21:47, 25 April 2011 and 02:35, 26 April 2011 I stated a sincere interest in clearing up for the reader who for the last 33 years has been seeing smaller dollar coins that this was once the longstanding common dollar coin size. It is a pretty simple statement. No I don't know it is utterly ridiculous to clear up this point because it is perfectly logical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've confirmed the conflict. Thanks. I'm not going to turn this FAC into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of a conflict. The existence of the conflict is sufficent.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we both take a step back to allow for other comments before this escalates out of control, if it hasn't already.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to want to touch this one, and honestly I can't blame them. Very well. To minimize disruption to the project, I will reply to Tony's points:

1. I do not think it appropriate to add the proposed text to the lede, or indeed to the body. The text might be more appropriate in the dollar coin article, which will pass through FAC at some point as I believe a featured topic is contemplated here. Very little of it has anything to do with the Peace dollar in particular. Note that the infobox says that the coin is 38.1 mm in diameter, which I think should put any readers unfamiliar with the older dollars on notice. Kids today speak at least some metric. See also WP:LEAD SECTION. Incidentally, the Peace dollar, so that people know what the blanks are to fill in, in Tony's proposed text, is that it was the fourth series to have a 38.10 measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace); Eisenhower was the fifth and final. That can be sourced to the various pages on the Coin World web site which has the specs, see for example here, and silver dollars of that measurement were produced beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978. I should add that the three present FAs on dollars, none of which I wrote, do not contain any similar text.

   Discussing only the merits of the argument and leaving out any personal issues. I think all individual dollar articles would be improved by a phrase. "This was the nth of five series of silver dollars to have a 38.10 mm measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace prior and Eisenhower after) beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978." Then, subsequent series "This was the nth of three series of dollar coins to have a X measurement (Sacajawea, etc.) beginning in 1979 and continuing to the present." Meanwhile gold dollar coins could say "measuring Xmm (concurrently with silver dollars measuring 38.10 mm),. . ."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   I am unaware of a good link for the coin shortage/silver rise of 1963–1966. Perhaps, Tony, you would care to write one? Sounds like a Four Award to me! As that is so, I can't link to an article not yet in existence. It would be incredibly valuable for Kennedy half dollar, whose early career is closely tied to those events.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   It is rare where the nominator says to the reviewer, "You stub out x topic". All 21st century silver coin articles could benefit from the 63-66 and 79-80 silver run articles. Basically, what you are saying is that I am working on a bunch of articles that are all trending toward WP:FT status that could benefit from articles on a couple of topics, but I am unwilling to stub them out because the supporting articles are not really important enough to any single one of them to necessitate such an effort. Basically, people doing the silver coinage article FTs are the last hope for WP to have at least stubs for this topic. If you guys don't do it, who will?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   Placeholder for overlooked discussion on merging/deleting succession boxes

   Can you offer some cogent commentary on whether the succession boxes warrant keeping. I personally think not, but we need to hash things out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think I would write an economics article well, nor am I aware of any requirement for a FA that an affiliated article exist and I am reluctant to set a precedent. I care not about the succession boxes, whatever reviewers want is fine. As these raise broader issues affecting other numismatics article, it might be best to discuss them with a broader audience, perhaps at the Wikiproject talk page. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   What WP needs is a basic stub of two to three sentences on each so that the reader knows what happened and when. Something like X was a silver price bubble that occurred from Month YYYY to Month YYYY. It was caused by Event Y. It concluded when event Z occurred. Throw in maybe two refs and find some good cats. I think you have the resources and ability to do that. Then all the silver coin articles will have something to link to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   Not to mention a really good five cent cigar. Thanks for the advice. As I accumulate more sources for the remaining coins (dime, quarter, both silver so I am hopeful) I will try to spin that off. A DYK never hurt anyone ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   Regarding your inexplicable resistance to adding "This was the nth of five series of silver dollars to have a 38.10 mm measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace prior and Eisenhower after) beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978.", I am considering opposing unless you can give me a cogent reason why this would not help the 21st century reader who has not seen a coin of this size in over 3 decades.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are done with your review, and are not minded to oppose otherwise, I am open to put some version of that into the body of the article in an effort to find a compromise. Note that sometimes compromises aren't reached. Something like "In common with all silver and copper-nickel dollar coins struck from 1840 to 1978, the Peace dollar had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm), larger than the Mint's subsequently-struck dollars." With appropriate citing. I'll find a place for it, maybe in production. By the way, you're misapplying the term silver dollar, as the circulating Eisenhower was not made of silver. If you find that acceptable, I will make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not really call my participation a review. Your phrasing is pretty good. However, I think instead of "the Peace dollar had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm)" each of the 5 coin series should include the statement "the X dollar was the nth of 5 series that had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm)". I think the content should be both in the body and the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that saying how many series there are of 38.1 mm dollars and where the Peace stands in that is helpful to the reader, nor indeed to I believe that coin series are counted and compared in such a manner. If you have serious coin sources that do count in that way, I will be glad to look them over. And not everything can be in the lede, though I might consider adding some small part of the wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

O.K. How about just changing "the coin resulted from" to "the 1.5-inch (38.10-mm) coin resulted from" in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That is done. It is 11 pm right now and the sentence for the body involves tricky referencing, I may not finish tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does the LEAD say 38 and the text say 38.1?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony just deleted my response to Dank above, see here. What is going on? I've reverted but jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a browser crash edit conflict.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe that Wehwalt thought Tony was shouting because of his capitalization of the word "lead". I think Tony was capitalizing "lead" because the Wikipedia shortcut, WP:LEAD is capitalized.-RHM22 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Anyway, I've cleaned up whatever was the problem with my last edit. When I get a chance to consult my copy of Breen, I may be able to make for a less awkward reference, although it is not unuseful for the reader to have these links at his fingertips. Mayhap one of the Bowers guides has a nice account of the silver crisis, if the ones I have now do not, I need to get the quarters one. Anyway, I think that's that. Five supports, all checks done, all the blood's been cleaned up.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for some late extras, Farran Zerbe was only linked in the caption, but his name is unlinked in the text. Also, why isn't Denver Mint linked in the text. Paper currency, bullion and silver bullion are never linked in the article although they all link to redirects. Do they point to places we want the reader to find?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Zerbe and Denver Mint should be linked and I will do so forthwith. I think we can settle for just bullion; perhaps I will pipe it to silver bullion. Paper currency I feel needs no link in a 21st century world.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Zerbe was already linked, and not recently so that is moot. I did a pipe to bullion, as the silver bullion article is actually a redirect to silver coin. I linked Denver and San Francisco mints.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why do the Trade dollar (United States coin) and Peace dollar, which are both at FAC have different infobox formatting. One uses two parenthesis to increase the detail and the other doesn't--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, because different people wrote them? Which field are we talking about here?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at em. A bunch. (mass, diameter, composition). Can the Numsimatics project coordinate a format. I think the Peace dollar should add info to be consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The only difference I see is that Peace dollar doesn't use any Imperial units. I feel the user has limited use for grains.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not ust a two article issue. All coins should either use or not use imperial units.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we're making a project of this, RHM22 and I will coordinate to ensure consistency as we improve the articles. In fact, we were discussing a change to the infobox only last night. I am afraid there is not really a Wikiproject to deal with here, we have two editors working to improve articles, plus I should mention Bobby131313 has been a godsend with his images. Pretty nice, aren't they? I will check over my FAs for consistency and we will strive to keep it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Two active content editors and an image guy is a WikiProject. Many projects only really have three people. Neither WP:FOUR nor WP:CHICAGO has a lot of folks, but they are both active.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm poking through the coinage FAs making infobox changes. There are a couple of points I need to discuss with RHM22, but it's happening.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What is important right now is that these two be formatted the same. The others can wait til the FT, as far as I am concerned. I just don't think we should be passing two related articles that look different on first blush. Although I have not read a coin magazine in 25 years, I am willing to give an opinion if you two disagree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put a "value" field in Trade Dollar, but RHM22 may have been trying to note that the coin was not always a legal tender by not having one. So he may remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, article reads very well, and is in good shape. It seems to me that the 38.1 mm issue raised by Tony is a good thing to add to the body of article, but it is utterly irrelevant for the lede, so don't put it there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I took the liberty and made a few edits rather than list tedious nit-picks here. No doubt the nominator will check them. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [42].

---

Ernst Lindemann

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it may meet the strong quality criteria at FAC as well. The article was heavily scrutinized in the previous reviews. The challenge with this article is the Germanic terms for which the English sources do not present a uniform translation (at least to my knowledge). I therefore have introduced a translation section which has been debated before. I appreciate any feedback and hope that the reviewers balance their criticism between the general concern "too Germanic" and factual correctness. Thanks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose issues per FAC disclaimer. I was kind of a pain at the A-class review, so I'd like to be the first to support here. I've checked all the edits since my last edit. As he says, there are interesting, non-obvious issues about how best to balance the German language and German sources. Best of luck, and I'll keep an eye on this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: I see a couple of these in the text: 48°10′N 16°12′W. Anyone have a problem with these, per WP:NOICONS? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

MOSICON only applies to the Wikipedia encyclopaedic project content, those icons are Wikipedia functionality content much like the add to watchlist icon Gnevin (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes; we've gotten rid of flag icons, should be a way to remove these awful icons and external jumps from the wiki text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Given that the bibliography does note which sources are in German, I don't think it's necessary that the citations also do so except for sources not included in Bibliography

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• "In April 1934 he was ordered to the Wilhelmshaven Shipyard (9 April 1934 – 11 November 1934) for training in ship construction and familiarisation with the heavy cruiser Admiral Scheer" - source?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't speak German, so for my benefit can you explain what makes this a reliable source? Who is the author, the publisher?
  • If that one doesn't work out, I remember running across several snippets of books at Google books that explained what a "hypothetical bank" was, and the connection to Lindemann's father's bank. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The link between Lindemann (dad) and the bank is documented in Grützner page 21 which is cited. I also took this picture on my last walk through Berlin. Read the head stone. I am only using the link to document the evolution of the Eurohypo. A similar picture is also published in Grützner page 412 MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• For citations to multi-author works, be consistent in whether you use "and" or "&"

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why do you include all three authors in citations to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, but only one for Fellgiebel?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Citation 76 needs retrieval date
• Ballard 1990, Dörr 1996, Die Wehrmachtberichte are not cited - either cite or move to a Further reading section
• Bibliography formatting needs to be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• "Bismarck left Hamburg for the first time on 15 September 1940" - source?

• Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Probably worth briefly explaining what the colours and symbols on the map represent
• Battery Lindemann or The Battery Lindemann?
• File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1984-055-13,_Schlachtschiff_Bismarck,_Seegefecht.jpg is tagged as lacking author information

• Fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• File:Rheinuebung_Karte2.png - what source was used to add the lines and symbols on this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Nikkimaria - it is unnecessary (and ugly) to repeat (German) for every one of the citations. It is sufficient that the language is specified in the Bibliography section. Aa77zz (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree too but it was an explicit request at A-class review! See "*In the references, use the {{de icon}} template after the ref tag but before the citation so we know which ones are German vs. English. Kirk (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)" Please advise. This is contradiction is it not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you can consider it consensus that the {{de icon}} is unnecessary for every citation. Just make use of the language= paramater of {{cite book}} and you're in the clear. On a similar note, with your web references, it's not necessary to mention that the format is HTML; that's presumed. Only if it deviates (i.e. PDF) is it necessary to populate the format= field. Seegoon (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay I removed the {{de icon}}. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: you've done and excellent job with this biography. Most of the tiny details are noted already, and most have been fixed in a very timely manner. The only suggestions I have don't diminish the weight of my support (especially since they are more from an editor's POV than a reader's), just there to push you from "good" to "very good". I know you got a lot of guff for the German translations in the ACR, so I'm not trying to pile-on here, juts voice concerns. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Integrate the "notes" and "translations" sections into one header. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) doesn't mention this at all, but I think the fact that the translations are just a specific type of note qualifies this.
  • Be a bit more consistant about translations. For example, some are capitalized in German but not English, while some are both (I understand that with rank, it's caps when used with a name and uncaps as a description, but both languages need to match). I'm also not sure what your rationale is when choosing to translate parenthentically or use notes; you could probably benefit from more consistancy here.
    • I was informed at A-class review that a military rank (in the English language) is only capitalized if it is mentioned before the name of a person. This differs in German. Please advise MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The German convention is caps regardless? I would be consistant with the English one here. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
        • The capitalization of German nouns in English text is very inconsistent, because in German, any kind of noun is capitalized, pretty much always. So to anyone who reads German, "kapitän" in normal text looks almost as strange as "cAptain" does to us ... the capitalization just looks wrong. And many of the people who like to read about WWII have a higher tolerance for German words than average. So, I'm okay with either using the English case consistently in the article or capitalizing all German nouns ... unless we start to develop a clear preference within the project, in which case I'll support the preference. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure you need note 5, just wikilink Freiherr and I think the reader will understand easily enough.
  • There are some other translation where I think you could either drop the parenthenticals and just wikilink, or just use the English word for simplicity (such as Abitur/diploma and bedingt tauglich/limited duties). Of course, not being a German speaker, I'd be ignorant if there was some sort of context or semantic distinction that probably needs to be noted, especially when comparing the article to the refs, so take that with a grain of salt (for example, I noted in your ACR that "bedingt tauglich" is a term used by the navy, but I would lean more toward the simpler form).

• Support. This a nicely written article that I enjoyed reading. Just a couple of questions:
  • What is the source for File:Rheinuebung Karte2.png?
    • The German version of "Müllenheim-Rechberg Freiherr von, Burkard (1980). Schlachtschiff Bismarck 1940/41—Der Bericht eines Überlebenden (in German). Berlin, Frankfurt/M, Wien: Ullstein. ISBN 3-550-07925-7." on page 76 shows a similar map tracing the paths of British and German vessels. My German version of Von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book was expelled at A-class review. I'm not sure if I can use it as a reference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see that added to the image's description then, as right now there's no indication at all as to the reliability of that map. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
        • done please have a look if it matches expectations MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
          • That seems fine to me. I wouldn't have worded it quite like that, probably preferring to say something like "based on the map on page 76 etc.", but that's nothing really. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In the Death section we're told that "Normally on a German naval vessel, a white cap is worn only by the commanding officer", yet in none of the photos of Lindeman is he seen wearing a white cap.
    • Grützner published a number of pictures of Lindemann showing him during sea trials in early 1941 always wearing a white cap. The pictures in the article show Lindemann during the commissioning of Bismarck. He wears his gala uniform that day and is not representative for his "working" uniform. I added the two words "at sea" to make this clearer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Having worked on the article I might be a bit biased, but I consider this an article well worth featuring. The above suggestions make it more so. Rumiton (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC) One small point. After WW2 the Royal Navy mandated white caps for all officers. I do not know whether the German Navy followed suit. If so, were worn would be appropriate, rather than is worn. Rumiton (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Just a few brief comments:

• Rather than 'Translations', would that section be better titled 'Translation notes', and the translation notes, general notes, and references, all made subsections of a larger section titled 'References and notes'? They are, after all, each one produced by inline citations and footnotes, and are logically grouped together.
• The placing of the 'Personal life' section after his death and the section about his award is a bit jarring. You really need to say who his wife is and who the family are, before mentioning them in the Knight's Cross section (and earlier). I think the first mention of his wife and family outside of the lead section is 'Lindemann spent his leave with his wife and daughter and returned on 1 January 1941'. This is followed by the next mention at 'Lindemann's comrades of Crew 1913 all contacted the young widow after his death'. You are then given the full story of his marriages and family in the next section. Personally I would put the whole 'personal life' section between 'early life' and 'naval career', as it is better to briefly divert to describe this (and then go back to his naval career), than to spend ages on his naval career, and then jump back to describe his marriages and family after first mentioning them without the full context provided in this 'personal life' section. (Note that in the lead section, his marriages and family are mentioned before his naval career - it works there, so should work in the main body of the article as well.)
  • • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• The 'In popular culture' section - it is two sentences and is about his depiction in a book and film. This is less 'popular culture' (a terrible phrase at the best of times) and more 'depictions in media' or 'Book and film' or 'Depictions', so I would just call it something like that, and/or merge this section in somewhere else (e.g. make a subsection of 'Awards and honours' called 'Book and film'). Also, mention the book first and then the film, and give the publication year of the Forrester book.
• I also took a closer look at the red-links. Two have de-wikipedia articles (Friedhof Dahlem and Hermann Boehm, which could both be translated) and one is obscure enough that it could maybe be de-linked (Lönne Fjord - it would be more helpful to say in the article where the Lönne Fjord is exactly).
  • • Yes, I know, I even visited St Annen Church and the Friedhof in Dahlem and took pictures. At some point I will write an article but this is not in scope right now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if these points have been raised in earlier reviews, but they are what struck me on a brief skim through the article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Translations: There is an inconsistency about what takes precedence in translated terms. Sometimes you use the the English translation with the German original in parenthesis (e.g. probationary judge (Gerichtsassessor)), sometimes the German with a translation to English in parenthesis (e.g. Kapitän zur See (Captain)) and sometimes the English translation with the German original in a note (e.g. Carmer Street).
• Early life
  • The Royal Polytechnic Institution was not a university in 1912 and I don't think it had any facilities in Richmond at that time. What did he study?
• Personal life
  • Birth and death dates are provided for his first wife, but not his second wife, Hildegard Burchard.
• Imperial Navy
  • Is there a source for the income of Germans in the 1910s?
    • it is cited Grützner 2010, pp. 25–26. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In text, WP:MOS prefers "percent" or "per cent" rather than "%".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Was his acceptance "on probation" due to his suspect health or was that the general status of all new cadets?
    • helath reasons MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• World War I
  • "Lindemann was assigned to SMS Lothringen, a battleship which belonged to the 2nd Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet under the command of Vizeadmiral (Vice-Admiral) Reinhard Scheer, taking on the position of 3rd wireless telegraphy officer." As the bit between the commas is quite long, I think it would be better to state what position he was given earlier, e.g. "Lindemann was assigned as 3rd wireless telegraphy officer on SMS Lothringen, a battleship..."
  • Although you have linked to Operation Albion, it might be useful to mention where Pamerort, Toffri and Hiiumaa are.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There are gaps between March 1916 and September/October 1917 and from November 1917 to November 1918. I know that the German fleet spent most of its time in port during this period, but do the sources say what Lindemann was doing during this time?
  • "12 January". state the year as with other dates.
• Between the wars: Reichsmarine
  • For the German ranks, you variously give equivalent ranks and translations of ranks in parenthesis.
    • For Oberleutnant you give sub-lieutenant, which is the equivalent rank British naval rank although it translates as Senior lieutenant.
    • For Korvettenkapitän you give an equivalent (Lieutenant Commander) rather than a translation: Corvette Captain
    • For "Kapitänleutnant you give an equivalent (Lieutenant Commander) rather than the translation: Captain Lieutenant. This is a lower rank than Korvettenkapitän, but it is given the same equivalent rank without explanation making Lindemann the same equivalent rank as his commanding officer, Otto Schultze. Need to capitalise the equivalent as with others.
    • For Generaladmiral you give a translation (Grand Admiral) rather than the equivalent: Admiral. The General Admiral article says that Generaladmiral is subordinate to a Grand Admiral/Großadmiral.
      • Oops good catch MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Erich Raeder is given the rank of Vice-Admiral rather than Vizeadmiral.
      • I was instructed to only use the German rank on the very first occurance. All following instances have to use the closest English translation. Vizeadmiral/Vice-Admiral was already introduced in section "World War I" MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Link watch officer.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What is a division officer?

A division (or divisional) officer is a medium ranking officer in charge of one of the departments involved in running the ship. eg Stores, Catering, Pay etc. Rumiton (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Between the wars: Kriegsmarine
  • It is not correct to say that the Nazis seized power on 30 January 1933. On that date Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor by Hindenburg, but the seizure was not achieved until after the Reichstag fire and the issuing of the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act in March 1933.
    • reworded "seized power" to "came to power" to leave it intionally vague. This article is about Lindemann only. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't need the Ernst in the fourth sentence.
  • What was Wilhelm Marschall's rank whilst Lindemann was under his command.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph, it is not initially clear which ship he is on. In the first paragraph it said he was on Hessen, but was ordered to Wilhelmshaven for training between 9 April 1934 – 11 November 1934. Based on what comes next, he, presumably, then stayed on Admiral Scheer rather than return to Hesen, but this is not stated.
    • Reworded slightly, should be clear now MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Admiral Scheer needs to be put in italics in the second paragraph.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lindemann as first gunnery officer was responsible" needs commas around "as first gunnery officer".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Marschall is given the English rank title Captain rather than the German Kapitän.
    • His rank was Kapitän zur See at the time, his position was Kapitän or commander. This is ambiguous and a reason why I would like to retain German ranks throughout the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 11 officers, 15 non-commissioned officers and 266 sailors only totals to 292 men; who were the other 58 in the landing party? The Admiral Scheer article gives the complement as 1,150 - a third of this is 383 not 350 or 292.
    • And that is why I used the word "roughly" MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Give the German rank for Commander and for Captain.
    • Defined in the "Early Life" section! Fregattenkapitän is a commadner and Kapitän zur See is a Captain. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Are Bremse and Hektor both gunnery training ships or is the latter something else?

Hektor was also a gunnery training ship, ex-Orion. Rumiton (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Commander of the battleship Bismarck
  • Where and how did Lindemann express his frustration at being commander of the gunnery school and his doubts about getting Bismarck complete before the end of the war?
  • "...a situation rare if not unique in the Kriegsmarine." Presumably, you mean for someone of his seniority. Is there a source for this?

• it is cited (Grützner page 222) and yes for his seniority and for the fact that his fisrst command was a battleship MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• • As you make the point about him having served only on ships with large calibre guns, it might be worth stating what calibre Bismarck's largest guns were?
  • The point is made that von Müllenheim-Rechberg's was the highest ranking officer to survive the following year's battles, but his rank is not stated?

At the time of the sinking he was a Kapitänleutnant. Rumiton (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• • As you use Gotenhafen, it might be appropriate to use the contemporaneous German name "Bay of Danzig" here.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Given it was crucial to the eventual destruction of Bismarck, some further explanation of the reason for the rudderless steering problem would be useful. Was any report made of the steering problem or effort made to find a solution?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "the majority of the officers, non-commissioned officers and sailors" could be just "the majority of the crew". Where was Bismarck at this time? If he celebrated Christmas on board and he was back on the ship on 1 January, the leave was short. Is it significant because it was the last time he saw his family?
    • Bismarck was in Gotenhafen, as stated in the paragraph before that. All sea trials were held out of Gotenhafen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Operation Rheinübung
  • Link Denmark Strait, and describe where it is, because readers may think that it is near Denmark.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Link HMS Prince of Wales on first use. Would be better to name the two British ships earlier on.
    • Oops, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "the battleship Bismarck". At this stage in the story, just the name should do.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "HMS Cossack, Sikh, Maori, Zulu, and Piorun". Shouldn't that be "HMSs Cossack, Sikh, Maori, Zulu and OPR Piorun". None of the torpedoes hit their target.
    • good point done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You don't mention that the damage to the rudder forced Bismarck to steam in a large circle for some time.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Did U-74 or any other U-boat pick-up the war diary?
    • done see below comment by Rumiton MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears not, as U-74 was still submerged as Bismark was sinking. Rumiton (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross
  • Hildegard Lindemann is described as a "young widow", how old was she?
    • Birth date is unknown, however she was 14 years younger. I added this to the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Mrs Lindemann" rather than "Frau Lindemann"?
    • I fear that this may not go well with those that favour English terminology. I bend to consensus here MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Notes
  • In Note 3, suggest a link to Major (Germany) rather than Major.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

--DavidCane (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment—Overall it appears to be in good shape. Here are a few items that caught my eye:

• This sentence seems like it could be written more clearly:
  "He was the first of three children of Dr. jur. Georg Heinrich Ernst Lindemann (also known as Ernst), a probationary judge (Gerichtsassessor) and later president of the Prussian Central Land Credit Company, a Prussian credit bank, and Maria Lindemann, née Lieber."
  For example:
  "He was the first of three children of Dr. jur. Georg Heinrich Ernst Lindemann and Maria Lindemann, née Lieber. Known as Ernst, Georg Lindemann was a probationary judge (Gerichtsassessor) and later president of the Prussian Central Land Credit Company, a Prussian credit bank."

Done. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• "...this time to their own house..." Why does it say "their own house" here (and not elsewhere)? This may need to be clarified.
• The article could explain why the family send Lindemann to the Royal Polytechnic Institution in England for six months. If this was meritorious, he didn't appear to warrant it.
• "As Lindemann had finished fifth in the Class of 1913..." If the academy training was terminated before completion and the officer examination was skipped, how did he finish fifth in the class?
• If Lindemann never commanded a vessel prior to Bismarck, I think it warrants some further explanation as to why he was selected ahead of commanders with more direct experience. Surely there was some other factor at work, such as family influence or a heavy loss of suitable commanders. Who, for example appointed him to the command, and were any other candidates considered? Were there any recommendations noted?
• Was there any criticism of Lindemann's tactics during the final battle?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support Support – alt text need to be more descriptive. According to [43], the second photo only has "SMS Hertha". Now a vision impaired reader might not know what that means. Some of my suggestions are "black and white photograph of white ship on water", also mention the chimneys, the posts, etc. Same with 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th photographs. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 03:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note: alt text is not currently part of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(Filling in for MisterBee) alt text is new to me. Your suggestions seem sound...why don't you make the changes yourself? Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

done Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble}

I thought this alt text nonsense had died a natural death. Alt text is an alternative to the image, not a description of the image. The suggested alt texts are in my opinion a long way wide of the mark. My suggestion would be "photograph". Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can sort of see your point, but, what's the point of alt text of there's no description?

The point of alt text is to say succinctly what the image is and to serve as an alternative to it, not to describe it, hence "photograph". To take just one example, that of the lead image: "The head and upper torso of a man. He wears a peaked cap, black naval coat and a white belt with dagger. His facial expression is determined; his eyes are looking straight into the camera." That's an interpretation of the picture (his facial expression is "determined" in whose opinion?), not a description, and is far too long to act as an alternative to it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone done a source verification/close paraphrasing spot check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A very limited one, but there are too many German-language sources for me to check much (anyone who reads German, have at it!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I read German, but don't have access to the sources. MisterBee will be back in a few weeks. Rumiton (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• German ranks I am having a dilemma with this issue. Between sub lieutenant and admiral in the Royal Navy there are 8 ranks. In the German Navy there are 11. It is therefore misleading to say any of these ranks can be translated as any other, the seniorities are completely skewed. Literally translating the German titles doesn't work either. Kapitänleutnant would become lieutenant captain, a title which once existed in the RN, but which was abolished 200 years ago. Suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Only one suggestion, which is don't translate the titles of the ranks. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please review for WP:OVERLINKing, WP:ENDASH, WP:ITALICS, and isn't there a way to get those awful coordinates icons out of the middle of the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [44].

---

SMS Bayern (1915)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Another one of my German battleship articles, this one passed a GA review in August 2009 and a WP:MILHIST A-class review in Janaury 2011 (see here for the ACR). I believe the article is at or close to meeting the FA criteria and look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the high-quality of this article. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Be consistent in whether locations are linked in references - most are, but Oxford is not
• Be consistent in whether you provide states for US locations
• The Battleships portal appears twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Can you make it clearer what is meant by "protection scheme", and also what the numbers mean?
  • I added a new caption - is this clearer now? Parsecboy (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• "German Warships of World War I" - is this a pamphlet, a book, a collection...? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the same as here - they were wartime recognition images distributed to ships' crews. Thanks for reviewing the images and sources. Parsecboy (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please add, in a footnote, that SMS abbreviates Seiner Majestät Schiff which translates to "His Majesty's Ship". MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• The caption of the first image on the left it reads "Armor layout for Bayern; the numbers represent the armor thickness in each area." Please add the units, mm? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Can you check on "Kiel Fördeklub" or is it "Kiel Förderklub". The second would make more sense but I am unsure MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Gröner says "Fördeklub" - looking at simple google searches it seems to be spelled both ways. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support nice read! MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Good looking article and my primary concerns were addressed.—RJH (talk)

  Comment—It looks pretty good and I didn't see any major flaws. A couple of minor points:

  • "Her main armament consisted of eight 38 cm (15 in) guns in four turrets, which was a significant improvement over the preceding König's ten 30.5 cm (12 inch) guns." This sentence should clarify (for the casual reader) in what sense this is a significant improvement, since the number of guns have decreased.
  • Is there any information about how much this ship cost to build?

  Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I added a note explaining the superiority of the 38 cm gun, and the cost is already in the article (1st para of the "Construction" section). Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Was the rate of fire about the same?—RJH (talk)
      • In general, German ships were capable of around 3 rounds per minute per gun, though in combat (such as at Jutland), they averaged closer to one round per minute. The British were somewhat slower in training, but their combat speed was generally about the same (1 round per minute per gun). Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments

• What's a Flak gun?
• Link fuel oil and boiler, be sure the latter is to water-tube boiler.
• This is awkward: during which the forward torpedo tube room was removed and turned into a watertight compartment I presume that you mean that the torpedo tubes and associated equipment were removed and the torpedo ports were sealed?
• Add the ship's beam to the descriptive paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Should all be fixed, thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [45].

---

USS New Ironsides

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because there hasn't been much love for ships of the ironclad era at FAC or anywhere else on Wiki. It's about time that the predecessors of the modern battleships got their due, IMHO. I plan to start improving more ironclad articles in time for the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War. This ship was the closest equivalent to the British ocean-going ironclads like HMS Warrior that the Union Navy built during the war. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully doesn't require much work to pass muster. I look forward to working with the reviewers to improve the article, but I'd ask that they be specific as possible so I can more readily fix whatever issues need to be fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Also see the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I copyedited this recently, and I'm looking over the new edits. The capitalization on "the First and Second Battles of Charleston Harbor" is problematic, because as a rule of thumb, plural things are never proper nouns (unless you're referring to something collectively, which you aren't here). I don't have anything that feels definitive in my usual go-to guides, I'm going to nose around ... if anyone wants to make an argument one way or the other, please do. I may recommend "the First Battle and Second Battle of Charleston Harbor", despite the repetition. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm going to leave it like it is since I've seen it capitalized that way in sources, although this won't suit Chicago purists. I'm finished for now, and it's looking very good. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support per standard disclaimer. I checked the new edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

CrowzRSA comments

• ISBN 1851776248 is invalid.
  • Fixed.
• The "$" in the infobox and the "Design and description" section should link to United States Dollar, or it should look like "(USD) $1"
  • I don't think that there's any possibility of confusion considering that this is about a US warship.
• The "Medals of Honor" section's introduction line should end with a period, not a colon.
  • I'm not so sure about that since the list follows the introductory sentence.
• References should only go after punctuation.
  • I'm not seeing any refs anywhere else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all I saw that stood out. CrowzRSA 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support

Who's support is this please? I can't tell without stepping back through diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's Kirk's, judging by his 15:27, 15 April 2011 comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Add citations in the infobox.
  • Everything in the infobox is cited in the main body.
    • Sponsor, type are not cited in the body. The day is missing from the decommmission date.
      • Good catch, added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• The type broadside ironclad both looks and sounds weird; I would double check that - Armored frigate/sloop sounds more accurate to me; Roberts calls it a high-freeboard ironclad to contrast it with the monitor ironclad. Also, it was a unique ship, that doesn't help!
  • Broadside ironclad is a technical term relating to the layout of her armor and guns; it has nothing to do with her role. Armored frigate is questionable because she was so much smaller than most of the broadside ironclads of the time. She's closest in size to the armored corvettes like the French ironclad Belliqueuse and I don't want to get into trying to define an armored frigate here since the definition of a frigate is pretty nebulous. Especially the border between frigate/sloop/corvette.
  • Sondhaus, p. 85 calls New Ironsides an armored frigate or a broadside battery frigate.
    • Do you have a citation for that term? The wikilink uses the citation I posted above for the term and its not in the book (a problem!). Sondhaus and Roberts use the term Armored Frigate more often than their other variations, so that's probably your best bet for simplicty - remove the wikilink and add a citation - its in Roberts on page ix, 8, 131, 172, 178 if you don't want to add Sondhaus.
      • Sure, Chesneau and Kolesnik, p. 118. It's widely used in books that cover non-American ironclads as it was the dominant form of the first generation of ocean-going European ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
        • That might be true but there's obviously a lack of consensus among historians for the type of this ship (I just found ironclad screw steamer in Sweetman's American Naval History) - maybe other editors have a suggestion what to put in the infobox when there's no clear authority for the type of a unique ship? Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Nothing about nomenclatures in this period is cast in stone except ironclad or armored. Ironclad screw steamer isn't incorrect, but focuses on her propulsion and armor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
            • The FA article HMS Ark Royal (91) has a type of Unique aircraft carrier so probably for this article I would have put Unique ironclad; I'm gathering from the lack of comments the type is fine as-is. Kirk (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• I think the ram should be in the infobox.
  • I disagree, it's a passive weapon.
    • That's fair; note not all your sources even mention the ram and its not in DANFS - I guess Canney has his top secret sources.
• $780,000 sounds expensive but is probably right (another missing citation). Some of the cost discussion in on Roberts,1999, p. 123, which is worth adding to the article.
  • The cost is cited with the rest of the stuff at the end of the paragraph. I don't see that comparing cost effectiveness on the basis of cost per gun with all the other Union ironclads is particularly interesting or useful since they were designed to do different things.
• Speaking of cost and type; the Navy built a lot of coastal monitors and no ships based on New Ironsides (p. 125, plus chapter 10), probably worth a mention.
  • I don't really want to get into monitor fever and the like, all of which falls outside the scope of this article.
    • I would think the reason it was a unique ship is in the scope of the article. A lot of your sources look at the Galena, Monitor and New Ironsides together. Kirk (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I think the first few paragraphs of the Design and Description section compare the three ships well enough. And I don't know of anything that specifically states why no other ship of her type were built, other than the Navy leadership got all hot and bothered about monitors after Hampden Roads.
        • I disagree but we'll see what other editors think on this point after a week or so. Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• I dislike the Medals of Honor section; its unclear why they got their medals and is kind of a minor fact and not really about the ship; I would have suggest merging that section's sentence into the service section (going to look at the citations...). Kirk (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • the actual medal citations are not helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly indifferent if they're retained or not, but I'm not sure what other people feel.
• The flag officer of the ironclad division and the Captain of New Ironclad in 1864-1865, Commodore William Radford, needs to be in there somewhere...Kirk (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That I can probably squeeze in there somewhere. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Could you break out citation 25 for the individual sentences? I don't think all the information in that paragraph is on each one of those pages. Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I deleted page 18 as it wasn't relevant.
• Not much has changed here so I'll check back next week. Kirk (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Switched to support, although a couple points are still open for discussion; specifically if high cost compared with Monitor contributed to this being a unique vessel. Kirk (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:NewIronsides.jpg - what is the author's date of death? Also, why does this image retain its preexisting caption and the other image had its caption removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Can't find date of death in Library of Congress listing. Last publication on OCLC is dated 1919.

Sources

• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names or not
• "United States, Naval War Records Office" - either remove the comma or reorder
  • Done and Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources are of good quality, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support I supported this article's promotion to A class, and it has since been improved so I think that the FA criteria are met here. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - there's still some overlinking IMO, but it's not sufficient to prevent me from supporting. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Leaning support - Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Double-check wikilinking in the lead, as something odd is happening with the Fort Fisher links
  • Fixed.
• What do you mean by "risk factors"?
  • Rephrased.
• Is her beam 57 feet or 57.5?
  • Good catch.
• What is "decoupled"? "on station"? Check for terms potentially unfamiliar to non-specialists
  • Dealt with.
• Very common terms like nickname need not be linked
  • Agreed.
• Charleston harbor or Harbor? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Support with one nitpick. Is the external link to the DANFS article in any way helpful? This article is much more comprehensive than the DANFS article is. Brad (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a second round of looking and the article is overlinked. Things like common measurements, gunpowder and Christmas Day aren't very helpful but these are only a few examples. Brad (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll grant you Christmas Day, but I suspect that there are plenty of people who don't know much more about gunpowder than the name. As for the measurements, you'll need to be more specific. About the only one that I noticed as linked at all was long ton, which will remain since there are more than one variety of ton, or tonne, if you're British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

'Comments

• It says "pressure of 20–25 psi (138–172 kPa; 1–2 kgf/cm²)". The third (kgf) value looks unnecessary to me.
  • Actually in my limited reading of post-metricization(sp?) British naval books, kg/cm² is used more often that kPa.
    • Interesting. I'll defer to your knowledge which, although limited, is greater than mine. Thanks for the update. Lightmouse (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• It says "3,000 pounds (1,360.8 kg) of gunpowder". One significant figure is paired with five. Precision is part art and part science. In this case, I think five is excessive and two is probably enough.
  • Good catch, that should have been a -1 in the template. Thanks for looking the article over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "In July 1861, after the United States received word of the construction of the Confederate casemate ironclad, CSS Virginia, Congress authorized $1.5 million to build one or more armored steamships on 3 August." I just don't understand that sentence at all. What does it mean? That the ships were to be built on 3 August?
  • (Scratches head). - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • In July 1861 ... Congress authorized $1.5 million to build one or more armored steamships on 3 August". Does that really make sense to you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Nope, I don't know what it's saying. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Rephrased. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • It's better, but it's still not right; they didn't appropriate the money to have the ships built on August 3, or inded to have them built on any other day. On August 3 they appropriated the money to have the ships built. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Moved the date, but it still seems a bit awkward to me. Perhaps, I'm just too close to it to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
              • It was indeed awkward; I've moved the date to where I think it should be. Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Merrick & Sons was awarded the contract for the ship on 15 October 1861 at a cost of $780,000 ...". That's not quite right; it didn't cost $780,000 to award the contract.
  • This "at a cost of" stuff does come from sources about ships, which is why it keeps showing up in Milhist articles. But I'm with you on this one, I'm used to the shorter "a $780,000 contract". Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• "But the Navy was less than impressed by the performance of 9-inch Dahlgrens ...". "... but the navy did not invoke the penalty for late delivery". Need to be consistent with capitalisation.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "They evaluated 17 different designs, but recommended the selection of only three on 16 September." Just checking that the recommendation of three from 17 candidate designs was/is unusually small proportion. If not, can you make it "and recommended three, on 16 September."?
  • Done.
• "The revolutionary USS Monitor was the riskiest design, selected by virtue of its low freeboard, iron hull, rotating gun turret and total dependence on steam power, but its designer, John Ericsson, guaranteed delivery in only 100 days." I don't quite understand the meaning, but a few queries: (1) the design was "revolutionary" and "risky"? Is it clear to the readers why a low freeboard, etc, were revolutionary, or risky? Or do we find that out later? Why the "but"? I'm unsure whether they regarded the revolutionary design as a plus or minus per se, so the obvious plus of quick delivery is fuzzy, to me. This needs recasting.
  • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• "he most conservative design of the three, as she copied many of the features of the French ship"—the ship isn't designing itself, so "... three, which copied ..."?
  • Rephrased.
• Another problematic "but": "William Cramp claimed credit for the detailed design of the ship's hull, but the general design work was done by Merrick & Sons." Why are these counterposed? Detail versus general seems fine to me, but it's a "but"?
  • Usually detailed and general design are done by the same person/department.
• Is there a link for "draft", which is a technical term I don't understand.
  • Linked.
• I know it's pointless arguing against the female generic for ships, but you might consider going easy on the density of female refs, for example: "and her propeller could be disengaged to reduce drag while under sail alone.[6] She was barque-rigged with three masts. The ship's masts and rigging were used only for long-distance voyages; they were removed once she was on station. Her best" ... sometimes "the" could do. And why not "The ship was barque-rigged with three masts that, with rigging, were used only for long-distance voyages, and were removed once on station." (The "she was on" i removed at the end may be stubby now, so leave it in or come up with a better solution?).
  • I like your wording better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• "11-inch guns"—converted in the next sentence; why not on first occurrence?
  • Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the usual standard we get from the nominator ... Tony (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

after she was placed in reserve.

The lead links to wiktionary mothball, when an article reserve fleet exists and seems appropriate. Further, the article text never discussed whether she was "mothballed" or placed in the reserve fleet. There is nothing in the text indicating she was in mothballs; the text seems to indicate she was in reserve, and why are we linking to wiktionary in the lead? Please clear this up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reserve fleet is a better link and I've added links for decommissioned and laid up to clarify what was going on. But why shouldn't we use a wiktionary link in the lede as opposed to anywhere else?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [46].

---

Zoo TV Tour

Nominator(s): Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe the article, after much work by the WikiProject U2, meets the Featured Article criteria. The article is about one of the most well-covered and documented tours in popular music. The tour represents part of U2's reinvention in the 1990s, something I consider an extremely interesting subject, and the article focuses on the band during one of their peaks in commercial popularity. I believe the article is comprehensive, well organized, and well written in covering such a detailed topic. It would make a suitable companion to the Achtung Baby article that reached FA status last year. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Source comments - preliminary, I'll likely add more later

• Newspaper and magazine citations that don't include weblinks should include page numbers
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers/magazines
• Ref 24 and similar: what type of source is this?
• Ref 60: page(s)?
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
• Retrieval dates are not required for courtesy links to print-based sources, but if you want to include them you must be consistent in doing so
• In general, reference formatting needs to be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Page numbers aren't available for every magazine/newspaper article. Many of the articles were obtained from a U2 fan site that reprints the articles without page numbers. Aside from their availability from this fan site (which may or not pose copyright issues if cited in the article), I'm willing to bet many of the publications have been out of print for so long that no archival system would have the articles or their page numbers referenced.
• Isn't the policy that a publisher should be provided for lesser-known publications? That was my impression. Are there any newspapers/magazines you would consider lesser-known that need the publishers added?
• Ref 24 and similar references are short documentaries that appear as bonus features on the Zoo TV: Live from Sydney DVD (see that entry in the Bibliography)
• Ref 60 - there's no specific page that needs to be cited, the reference is merely to the book as a whole to point out it exists as a record of BP Fallon's time on Zoo TV.
• U2Wanderer and Men-Access have been removed. Our project has always thought U2Gigs to be reliable - U2 themselves ascertained the validity of the website by citing it in the liner notes of the Dutch version of their 2009 album No Line on the Horizon.
• Retrieval dates should have been added to every reference with a external link.

That's it for now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

More sourcing stuff:

• Why no page numbers for Fallon?
• Most of the articles without page numbers are from the 1990s and early 2000s, so I'm reasonably sure that page numbers are obtainable. For example, page number for Dalton 2004 is 52.
• Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors and how you punctuate editors
• I'm not American, so to me a lot of these publications are "lesser-known". Keep in mind you've got an international audience here. That being said, I would prefer that formatting be consistent rather than giving every possible piece of information.
• Is there a way to make the DVD references clearer?
• Do you have a wiki discussion link for U2Gigs? FAC or RSN would be best, although in-project discussion might work
• Volume/issue number for ref 137 and similar? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My responses to the above:

• As I mentioned above, the Fallon reference is not to any part of his book, but rather to the book as a whole, just to indicate that the book exists as a record of Fallon's time on the Zoo TV Tour.
• Where'd you get the page number for the Dalton reference? I've tried to get all the page numbers possible, and have been limited by the fact that I don't have access to any archival systems that would have this information. I'll have to ask fellow members of the U2 WikiProject if they can assist. If the page numbers cannot be obtained, would it be acceptable to remove them from all the references for the sake of consistency?
• Consistent author/editor formatting should be addressed now.
• I've added publishers where applicable - please let me know if this is satisfactory.
• I've added "(DVD documentary)" in between the name of the documentary and the name of the DVD.
• A past discussion from the 1st FAC to No Line on the Horizon might help explain why we believe U2Gigs to be reliable.
• I don't have a volume/issue number for that article, and anything else that is missing an issue/volume number is something I could not obtain without access to some archival database. As I mentioned, I'm asking that other members of the U2 WikiProject that may be able to access a database to assist.

That's it for now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just Googled the reference to get the page number; you can try that for a few of them, see how far you can get. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what keywords you used to search to get the page number for Dalton, as I was unable to do it. In any case, I got some information back from fellow U2 WikiProject members that I've added to the article. For a few articles, the archived versions provided the start page and the amount of pages in the article, but that doesn't get me to the range, as magazines frequently complete their stories later in the publications or can have advertisements interrupting the article. In those situations, is it OK, if I just indicate the page numbers as, for example, "40+", to indicate the article starts on page 40 and features multiple pages after that? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that might work if you really can't find the correct page ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added all page number information that was available from the archives that Dream out loud could access. Some of the archived articles didn't have any information about pages, unfortunately, while most other articles/publications were not available in said archive. I don't know that we'll get page numbers for everything, which leads me to think it might be better for consistency if we remove them altogether. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Further sources comment: I have been asked to look at the sources to see if any further work is necessary on this aspect. The sources and citations generally look in good order, and I think that Nikkimaria's main concerns have been addressed. Just a couple of points:

• Page numbers: I think the concern is where page numbers are not shown for journal or newspaper articles where there is no online link, not otherwise. For example, ref 25 is to a Melody Maker article from 1998. There is no online link; presumably you have read this article in hard copy form and should therefore have its page number. Likewise ref 26 (Hot Press) and a few others such as 163.
• Fallon: I understand that it is the existence rather than the content of this book that is being cited, but that is not immediately obvious. To get round this I reccommend replacing the short citation "Fallon 2004" with the full bibliographical entry. Incidentally, it is usual to give an author's initials as "B.P." rather than "BP".

Other than on these minor issues, I believe that sources criteria are satisfied. This article has been on the FAC page for a month now and has attracted two supports, no opposes at present. The nominator has it seems made every effort to respond to reviewers' concerns. I would request that the delegates give me a couple of days – no more – before closure, for a detailed reading so that I can make a declaration one way or the other. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I've made a little headway with your concerns. The Fallon reference has been changed as you suggested - I've kept his first name BP, since that is how I've always seen it written (particularly checking Google) and that's how his Wikipedia article is formatted. Some of the articles have paid-for versions of the articles online (e.g. Hot Press, Details) so I've linked to them, making them web citations essentially. Some of the articles I couldn't find print information for have been removed, as they were backup citations used to reinforce a point but where other sources were available. There is still some a handful of works that I can't locate page numbers for because the only versions I have available to me are the texts archived on a U2 fan site, and there are copyvio concerns with linking to these archives (e.g. Propaganda, Q). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• General Comment. While the article is quite good and very detailed, I'm unsure if the subject matter lends itself to FAC's 'completeness' idea without getting pretty far off the topic of the tour and into the bands development before (during the recording of Auchtung, Baby) and after/unrelated cotemporanious time. If others feel the article meets the technical criteria, I certainly do not oppose FA. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked back and every paragraph in the "Conception" section is about the artistic gestation of the tour. Yes, this happened during some of the same times that the album was being recorded, but they were two different if parallel artistic processes. As for the "Impact and legacy" section, I think it's important to indicate the personal effect that this massive undertaking had on the band, and also the artistic echoes from the tour that persisted for a number of years. (However I do think the paragraph about the PopMart Tour could be removed ... other later U2 tours were compared to Zoo TV as well, and every U2 member probably has a different favorite one; I'm not sure why PopMart gets special attention here.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Support. I think this is a decent article as it stands, but given that Zoo TV is one of the most creative/written about/'important' concert tours of all time, some things should be addressed before it achieves FA status:

• Some lesser-known links need to be repeated later in the article when they occur again, per WP:REPEATLINK. No one should have to hunt several sections backwards in the article to find the link for Mark Pellington, David Wojnarowicz, or Steel Wheels Tour, for example. On the other hand, common (in this context) names such as Bono and the Edge only need to be linked once.
• The presence of several Zoo TV characters (such as MacPhisto) and scenes in the 1995 "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" video needs to be restored to the article. Per Cogan pp 192–193, this was a key, lasting indication that crystallized the importance of Zoo TV.
• U2's Vertigo Tour homage to (or reprise of) Zoo TV needs to be restored to the Legacy section, where it was for a long time. Again, this aptly illustrates the lasting effect of Zoo TV's imaging of some of the Achtung Baby songs.
• The episode where a fan climbed onstage in order to philosophically question MacPhisto and Bono announced to the audience that the situation was straight out of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters needs to be restored to the article. As sourced by Scharen p. 197, this illustrates some of the literary themes running through the tour. The episode was previous removed by an editor who said "What are the Screwtape Letters?", but in fact this work is not obscure and a theatrical adaptation just had a nine-month run on Broadway.
• One of the things lost in the article is the distinction of what Bono and the group members were saying at the time of the tour about their fame and adopted personas and so forth versus what they have said in retrospect. Bono's Zoo Radio reference to himself as "licensed to be an egomaniac" should be restored to the article as well as his USA Today interview quote as the tour began that unlike the U2 of the 1980s, he had no intention of resisting the overload of fame on the Zoo TV Tour: "Oh, but it's fun to be carried away by the hype. Where would you be without the hype?... You can't pretend all the promotion and all the fanfare is not happening." In other words, it's important to convey that in the publicity accompanying the tour, in addition to the show itself, the band were explicitly reversing their audiences' previous conceptions of them.
• I think Bono's on-stage statement about U2's debt to Lou Reed (something like "Every U2 song is a rip-off of Lou Reed") needs to be restored to the article. The point is that the inclusion of "Satellite of Love" was more meaningful to the band than just a clever allusion to the TV theme.
• I think the importance of the tour's presentation to "One"'s increasing popularity at the time needs to be brought out better, although I don't have a ready-made source or text for this.
• The statement "During the first week of the tour, media outlets reported that the words shown included "Bomb Japan Now", which the band denied.[68]" is kind of unsatisfying and jarring to the flow of that paragraph. Was it there or not? If no one knows for sure, so be it, but maybe the sentence should be in parentheses.
• This is an unattributed quote: "... while others misinterpreted the tour's mocking excess, thinking "that U2 had 'lost it' and that Bono had become an egomaniac" ". The article used to say that this was VH1's Legends series' assessment of fan reaction. Why was the attribution removed?
• The last sentence in the lead, "Critics have called it one of the most memorable tours in rock history.", is too limiting. It's not just critics who think this. The topic sentence in the Legacy section is better: "The Zoo TV Tour is regarded as one of the most memorable tours in rock history." I think one or two of the quotes that follow that should be duplicated into the lead as well, to give substance to the statement.
• I'd give some thought to bolding "Outside Broadcast", "Zooropa", and "Zoomerang/New Zooland" in the lead, as alternate names for the tour (see the prominence of the name in the infobox poster, for example) and I think some of them are redirect targets.

There are some other aspects of the article that I wish were a little different, but the ones above are the most important. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to your concerns:

• Underlinking for some subjects fixed.
• "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" video concern resolved.
• The Zoo TV reprise on the Vertigo Tour was something that was in the article for a while, but I could never find any reference that explicitly mentioned the segment of the shows as being a homage to Zoo TV. I don't know that it is essential, though, because many of the songs from the Zoo TV era have maintained similar live presentations throughout their live history and not just on the Vertigo Tour.
• I've mentioned the Screwtape Letters comparison Bono makes in the "MacPhisto" section, although with a bit of different wording and using Flanagan as the reference.
• "egomaniac" quote added to "The Fly" section, "hype" quote added to the "Fan reaction" section.
• Lou Reed details added.
• I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at for the supposed relationship between "One" and Zoo TV - until a reference is found for what you're saying, I can't see it being added.
• "Bomb Japan Now" statement clarified.
• VH1 Legends quote attributed.
• "most memorable" statement in lead fixed.
• Leg names bolded.

Let me know if there is anything that didn't address your concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these additions. I've made a few changes related to them in the article as you have seen. Will see what I can come up regarding for the Vertigo Tour reprise and "One". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI I've scanned in four more of my photos from the Veterans Stadium show. File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium Preshow.jpg shows the stage before the show, although I kind of like the atmospherics of the Lisbon one you put in better. File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic c.jpg (not sure which song) and File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic d.jpg ("One" I think) are from early in the show and File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic f.jpg ("Streets") is from late in the show. I added one of them to the article but see what you think about which ones if any should be used. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "One", it was released as a single at the same time the tour began, and I believe the tour helped "One" shift from being perceived as an attractive but somewhat bitter, melanchony ballad to also being seen as an anthem and taking on the additional meanings and connotations it has today (the ONE campaign, etc). If you look at early videos from the tour or at the photo I put up, you can see a few fans with lighters on during the song; if you look at the Sydney video near the end of the tour, they are everywhere (and now mobile phones in tours hence). Part of this evolution was just the growing impact of the song, but I think part was also the effectiveness of the tour's visual/emotional/musical/communal presentation of the song (the words, the video, the stills, the association with David Wojnarowicz who died during the tour, the popular "Hear Us Coming" coda emerging midway through the tour, etc). "One" is one of the most popular songs ever and I think this article should try to say a little more about its role during the tour. Unfortunately I haven't found much in the way of sources yet to support these points ... Wasted Time R (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't found what I'm looking for, so to speak (fan sites talk about "Hear Us Coming" a lot, but professional writers seem oblivious to it), so my "One" comment is best put aside for another time. I see you're agreeable to a couple of the photos, and all my other concerns have been resolved, so I am now supporting this article for FA status. If ever a concert tour merited an FA-level treatment, it is Zoo TV. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts (and the photos, too!). It is great to see you contributing again after the disagreements we had a while back. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments Why the references in the lead? Review for overlinking: arenas, stadiums, radio shows, mass media, cable television, crank calls, pop culture, highways throughout the article. The Leg 4 table: overlinking of band names.—indopug (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

References in the lead were removed (they had been there for potentially contentious statements). Everything you mentioned for overlinking, aside from crank calls (which I thought was a relevant link to have and might not be familiar to all) was removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:U2ZooTVTour.jpg is missing copyright information
• US does not have freedom of panorama for 3D works, so the painted cars are not correctly licensed and may have to be removed
• File:U2_at_Cardiff_Arms_Park.jpg is missing copyright information, and a ticket is not a poster. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The ticket and poster images have had the copyright/free-use rationales tweaked, so please check again if you will. As for the image of the Trabants from the Rock and Roll HOF, I didn't think there was an issue with this, as it passed review during the 2nd Achtung Baby FAC. The US view on freedom of panorama excludes artwork in public places, but the Trabants served a functional purpose on the tour, as they were part of the stage's lighting system, so that elevates them above mere art. Also, can the painters really claim that by painting the cars, they have manipulated them enough to own copyrights over the cars' depictions, when without the paint jobs, the cars are likely fair game for being photographed? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. Copyright may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the image of the Trabant taken in the US. In its place, I'm now using the Trabant image that was taken in Germany, where there is freedom of panorama. Can you please recheck the other 2 images you mentioned, as well as the others yet to be reviewed? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:U2_at_Cardiff_Arms_Park.jpg is still missing copyright information; other images now seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check the ticket image again, I've expanded the "source" section of the non-free rationale. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to identify the "publisher" in this case, but what you've done is acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know who the publisher is - I would assume that to be Four5One Creative, since they have handled almost all aspects of the group's graphic design, but I can't be certain about this particular work. Are all the free works not alreadt mentioned acceptable? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, other images now seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this article for GA and found it a very satisfying read. I since went into retirement on wikipedia, but promised I would contribute to the FA review when it got nominated. The prose has been tightened since I last read the article, especially in the lead, and more pics and refs have been added. Well done.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 10:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider providing unit conversions. For example, '100-foot' needs a metric value. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the example you're providing was the only sentence that was missing unit conversions (excluding monetary values). I've fixed it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

General comments: I have read through the article, and feel that it is close to meeting the FA criteria. I would however welcome responses to the following (and to a couple of sources issues noted above):-

Lead

• Bolding should not be used for emphasis beyond the opening sentence
• "Differing from..." would read better as "In contrast with..." In general, sentences should not begin with "...ing" forms.
• The plural of "persona" is "personae". See section heading also.
• Direct quotations in the lead need citation.

Background

• "the target of derision" → "a target for derision"
• Reference to "The project" is inspecific

Concept

• Who is "Rene Castro"?

Stage design

• The link on Philips is not helpful if it doesn't explain what a "Vidiwall" is.
• "worth US$3.5 million" - do you mean "costing" rather than "worth"?
• Is there a link to explain "short tons"? To what does the "t" in "(1,089 t)" refer?

Planning etc

• What is "scalping" in this context?
• Second paragraph: A para break is required at "In Europe..." to reflect a change of continent
• "By the time Outside Broadcast began, Achtung Baby had sold four million copies in the US". This seems like an odd intrusion in the text at this point.

Show overwiew

• It should be made explicit that Leni Riefenstahl's works are films

Sarajevo satellite link-ups

• "U2 stopped the broadcasts in August 1993 after learning that the Siege of Sarajevo was being reported on the front of many British newspapers". Why the capitals, unless "Siege of Sarajevo" is placed in quotes? Apart from that, the logic of the sentence rather escapes me.
• "During a transmission from the band's concert at Wembley Stadium, three women in Sarajevo told Bono..." How did they communicate with him?

Bono's stage personas (personae)

• "alter ego" is not hyphenated

Recording and release of Zooropa

• Just a comment: I'm a bit surprised by the references to "EP" and "LP" in 1993; I thought we were well into the CD age by then.
• "an even greater departure in style from their earlier recordings..." requires a comparison - even greater departure than...?

Critical response

• What does "setlist" mean?
• The string of citations after "Many critics described the tour as 'post-modern'" is unnecessary. A couple, or perhaps three, examples will suffice, and they should be bundled into a single reference.

Commercial performance

• The statistical information is a bit haphazard and irregular, e.g. exact ticket sales for the opening leg but thereafter, broad rounded figures. No revenue figures for non-American legs. No real information about the overall profitability of the tour beyond generalisations. Don't album sales etc count towards the tour's revenues?

Impact and legacy

• I found the first paragraph a bit odd. This business relating to the Pixies (who have not been mentioned prior to this) seems very much a side issue relevant to the tour as a whole, and I am a bit surprised to see it heading up the Legacy section.
• The linked reference to "that film" is a bit awkward; rephrasing might bring greater clarity.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Lead section issues should all be addressed. Was the direct quote attribution you were referring to the Q magazine quote?

• Yes. The Doyle quote should be cited, or paraphrased Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Concept" and "Stage design" issues all addressed.
• "Planning" issues should mostly be addressed - I've kept the note about album sales but moved them further down in the paragraph. It is there to indicate that Achtung Baby sold a million copies between the start of their American legs of the tour (3 million in sales at start of 1st US leg, 4 million in sales at start of 2nd US leg).

• Fair enough Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Show overview" issue should be addressed.
• "Sarajevo" section - I had capitalized Siege of Sarajevo because that is how it appeared in the lead sentence of its article. I've decapitalized it now. As for the logic of the sentence of their stopping the transmissions, that is what the group believed, so I'm inclined to retain the sentence as is. I also don't think the sentence about the 3 women communicating to Bono through the Sarajevo transmission needs to be changed - I've reread the sentence and I think it's clear from that sentence, as well as the previous statements in the section, that the Bill Carter had Bosnians appear on video through satellite transmission to speak at the U2 concerts.

• The Bill Carter linkups are mentioned some way previously, and I think the "three women" sentence would be clearer if it read: "...three women in Sarajevo told Bono via the sattelite link..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Should be fixed now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Bono's stage personae" issue should be addressed

There's still a "personas" in the first line of the "stage personae" section.

• Should be fixed now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Zooropa" section - the "greater departure" sentence has been clarified. The LP and EP descriptions, as far as I know, are not referring to the physical format of the release, but rather the length, even if they traditionally have been associated with the vinyl record.
• "Critical response" - setlist has been wikilinked. As for the references for post-modern, 2 of them have been removed. As it stands, there are 3 separate references, but I think that's the way to go, since the first 2 are re-uses of those references from earlier.
• "Commercial performance" - I realize that these facts seem random, but to be honest, these are the only ones relating to the tour's commercial performance that I've ever seen. I've never seen official figures on the entire tour's profitability been released. The only monetary figures I've seen were for the 1992 US legs, when they were the top-touring act in the country. I also don't think I've ever seen album sales taken into account for a tour's profitability - most figures for a tour are gross ticket sales, as you can't really compare different tours' profitability if you take album sales into account, since you need to ask the question, "which of an artists' releases would you include in profitability figures?" and every group has different release strategies while touring.

• Well OK, but could "70-plus" be made exact? I have copyedited around the paragraph to try to give it a bit more cohesion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I actually altered what the ref said about the quantity of shows - it says "73 shows", but in reality, U2 played 79 North American shows that year, counting 5 Canadian shows, 4 Mexican shows, and a public rehearsal before the official leg-opener. Perhaps the 73 figure includes the Mexican shows, but not the Canadian ones or the public rehearsal. I was unsure how to word the sentence to account for this, so I decided to make the figure less precise. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Impact and legacy" - I've simplified the Batman Forever wikilink and moved the Pixies paragraph further down. I'll see if there's somewhere else in the article I can mention the Pixies.

That's it for now. I'll respond to the source issues later. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up: I've seen unverified global gross figures of anywhere between $151-200 million, but officially, these figures haven't been released by a reliable source, as Amusement Business did not collect/report international numbers prior to 1995, just North America. There's an ad in Billboard that U2/Paul McGuinness had printed that says $200 million. There's a U2 book I don't own that says $155 million. I'm inclined not to put either figure in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if the sources cannot be considered reliable, the information shouldn't be used. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: There are a few minor outstanding issues per above, but in general I am satisfied with your responses to my concerns. I find the article generally impressive and worthy of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The article uses dd/mm/yyyy format while the retrieval dates for sources uses yyyy/mm/dd. — GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • First of all, the yyyy-mm-dd format is used within references not just for retrieval dates, but for the publication dates, as well. Second, can you please show me a Wikipedia policy that states the prose and references need consistent date formats? As far as I know, it's entirely acceptable for the prose to follow one consistent date format and for references to follow another. If you see Template:Cite#Dates, it says to use a consistent style within references, but nothing about the entire article, and it also says the yyyy-mm-dd format is fine. Yet, if you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates, that date format is not recommended for prose. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• "If you see Template:Cite#Dates, it says to use a consistent style within references, but nothing about the entire article ... " See WP:STRONGNAT, which states; "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation." — GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, and since U2 is from Europe, the 1 Jan 2000 date format is used in prose. As far as I can tell though, there isn't a need to apply that same chosen format from the prose to the references. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment - reading through now and copyediting as I go (will explain in edit summaries). Please revert if I inadevertently guff the meaning. Queries below..(NB:Personal interest - I was at the Sydney concert :)) .Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

lede looks ok, I am wondering whether some adjectives can be pruned - e.g. " Although the tour provoked a wide range of reactions from music critics" (is "wide" necessary?)

The band's apparent embracing of such technology - why not just "embrace"? sounds more natural to me.

Fan reactions were not easily gauged by the group... - hmm, you can't gauge beforehand. I think the verb "predict" is better, or something like "The group and the music industry were unsure how fans would receive the tour beforehand"?

Clayton quit drinking and sought sobriety - tautological, can just say "Clayton quit drinking altogether"

Otherwise good effort. Can't see any other issues prose and comprehensiveness-wise. Looking forward to supporting once minor quibbles addressed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

All these issues should be addressed. I've done additional tweaking to the lead, so if you could weigh in on those changes, as well, I'd appreciate it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a simpler word than "unequivocal" for the opening?
• Oceania ... it's Australasia unless Pacific Islands and Papua NG were involved. The infobox links "America" to "AmericaS", which is north and south America. But it was North America only, it seems from the table below. Is there a need to link any of those geographical items in the infobox? And in the table, Japan is listed as part of Oceania.
• "inside of / outside of"—please remove the redundant word. Tony (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

All these issues should be addressed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It says "she felt that". I think that should be 'she [thought/wrote/said] that.
• It says "1,200 short tons (1,089 tonnes) of equipment, 3 miles (4.8 km)". Precision is part art and part science, in this case I'd suggest matching significant figures to make it '1,200 short tons (1,100 t) of equipment, 3 miles (5 km)'.
• It says "one million watts" with a link to watt. The article already has lots of links, I think the link to watt is probably unnecessary.
• It says "he played records from inside of a Trabant". The term 'records' appears to suggest that he actually played vinyl discs, if that's the intended meaning then it's remarkable. If he simply played music using other media, perhaps it needs rewording. I think it should be 'inside a Trabant' rather than 'inside of a Trabant'.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

These issues should mostly be addressed. I see your point about significant figures, but I thought it was more important for encyclopedic purposes to give the exact measurements (or at least what the {{Convert}} gives), rather than approximations. Is there a policy on what kind of precision we should follow in articles? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.