World Science Festival has been a good article (see review) for a few months now, and it underwent a helpful peer review in October. I think it's ready for its FA candidacy. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comment Images are fine, and my first reaction is very positive. This is an event the nominator clearly cares about, and he wants to do a good job sharing his experience with the world. Personal involvement with the subject matter isn't in WP:FA?, but it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, and it makes a positive impression. Doing some copyediting now. Since there are around 1600 words, it's likely that someone might bring up comprehensiveness; others are much better at figuring out those questions than I am, and after I finish my copyediting, I'll sit back and watch the discussion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with copyediting. I've got to run, but I'll be back with general disclaimers after lunch. As always, feel free to revert anything. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and helpful copyediting! Markus Poessel (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (Note: I peer reviewed this article.) This article is a bit short, but I think it covers all of the aspects of the festival: history of, planning, event, and reception. The only thing that I can think to add is a history of science festivals and public demonstrations of science, a phenomenon which began during the eighteenth century but became extremely popular during the nineteenth century. However, I think that might be too far afield for the article and my interest is probably personal. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! As for the more general history of science festivals and public demonstrations: shouldn't that be a part of the more general lemma Science festival? Markus Poessel (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More concretely, if you have any good references for the history of science festivals, feel free to either put them somewhere on science festival or its talkpage, or if formatting them would be too time-consuming, to dump them on my own talk page. The science festival article is definitely also on my list of articles I want to improve, and any good reference helps, of course. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that science festival is going to have a "history" section of some sort, but I was wondering whether one or two sentences about the tradition of science festivals might be appropriate for this article. As for references, that would take me a while to track down. Could you leave me a note and I'll try to do some looking after finals? Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
All references need consistent last access dates.
Why are the publication dates in some references linked, but others not?
Some citation templates don't seem to have adjusted to the date linking deprecation thingy. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All references now have consistent access dates, using the Citation template (note that for newspaper articles with a definite publication date, access dates are not displayed – which is apparently deliberate and, I think, makes sense). Date linking: this wasn't a template error; the dates were explicitly linked. I'm pretty sure I didn't do this myself (didn't bother tracing the history, though); anyway, the dates are now unlinked. Thanks for your comments! Markus Poessel (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
The images are all aligned to the right which makes for a very dull layout. Could you alternate?
Helping out here; I only saw one image that could be alternated. Done.
The reception section is very short. Any other coverage you can mention? - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, and for helping out with the image alignment. I have now expendanded the reception section, giving more quotes, more references, and a new paragraph on online coverage. Markus Poessel (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Almost all of your web links are lacking last access dates. Also, the access dates should ideally be in the same format.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates now fixed using Citation template throughout.
Blogs that are part of the online coverage by news organizations are under editorial control, same as articles. I know that for a fact for the New York Times (I asked one of their reporters), and science writer friends tell me it's usual practice – anything that goes out under the news organization's label is checked. That would make the USA Today, Science Channel and New York Times blogs reliable sources by Wikipedia's usual standards, I believe.
I didn't know about the IMDb controversy before. Anyway, I have replaced that link with a link to the Guest Archive on the official website of the TV show in question.
The colbertnation.com link is to a video of Brian Greene's appearance on the Colbert Report on the date given, in which he and Stephen Colbert talk about the World Science Festival. That should be a reliable source for the statement that Brian Greene did indeed appear on the Colbert Report on the date given.
The citation in the first paragraph of "History and background" should be placed at the end of the paragraph, since it supports the entire paragraph.
I find myself wondering about more details of the festival's planning and organization. How was it organized? How did some of the more prominent events and figures become part of the festival? What were the hurdles faced in getting the event going or was it smooth sailing with broad support? Besides the founders, who were the principal figures in making the festival a reality and how did their role play out?
"Reception" seems fairly anemic. It mentions (uncited) that "coverage of festival events was overwhelmingly positive", yet only references a single source (the Times).
This is a nice article, but it yearns for some expansion to meet the comprehensiveness requirement. Vassyana (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments!
Citation in first paragraph of "History...": moved.
Details about planning and organization: I could write pages and pages of OR about this topic. Reliable sources are hard to come by. I'll give it some thought.
Reception: To be fair, the "single source" was an article summarizing the reaction of a number of different critics, but I see your point. I've expanded the section, given some more quotation, more references and reactions, and lots of references to online coverage (possibly too much?).
If you have any further specific information about what is missing re comprehensiveness, I'll do what I can. Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt and enthusiastic response! Would you mind if I dropped a line to a few science-minded editors and WikiProjects to see if they might be able to find additional sources about the genesis/organization/planning of the event? Vassyana (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more content about the organization and background: one paragraph about the major producers, which I had written for an earlier version, but never used, and some more information taken from the Scientific American interview with Brian Greene about the first organizational steps, and the general reaction of the people they asked for support. You are more than welcome to ask around for additional material, but I'm a bit pessimistic. I went through the festival's collection of press cuttings pretty thoroughly after the 2008 WSF was over. That said, there is some online material I didn't use, since I didn't consider it sufficiently reliable: The WSF press releases at http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/media-resources/ (no details about the organization, though), and an interview with Brian and Tracy which I made for the WSF website (online here, but I don't think it adds much detail beyond what's in the Scientific American Interview). Thanks for your help! Markus Poessel (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given the mild expansion and general unavailability of further sources, I have stricken my remaining point. This article is well-written and meets all of the FA criteria. Vassyana (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. In any case, I will keep your comment in mind – it is possible that additional reliable source material will become available as the 2009 festival comes around; if it does, I will expand as per your initial comment. Markus Poessel (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured status because, guess what, I think it fits the bill, telling the story of the guy considered most responsible for the foundation - and the survival in its early years - of the Royal Australian Air Force. Currently rated A-Class on three projects, prior to which it had a peer review. Believe all comments from those reviews have been actioned. Since then I've added additional info but the basic format is unchanged. There is one red link in the article which will be gone when I've put the finishing touches on a new article in the next few days. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yes, our friends at the Defence/RAAF web site have made a few changes to things lately - updated the link now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:A04565Williams.jpg - Are you sure this image was taken before 1 January 1955? Could it have been taken during 1955?
Yes, it could have been taken during 1955, but then I think criterion E of PD-Australia would apply. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Richard Williams.jpg - I feel uneasy making any pronouncements about this image. It seems to me that the email correspondence would need to go through OTRS rather than just be posted here. I don't think we can accept "Wikipedia only" publication rights (see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission) and the fair use rationale here would not work, since there are free images of this person.
Yup, I actually held up nominating this article for FAC while I tried sorting this one, since I considered the image important enough to justify some effort. It was originally uploaded as PD but was undated and, looking at him, I thought it had to be more recent than 50 years ago. In fact, I suspect it was taken around 1971 as part of the RAAF's Jubilee celebrations, though neither the RAAF webmaster nor Defence Copyright have been able to date it for me. Therefore I asked permission to use it, as you see - I wasn't aware of WP:OTRS by the way. As far as the fair use thing goes, I wasn't entirely happy with it either, but then I think our policy here is a little odd. To me, logically, if you have permission to use an image, you shouldn't need a fair use assertion. Similarly, if you're making a legitimate fair use claim, you shouldn't need permission. However I decided to go ahead and do it according to other examples I've seen since, while I agree that there are free images of Williams, there are none at this stage of his life, with all his regalia, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me somewhere onsite where it says these sorts of permissions, which are limited to Wikipedia, are acceptable? I was under the impression that we could not accept such permissions. I was also under the impression that we could not just post such permissions ourselves - I thought we had to have them verified through OTRS (otherwise we could just make them up). The fair use claim here is extremely weak, so let's just focus on sorting out the permission bit. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion, with link to an example, here. Any other advice on the best way to get this image compliant more than welcome, also happy to put the permission through OTRS, if that's the next thing to do. That said, I don't intend to allow this one to hold up the FAC process so if we can't get a reasonably speedy resolution then I'll remove it and substitute something else - won't be as appropriate but will be PD - until or unless we can sort this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just getting a userpage. I really would suggest OTRS. That seems the safest route to me. Awadewit (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've checked with someone more knowledgeable than myself. Apparently, OTRS won't make a difference here. Since the fair use rationale can't be supported (there are free images of this person available), we need to delete the image. Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I agree fair use doesn't logically apply here because we have at least one decent PD portrait of the subject, I only included a FUR because the Wikipedia-only permission I obtained apparently requires it. If I felt fair use was justified, I wouldn't have bothered obtaining permission. Similarly, the permission should logically negate the need for a fair use claim. Anyway, I don't want this to bog down the FAC, it appears you're saying that only a free release would satisfy the permission requirement so I'll pursue that with the owner and in the meantime will remove this image from the article and substitute another PD image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this since it has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the AWM images have little logos and website addresses along the bottom of the images. I would suggest removing these from the images.
Those watermarks don't really fuss me but I'm happy to remove; I know we've done that for other AWM images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to admit I'm not too keen on adding it, mainly because I can hardly read the source...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I was thinking the same thing ... I gave up on trying to read it! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon establishment of the Australian Air Board on 9 November 1920, Williams and his fellow AAC officers dropped their army ranks in favour of those based on the Royal Air Force, which had come into being two years earlier." - this sentence is slightly confusing, as in a way it implies the RAF was established in 1918 or the ranks were. I know the RAF was established in 1918, but was not their ranking system developed in 1919 or 1920? If so, this needs to be clarified.
I might just drop "which had come into being two years earlier" to keep it simple. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Williams spent much of 1923 in England, attending the British Army Staff College in Camberley and RAF Staff College, Andover, followed by further study in Canada and the United States the following year. Goble acted as Chief of the Air Staff in his absence." - Wasn't Goble appointed CAS during this time, not just acting?
I suspect I used "acted" because I'd run out of similar words in the vicinity but will look at something else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This meets all the criteria. On the topic of the disputed image, I discussed this with Ian when he first contacted the RAAF for permission to use it, and don't see any problem with including it. The RAAF has granted permission for its use and it adds value to the article by showing Williams in the uniform of a senior and highly decorated officer. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The permission granted by the RAAF is inadequate - they must grant a GFDL or CC license of some sort and one of these must be granted through OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs, please fix the dab links identified in the dabfinder in the tool box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-nomination, as I wrote the bulk of this article. It has since been subjected to the helpful comments and improvements of a Good Article reviewer and two peer reviewers, and I now submit it for consideration here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Just wanted to point out a few minor MOS issues I noticed in a quick look at the article:
Please use endashes, rather than hyphens, in page ranges.
Emdashes should be unspaced; alternatively, you could use spaced endashes for this purpose.
For the citations to online sources, you can achieve 'month day year' dates (as you have used in the article text) by using the accessmonthday= and accessyear= parameters instead of accessdate=.
I'll try to get back to read the article soon. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All above issues have been addressed; thank you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:HerbertGreenfield.jpg - The author for this image is listed as "Provincial Archives of Alberta" - is that accurate? It seems more like the photographer would be "unknown". Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch; that's the only picture in the article that I didn't upload myself, and I missed that when going over it. Fixed now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)
Not sure I catch what "otherwise" refers to there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me copy-pasting from something else (grins) You're good, don't worry. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great job. No concerns. --maclean 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article does a good job of setting Greenfield in context - though I didn't know anything about him or this period of Canadian history, I had no trouble following the biography. The quotes from the newspapers were particularly well-chosen - they added a nice 1920s flavor to the article. The article seemed to cover all major areas of this person's life and career, its sources are reliable, its prose is excellent, and its images are helpful.
This website indicates that the source is reprinted from another publication. We need to include the original publication information, as that is what determines the source's reliability. It looks reliable to me from the information here. We just need to provide that information to the reader. The citation in the footnote also needs an access date.
Thanks for all of your hard work in researching and writing this article! Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your kind comments. I believe I've addressed your concern. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information about the book that needs to be added to the note: author (D. Blake McDougall), publication location (Edmonton), date (1991). The note should say something about it being republished on the website. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments I said I'd get back here eventually! This is in good shape. Just a few minor quibbles:
"He was elected to the organization's executive in 1919 and chaired its mass conventions in 1920 and 1921" - elected to the organization's executive? I can't tell if there is a missing word here, or if this is a turn of phrase I've not run across before.
"Once the legislature convened in 1922, the inexperience of the Premier and his caucus were further laid bare." - subject-verb disagreement
"While Greenfield had hardly been the driving force behind the increases, he had facilitated them and had been blind to the impression made by paying MLAs more for six afternoons of work than some farmers were able to earn in a year." - I had to read this twice to parse it properly; 'blind to the impression made by' is tough reading. Perhaps 'blind to the implications of'?
"Reid impressed on the cabinet the need for drastic economy in all departments and, by 1925 (the last year of Greenfield's Premiership) the government at last showed a surplus, a state that would persist until the beginning of the Great Depression (with the exception of a small deficit in 1927)." - a comma directly after a conjunction only makes sense when used with another comma to set off a phrase. Not sure if you meant it that way—'and, by 1925 (the last...Premiership), the...'—or if you meant it to join before the conjunction: 'departments, and by 1925...'. Prefer the former.
An accessdate is needed for this online source:"The Honourable Herbert Greenfield, 1921–1925". Alberta Online Encyclopedia. Heritage Community Foundation.
Thanks for an interesting read. Maralia (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've fixed your second, fourth, and fifth points exactly as you suggested. I tried a different solution to your third point, as I don't think "implications" quite captures the intended meaning (I originally had "optics", but the GA reviewer took issue with that); see what you think. I haven't done anything with your first point because I don't see the problem: even adjusting for false positives, there are more than "elected+to+the+executive"+-committee+-branch&btnG=Search&meta= 62,000 Google hits for the phrase "elected to the executive". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changes noted, and I've switched to support. I'm still not entirely sold on 'elected to the executive'; this usage appears to be far from common—only 4 of the first 50 results in your search use the word in the sense you have here. The rest use 'executive' as an adjective: 'elected to the executive board/management/council', etc. Perhaps not surprisingly, 3 of the 4 supporting results are on Canadian sites. I'm not going to keep picking on a single phrase, but I hope you'll consider rephrasing for those of us who don't have the benefit of being Canadian :) Regardless, it's a testament to the excellent work you've done that I have only this small quibble. Well done, sir. Maralia (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation marks in my search seem to have broken the link. The search I made is as follows:
"elected to the executive" -committee -board
This search still yielded more than 62,000 hits, from an apparently geographically diverse set. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the third battle of the Texas Revolution, and one that wasn't supposed to be fought. The soldiers essentially ignored central command (a recurring theme in this war) and launched their own attack on a small Mexican "fort". I had to withdraw the last FAC due to real-life priorities and have since re-written much of the article. Both User:juliancolton and User:Jappalang provided a pre-FAC unofficial peer review. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my previous review and copyedit of the article. Good work. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well-written article about a battle that although small gave the Texians a strategic spot and contributed to the eventual driving out of the Mexicans from Texas. Events that lead up to the battle, during it, and after it are described, giving a comprehensive account. The only pity is an absence of photos of the battle site, but that is no obstruction for FA and can be easily changed (some kind soul pass by there and upload a free picture please). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GoliadRefugioSanPatricio Texas2.JPG - We need to include a reliable source for your map (we Wikipedians aren't professional cartographers, you know!). If you didn't copy it out of a book, but just made it with a online tool or something, we need to at least include mention of that online tool. Awadewit (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Awadewit, I didn't know to do that. The information has now been added. Karanacs (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice little article, and very interesting. Nice map, as well! Skinny87 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Links check out, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems pretty vital. I can't see (but maybe missed) any sourcing of either of the two names of this battle. Fundamental, I'd suggest. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This online source referenced in the article talks about the "Lipantitlán Expedition". Is that the same thing? --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spotted excess linking of "Texas Revolution". --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dweller. I have cited the names in the lead, and I have removed the extra linkage to Texas Revolution in the battle section (that leaves 1 instance of linking in the lead, 1 in the background section, 1 in the infobox, and 1 in the template). Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I opposed this article on the first go-round, because it appeared to be a small skirmish that didn't affect much. Whatever you did to change it, now it still seems to be a small skirmish, but the implications of it are much more impressive.
Is it me, or is the verb agreement off in this sentence? After reaching Matamoros, Rodriguez sent a letter to the town leaders, warning them that the Mexican army would return and encouraging them to repudiate the rebellion.
I think you should use this article as an example of the context issues in the FAC discussions about small articles. You might be sick of that, but this was an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded that sentence. Not sure if it's better than before, but shouldn't be worse After reaching Matamoros, Rodriguez sent a letter to the town leaders. The letter warned that the Mexican army would return and encouraged the people of San Patricio to repudiate the rebellion.Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Gloomy 19th-century German Romantic landscape painter. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Ceoilsláinte 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the perspective of knowing nothing about the subject)Fainitesbarley 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead - where you say "as Germany moved towards modernisation" - some idea of date here - eg late nineteenth century or whatever.
Where you link 'German romantics' and then 'landscape painter' immediately after, it gives the impression that it was the "german romantic landscape painter" movement. Is it possible to link landscape painter a little later?
Both fixed. Well spotted. Ceoilsláinte 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This On 21 January 1818, Friedrich married Caroline Bommer, then twenty-five years old and the daughter of a dyer from Dresden and a gentle, unassuming woman. suggests her Mother was the gentle, unassuming woman.
This, Human figures appear with increasing frequency in the paintings of this period, as Siegel believes as a reflection of the fact that "the importance of human life, particularly his family, now occupies his thoughts more and more, and his friends, his wife, and his townspeople appear as frequent subjects in his art." is a rather over complicated sentence. Something not quite right about the "as Seigal believes" bit.
There's a "Vaughan" at ref 61 which hasn't got a date.
Got both. I cut the "a gentle, unassuming" bit; not sure its relevant. Ceoilsláinte 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a compliment in those days. Probably reads as downtrodden now.
You mention the The Wreck of Hope—also known as The Polar Sea or Sea of Ice (1842)— in the text. The caption says The Sea of Ice, (The Wreck of the Hoffnung) but the information for the image says The Sea of Ice aka Polar Sea (mistakenly confused with The Wreck of Hope, The Wreck of the North Pole Expedition. At least one of these must be right but not all of them.
I took out The Wreck of the Hoffnung mention. Better? Ceoilsláinte 19:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confuse matters further, the owning museum calls it "Das Eismeer, um 1823/24 /The Arctic Sea" [6]. I thought "the Wreck of Hope" was a comment on it ot its meaning by Friedrich. Titles, let alone their translations, often shift, so several could be "right" Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean the description at jpg is wrong then? Or is this an ongoing controversy?
lol, the title seems to change from decade to decade...seems OK now....Modernist (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the self-portrait to the other side to get that "left/right" look?
Yeah, but its on the right because he is looking to the left. Otherwise he would be facing out of the page. Ceoilsláinte 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Unlike that one at the top where the eyes follow you all round the room (and out the door). Fainitesbarley 13:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ackcherlee I tried it on the left (without saving) and he still looks right at you. Fainitesbarley 20:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freaky. Anyway, thanks for the cmts and support. Anything else you spot, let us know. Ceoilsláinte 20:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images - Before I start checking all of the images, I think something has to be done about their arrangement. There are too many and the text is being sandwiched (see WP:MOS#Images) Yes, artists deserve more images, but in this case I would support a gallery instead. Please, do something! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> With heavy heart I cut two. As an interesting aside I have a source that says that [7] was a direct influence on Mary Shelley. Its a claim I find easy to believe. Ceoilsláinte 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does your source say if it influenced a specific work? Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly no, he was broadly talking about the revival of the (reinterpreted) Gothic aesthetic. But the imagery is strikingly similar to Shelley; tiny people overshadowed by monumental objects. I can email you a copy if you are interested (its a JSTOR article). Ceoilsláinte 20:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am, yes, and would appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Commons has no Magritte images, and I presume they know better than we do about his PD status, so this image should probably be removed or a fair-use rationale given. –Outriggr§ 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a basic one, and reduced the size of the image considerably. It would be nice if the article clarified exactly how the painting echoes motifs from Friedrich's work. Lithoderm (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am utterly unconvinced by this fair use rationale, I'm afraid. Why must we have this painting? Is there no free image of any of other work he influenced? What motifs are specifically in the work? Do we have to see them to understand them? We may want to have this image, but do we have to? (I really sympathize with wanting to include more art, being a former art history major, but I would rather Wikipedia not be sued!) Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Magritte has been removed. Ceoilsláinte 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully these will be easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing on the talk page various possibilities for illustating the "influence" section. Thanks for looking at the images. Ceoilsláinte 23:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see new images have been added to the article, as well as a gallery. When the image choices are stabilized, let me know, and I'll do the image check again. Awadewit (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best a hold. It hasn't been decided as the discussion on what to include threw up a larger discussion, and even List of works by Caspar David Friedrich. I'm not sure where the gallery stands wgt FAC, but I think it is now redundant given User:Remember's list. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support no deal-breakers left for mine. Commentsahaaa let's flog Ceoil's FAC mercilessly no, seriously, looks good. If I tweak anything and it changes meaning inadvertently, feel free to revert me. Some comments as I go: Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspar David was familiar with death from an early age, losing his mother, two sisters and a brother before he reached eighteen. - a little repetitive given the deaths are then repeated in the next few sentences. Might be good to try and meld with the following few. Not a deal breaker and I may have a look later.
Greifswald, Swedish Pomerania - can we say what/wewhre it is now? eg NE Germany or whatever. I am hopeless at history, I hate commas in place areas and like a nice folksy town x in region y etc.
the subtle atmospheric effects characteristic of Friedrich's maturity were rendered from memory. - not sure what 'maturity' means here. not literal? painting style in mature period?Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded as mid-period. Ceoilsláinte 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<nitpick> Friedrich's recognition as an artist began... - ack. Given we're aiming for brilliant prose, would maybe rewording using "profile", "status" or "reputation", say, "became established", "grew" or some combination thereof as as is it sounds a wee bit clunky </nitpick> Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. I have reworded for you pleasure ;). Thanks....Ceoilsláinte 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of his paintings were lost in the fire that destroyed Munich's Glass Palace (1931) and in the 1945 bombing of Dresden. - I am intrigued often at how much is lost during events such as these, is there any info on how many paintings and/or what was lost which could be added here? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that connection with Nazism metioned in lead but not discussed in article. Is there anything to expand on that to put in legacy section? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll flesh that out later tonight. Thanks for the ce. Ceoilsláinte 05:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, once done I think ye'r over the line in my book :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a supporting reference:[8] concerning the Monk by the Sea specifically. Lithoderm (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, one dab that needs fixing (see the toolbox), and I left a note to User:Brighterorange asking him to run his script to fix the endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dab; would be great if Brighterorange gets a chance to look over. Ceoilsláinte 03:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE NO INFOBOX AND HERE ARE FOUR SENTENCES THAT AREN'T CITED. [joke] Seriously, thank you Ceoil, and everyone else who has been involved in this article, for taking it all the way. –Outriggr§ 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job all - it's looking great...Modernist (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article looks brilliant from here. Kablammo (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer this as it is and have left it alone, but others are certainly welcome to change it if they like. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the phrase...that had never been painted in such a n intense and intended manner before...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to nit-pick, but the sentence feels a bit vague without some sort of modifying adjective. I don't have Johnston on hand; can we be more specific about what she means? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..."with such an emphasis," i.e. on the depiction of light? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..I can live with your changes Liz..Modernist (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dresden - First para, 2d sentence: “long forgotten” to “long-forgotten”?
Later life and death - Russian Royal Family”: “royal” vice “Royal”?
These are suggestions only; feel free to ignore, or strike yourself when addressed. Kablammo (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards support - This was a fascinating article to read, which covers the majors aspects of Friedrich - his life and his art. I did, however, feel that a few sections, particularly towards the end, could have been organized a bit better.
The last paragraph of the "Landscape" section is about sculpture and other non-landscapey things. Can we move this information somewhere more relevant?
Para moved to the bio section. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "Influence" seems ill-placed, as it is about Friedrich's character. Could this information be placed somewhere more appropriate?
Moved to "Later life and death". Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Influence" section feels a bit listy right now. I'm not sure I have much of a sense of what precisely Friedrich's influence was - "landscape" is a bit vague.
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ce Awadewit; there is discussion on the talk as how to arrange the final sections; for the moment we are stepping back to think it over; likely it will be redrafted and strenghtened over the weekend. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just drop a note on my talk page when you want me to reread the article and rereview the images. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do and thanks. There are a few outstanding issues yet, So a day or too. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? Images not cleared up yet ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All save Image:Shishkin na severe dikom1.jpg are tagged P-D. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support as soon as the image issues below are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments Lovely article - not a subject I'm particularly familiar with, but I keep bumping into him here and there. I've made a few comments on the talk page, which I'd be grateful for a response to. As a general reader, I arrived at the article interested in his influence by the ideas of the Sublime - it's perhaps a little light on that. Is there anything explicit linking him to influence from Schopenhauer, Kant, Burke etc? Seems his work was an exploration of their ideas. My other comment is simply why isn't Wanderer above the Sea of Fog not the second lead image - apart from the sea of ice its the one I recognise the most - with that image in the lead I'd get "Ah! that German romantic painter" rather than having to wait till I get to the gallery at the bottom. But these are niggles - fantastic work Ceoil. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joopers. To be honest what happened with the 2nd lead image is I tried to slip in one of my own personal favourites on the sly (with a minor edit summary, in an edit where I also pointlessly moved paras around, to confuse and muddy the waters, he he). But <sigh> I'm now being hammered about it on the talk, so yes we, or 'they', will change it. "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog" is a excellent suggestion though, and I'd say will likely the end result, as you can see its being hashed out on the talk page today. Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the "Sublime" could be a section of its own; I'm checking through my sources to see what I have to hand on it. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (part the second)
Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Shishkin na severe dikom1.jpg - Could you be ever so nice and fill out the information on this painting in English? Not everyone speaks my halting German. :)
Image:Caspar David Friedrich 073.jpg - We need an English description of this image as well as the name of the museum where it is currently held.
Just a few small details. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done (I think). Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much content. Too well-written. Obviously not FA material. An unhealthy lack of compliance with the blue flowerbox format in the reference section... there's this new thing called IMDB.com; you might try searching it. Also... what the heck? ... no "Friedrich in popular culture" section? What were you thinking? C'mon lads. Get with the program. Double dog Oppose. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 06:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that this article meets the featured article requirements. It has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that their information comes from some sort of (probably PD) database, but I was unable to find it duplicated anywhere. I added it only for a map link to show where the reef is, so not being an essential detail, I've removed it. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any way to spell out DANFS in the short notes?
Same answer as from the other FAC: I updated the {{cite DANFS}} template to allow for a "first" version of the short form and set the parameter in its first invocation. Can you take a look and see if that is satisfactory? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments — Good work overall. Some minor concerns:
While in another eastbound convoy in August 1918, USAT Montanan was torpedoed and sunk by U-90 some 500 nautical miles (900 km) west of Le Verdon-sur-Mer, France. - Remove "some".
Removed.
Provisions of the deal allowed that some of the nine installments could be converted into longer-term notes or mortgages. - "Allowed that" is slightly odd.
Changed to: "The deal had provisions that allowed some of the nine installments to be converted…"
On 2 December, The Washington Post reported on an incident involving Montanan. - Remove "on".
Removed.
The majority of the cargo was rice—from Japan, China, and California—which was destined for the United Kingdom to feed Indian troops then fighting in Europe. - Not sure "then" is needed.
Removed.
Montanan departed with her group on the morning of 17 June for Brest, France, steaming at an 11-knot (20 km/h) pace. - Needs a conversion to mph. There are a couple more of these farther down.
One reason I don't often put miles per hour conversions in addition to km/h conversions is that, using {{convert}} you get the weird double slash thing going, like this: 11-knot (20 km/h; 13 mph). Also, in the speeds discussed for this ship (as opposed to, say for a tropical storm or hurricane) knots end up being very close to mph and, in my opinion, do not add much understanding. However, if you think them necessary, I will add them in.
Not a big deal, but is there any info on the shipwreck after it sunk? For example, have any efforts been made to recover it or any part of it?
Nothing that I came across. Since it wasn't reported as carrying, say, gold, or something, I'm not sure anything it carried would be valuable enough to attempt a salvage, especially since the area where it might be as deep as 4,800 meters (15,700 ft).
I am nominating this article, the first of a short series dealing with the youthful Mozart. This one covers the family's Grand Tour of the European capitals, 1763–66. Mozart was seven when the tour began and ten when it ended, and it saw his development from an infant prodigy performer to an accomplished composer across a range of genre. Thanks to those who have assisted this article's progress thus far. "Mozart in Italy" comes next, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer reviewed this article and made the map of the tour, and find it meets all the FA criteria. I do have a few minor quibbles on rereading it.
Augsberg is a redirect - the article is "Augsburg" and that is the name I know the city by (and I imagine is the name most would know the city by). Is there any reason for using the alternate name?
The next extended stop was at Mainz, from which the family took a boat journey down the Main to Frankfurt, where several public concerts were given. Frankfurt is on the Main River upstream from Mainz, so should it be "journey up the Main"?
I do not always understand the MOS here, but it seems this is a complete sentence in a quote and the full stop / period should be inside the quotation marks: "Howbeit, neither mine host nor the postmaster are to be contented with kisses".[28]
Would it make sense to give translations of this Très mediocre – Un miserable italien detestable – Asini tutti – Un racleur (a scratcher) – Rotten.[69] in the footnote, perhaps?
Thank you for these comments. I have fixed the first three. With regard to the translations, with the exception of the "scratcher" my thought was that Leopold's meanings were pretty clear, even untranslated, and I didn't want to patronise readers by appearing to assume they wouldn't understand. However, if you think the footnote important, I'll add it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the other fixes. I do not speak French or Italian. I know tres is very. It took me a while to figure out tutti is all (from tutti frutti ice cream, then recalled it is also used in music). I am guessing Asini is something like ass(es). My guess is most people will have to guess, but I am fine with leaving this for others to weigh in on. Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please use the tutti example in my class? That is priceless. Using what we know to figure out what we don't. I'm still smiling. Awadewit (talk)
Sure, feel free. "All fruit" ice cream - yum yum. ;-) I guess my point is that while some will know right away, there may me be many who do not. Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the footnote translations in. I can't help feeling the insults have more bite in their original form, but please feel free to use them in any way you think appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are three Köchel catalogues on the web. By far the best is the Mozart Forum one, here, but this site appears to be run by a group of amateur enthusiasts on a kind of chatroom basis, so I imagined it would not pass muster. The other one also seems like the work of an amateur compiler. That left ClassicalNet, which is a commercial but professionally run site with a wide range of musical information. I can easily replace the web source with a printed one, but that would be less accessible to the reader. But what if I transfer ClassicalNet (or the Mozart Forum) to External links, and use a printed Köchel as the main source? Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that Classical.net was commercial, which makes it slightly more reliable (in my mind at least) but I think your solution is probably the best one, or you can double cite it. Do the printed for ultra-reliablity and the online for us lazy folks. Sorry this took a few, I'm still recovering from the show last weekend, I've picked up some sort of crud or something. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what you suggest and double-cited. Sorry about the crud - a plague on both your horses?? (ho ho ho) Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I helped copyedit this article a few days ago, and I found little to fault. I was especially impressed by the prose, which is clearly up to standards. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (Note: I peer reviewed this article.) It is so refreshing to have a classical music article! This is a comprehensive, well-researched, wonderfully written, and excellently illustrated article. Mozart had a riveting life and this taste of it is carefully and evocatively explained. I particularly like the quotations from the Mozarts themselves. Awadewit (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization of title - IMO 'Mozart family Grand Tour' (MfGT) needs to be changed to 'Mozart family grand tour' (Mfgt). The Grand Tour, as explained in that article, has a specific meaning. In the case of the Mozart family, they did a grand tour, not the Grand Tour. Regards. --Kleinzach 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in two minds about this. I agree the family did not do the cultural "Grand Tour" as described in the article of that name. On the other hand, my main sources use the capitalized form (Blom excepted). The family tour was a tremendously important event in Mozart's development. When I tried out the non-capitalized form as the title of this article, it looked wrong - the title had lost force, and the tour seemed minor and perfunctory. So while not arguing against your reasoning, my own preference would be to leave the capitals, in compliance with the main sources. I would be interested to have the views of others, however. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the majority of the sources use "Grand Tour" as discussed here and in the peer review, I am fine with the current title's capitalization, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources use the same capitalization rules as WP? (A print editor could probably opt for an unproblematic MFGT.) --Kleinzach 01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's follow the sources. Wikipedia's MOS is ever-changing anyway. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of MOS changing on article title capitalization. Following the sources on facts is fine. Following the sources on copyediting styles really isn't the way things are done here. --Kleinzach 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the matter is not that clear-cut. MOS says, in regard to the use of capitals in article or section titles, that the "normal rules of capitalization" apply. These rules owe a lot to custom and usage (Six Day War, FA Cup, etc) – it is not necessary to make the narrowest interpretation. The argument that the capitalized term Grand Tour has a specific meaning in relation to the cultural tour is OK when the words are used in isolation, but on Wikipedia we already have other qualified "grand tours", e.g. Grand Tour (cycling), Planetary Grand Tour, Corris Railway Grand Tour. The repeated reference in sources to the family's Grand Tour makes a case that this capitalization is normal. I don't know who is in a position to give a definitive ruling on this interpretation, nor do I think this is the most important aspect of the article, even though it seems to be causing the most discussion, but that's FAC for you, I suppose. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm pretty sure some of these spaced endashes are incorrect, but please verify with Tony1 or Dukeof Waltham. September 1765 – March 1766 is correct, but it should be Early stages (July–November 1763). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sandy, you are right. WP:MOS#Dashes is specific on this particular point, and I have altered the Early stages heading accordingly. I don't think there are other instances in the text, but am checking. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brian. It's weird that now they look inconsistent, but I guess that's correct according to the dash gurus! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns resolved, Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This article, taken as a whole, is very good. It is generally well-written and well-sourced. That said, this article uses far too many quotations. Quotes should be used sparingly for illustration and effect, not as a matter of course. Some examples (randomly selected):
It was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, however, who eventually became recognised among prodigies as the "benchmark of quality and early promise". (It could be simply stated that Mozart set the standard for prodigies of his era.)
Their musical education began "from the cradle", through the constant rehearsing and playing of Leopold and his fellow musicians. (It could be simply stated that their education started from an early age.)
Jane Glover says that "fired by having met J.C. Bach and heard his symphonies, [Wolfgang] decided to compose some of his own". (This quotation is not so distinctive that a simple paraphrase would fail to suffice.)
Hildesheimer likens this part of the tour to a travelling circus, comparing the Mozarts to a "family of acrobats". (This could be stated as-is without quotation marks.)
The use of quotations is rather excessive, detracting from the quality of the article, rather than being used for the benefit of the reader. This is not to say that all of the quotations in the article are bad, by any means. Some positive examples of quotation use in the article:
When Nannerl was seven her father began to teach her to play the harpsicord, with Wolfgang looking on; according to Nannerl's own account "the boy immediately showed his extraordinary, God-given talent. He often spent long periods at the clavier, picking out thirds, and his pleasure showed that they sounded good to him [...] When he was five years old he was composing little pieces which he would play to his father who would write them down".
Grimm was effusive about the development of both children; Nannerl, he wrote, "had the finest and most brilliant execution on the harpsichord", and: "no-one but her brother can rob her of supremacy".
The former quotes add nothing in particular to the article. The material could easily be served by standard paraphrasing. The latter quotes do well in adding a bit of color to the article and would not be well-served by paraphrasing. If I can help clarify the distinction between "good" and "bad" quotes, or my concern in general, please do not hesitate to let me know. This is a problem that should be relatively easy to address and it is my only significant concern with the article. If this is resolved, I would be pleased to support this otherwise fantastic article. Vassyana (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful to you for pointing this out. I hadn't realised the extent to which I was overusing quotations and/or quote marks, and I have to agree that the prose is improved by a little more discrimination.
I have dealt with those in your upper list, and a good many more besides; the article edit history will indicate what I have done. I have in the main kept as direct quotes the extracts from Leopold's letters, Nannerl's writings, the comments of contemporary observers such as Grimm, von Zinzendorf, Goethe etc., and extracts from notices and advertisements. Generally I have removed the quote marks from the cited comments of the biographers and music analysts, except where I think the comment has a particular bite, e.g. Zaslaw's remark quoed at the end of the Paris section. Otherwise I have either used paraphrases, or just dropped the quotes.
I believe I can justify the present level of quotation usage, but do let me know if you think there are other questionable instances. Also I would like to thank you for your generous comments about the article in general. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a positive response! Reviewing the article again, it is much improved and most of the remaining quotes stand out appropriately. For remaining quotes of concern: There are two in the first paragraph of "Musical" (not the Grimm quote). Otherwise, you seem to have addressed my concerns very well. Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed these last two. I've fixed them now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My only reservation, an excessive use of quotations, has been quickly and genially resolved. This is a very well-written and well-sourced article that more than satisfies the FA criteria. Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
AfterfourpreviousFACs starting way back in May, I now present to you the final installment of the Myst series. This article has gone through a decent peer review and I believe it now meets comprehensiveness criteria. There was some concern about non-Myst players understanding it, so non-initiated reviewers can check and see if it makes sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question. When you mentioned that they couldn't get backing for a new project but then found it again, did this project see release as of yet? bibliomaniac15 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Their latest news[12] has not mentioned the project by name (still Myst stuff). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would do you well to mention that, because it got me wondering. bibliomaniac15 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, the game was judged a fitting end to the series,[37][27][38][31] and in combination with the other games in the series sold more than 12 million copies by November 2007." (also mentioned in lead). This number might be skewed by massive sales of earlier games in the series. Is there any way you could find out sales for this game specifically?
I'm not a fan of the word "eschews" which you have used multiple times. It's the kind of word that could throw off non-native speakers like me. - Mgm|(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've traded up 'eschew' with two different instances. As for the sales, unfortunately its the best number I have, and unfortunately it may or may not in fact include Myst V; it's referenced after Myst's release in 2007 but is also used as early as 2003 before the release of Uru: Ages Beyond Myst. I have sent inquiries to Cyan about this, but have yet to receive a reply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JustAdventure: According to its about, it has editorial policies and editors, and has been referenced in reliable print publications. It's an interview and is being used solely to source the interviewee's comments, not any content by the site's authors.
CreateDigitalMusic: Run by Peter Kirn, whose workshops and books qualify him under WP:SPS. (also an interview, but whatever.)
AdventureGamers has an editor, editorial oversight and hired staff, and is considered a trusted reviewer by aggregate sites including Game Rankings and Metacritic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Too bad an exact sales number can't be determined, but if that's the case, it shouldn't stop the article from being featured. - Mgm|(talk) 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs, pls check the dabs in the dabfinder in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article looks very good, with a large amount of development information for a video game article. As I see nothing that would need further improvement, I give it my full support. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per Wohltemperierte's statements of reliability of the sources and the general quality and standards of the article. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign!) 10:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Guyinblack25
An interesting read, the Myst games look like fun. However, there were a few issues in the article which stood out to me that I think should be addressed.
The lead
I think this part is confusing to a layman. I had to reread it a couple times and I'm still not sure about it. "...trades pre-rendered environments with set paths for travel..." I assume this means pre-rendered backgrounds were switched out for 3D environments?
Gameplay
I think mentioning the game uses 3D environments here too would help understand the movement dsecriptions
The flow of the navigation mode descriptions seemed off to me, and I had to reread it to understand what was being described. However, this may be more a difference in our writing styles than a readability issue.
Plot
"Linking book" looked wrong when I first read it. But when I saw it in used the same way in later sentences it made sense. Are they called "linking books" in the game? If so, it may be good to put them in quotes the first time it's mentioned. "...a writer of special books ('linking books') which serve as portals..."
Development
There seem to be a number of quotes in this section, and I think some of them break the flow. I would paraphrase some of them.
"Special contraption"? It seemed to me that the captured video would not require anything outside of a normal video camera. What did this special contraption do beyond record video? If the information is not available, it may be best to leave out mention of the device and just state they videoed the voice actors.
The statement about the significant change seems out of place at the end, especially after following info about their E3 unveiling. Such a decision sounds like it would be made well before audio syncing, which occurred before E3. That's just my assumption though. Plus two sentences seems awfully short for a paragraph. Maybe add it to the third paragraph about accessibility.
Audio
See above about the quotes.
The last part of the list of equipment used sounds off to me. Is it stating the four different computers used to create the score were at his home and Cyan, or are those four in addition to first four?
"For the game to ship" sounds a bit like jargon. Maybe try "for the game's release"?
The info about the music awards seems more suited for the "Reception" section.
Release
The statement about being Turner's first game-related documentary looks like it would be better connected with either a semicolon or emdash.
There are two consecutive statements that use ref 30. Wouldn't it be better to use a single citation for the two?
Reception
The mention of the Metacritic and Game Rankings score in the prose seems redundant with those in the review table. I would remove the prose, but still use the citations to cite the first sentence.
I'd definitely paraphrase the quotes here. Quoting a specific word or adjective/adverb phrase is fine though.
References and links
The use of the interviews seems acceptable in my opinion. JustAdventure is borderline, but within reason.
Adventure Games editorial policies doesn't give too much information. However, the Adventure Gamers article gives links to several game box images on MobyGames with quotes from them: [13],[14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Some of which also include quotes from JustAdventure. I'm still on the fence about this source. Can you provide any other information about them.
What makes MYSTerium a suitable external link? I believe fansites are generally discouraged.
Overall, the article is good, but not quite Featured quality yet. I'll check back in later. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25talk 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, I think I've taken care of almost everything. I've removed some of the quotes throughout and paraphrased. For Adventure Gamers, I emailed them and they responded that yes, they do fact checking with two editors in addition to the expectation that authors will fact check. Aside from that, they've been around for ten years, maybe that counts for something. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's shaping up nicely, I did a sweep of minor changes here and there too. Here are the remaining issues I noticed.
Citations
The first paragraph in "Gameplay" has three citations split among the navigation descriptions. Wouldn't it be better to use a single citation for the two?
Same thing with the last paragraph
Again, the first paragraph in "Release" has two consecutive sentences which use the same ref.
The music equipment is still not clear to me. Were a total of eight computers used or only four?
The thing that makes me uneasy about the Adventure Gamer ref is that it is being used to source development content. I did a google book search and am a bit more convinced now. Though, if you stumble across a better source I'd suggest switching it out as who knows if it will satisfy reliability requirements in the future.
Is there a reason (G.A.N.G.) is included in the prose? It seems unnecessary since the acronym is not used in the article at all.
It's looking much better now David. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25talk 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I did all the above. The reason I used the Adventure Gamer ref for the closure info is that while other publications hinted at a connection between the commercial disappointment of Uru: Ages Beyond Myst and the company's closure, only the AG ref explicitly made the connection. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: The article has certainly shaped up and is of good quality, but a few minor issues remain in the back of my head (better sales info and a borderline source). Though, I don't think those warrant opposition or withholding support. Plus my knowledge of computer game sources is limited. My main concerns have been addressed and the article is well written, informative, and the rest of the sources look fine. Good job David. (Guyinblack25talk 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all the criteria for it to become a FA. It is well cited. The article has been through a detailed PR by User:Ruhrfisch, User:Sundar, User:Michael Devore, User:Moni3 and User:Taxman. Image issues have been cleared by User:Elcobbola. The article has been copy edited by User:Michael Devore. The article covers an important epoch in the development of Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the dab links in the tool box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Hi are you sure that "translation of the Sanskrit writing Kalyanakaraka by Pujyapada is the earliest writing on medicine prescribing an entirely vegetarian and non-alcoholic diet" I though that Pythagoreanism#Pythagorean vegetarianism was earlier. If it was an ancient Sanskrit document could we have an indication of its age in the article? Thanks, ϢereSpielChequers 22:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a wording issue, which I did not catch earlier. Karnataka Kalyanakaraka (1150) is the earliest writing on medicine in the Kannada language and was a translation of the Sanskrit writing Kalyanakaraka by Pujyapada. I am not sure about the dating of the original writing, though I am sure I can dig it up. Thanks for the catch.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, nicely fixed, dating of the sanskrit would be redundant to this article. Do you have any info on the numbers of people involved in this? I'm assuming that this is prior to the printing press so unless this literature was also transmitted orally the circulation would be quite low. But if you have any indication as to what proportion of the society was literate and how widely this literature was circulated at the time it would be worth adding to the article - unless I missed something it left me wondering whether this was a court phenomenon or something much wider. ϢereSpielChequers 08:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The printing press came in the 19th century, so the transmission of knowledge to the common masses must have been mostly orally, untill the proliferation of paper (whose technology may have came from China) around the 14th century. Famous writings were however often copied by royal scribes for use/education in the various divisions (Vishaya) of the kingdom, on palm leaves in the early ages and later on paper. Scholars opine that Sanskrit writings by bilingual poets are more likely to be extant than their Kannada writings because of their "wider readership". So copies were being made. I dont have an idea what percentage were literate, though from my various readings it becomes clear that the upper caste Brahmins and many Kshatriyas communities considerd equal to the Brahmins, and some rich merchant classes had access to Gurukula type of higher education (in secular subjects). Lower level education (in secular subjects) and education in the native language (Kannada in this case) would certianly have been available to the masses. This is clear from the availability of hundreds of bilingual inscriptions (popular before 10th century), where info about royal geneology, accomplishments and such would be in Sanskrit but the actual land deed contract and tax/obligation info would be in Kannada. After 10th century, the local language became more prominent in all spheres. Over the period of medieval India, one often sees variations, some communities received formal higher education and some others falling of the priority list, though Brahmins remained a "constant".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support More examples, and perhaps some quotes, might improve the article, but it is well written & seem to cover the large subject well. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very interesting read, very well written and referenced. I particularly appreciate your efforts in traveling across the state to obtain some of the images to complement the text in the article. Great job! Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What breadth! These are the truly difficult articles to write on Wikipedia. Describing hundreds of years of literature! I'm impressed. I know very little about Indian literature, so I can't speak to the article's comprehensiveness, but I did feel that a good balance was struck between historical context and the descriptions of the literature. I felt that I was at least beginning to grasp why different groups of writers were addressing particular social issues at particular moments in time. The article also does a nice job of painting different literary movements in broad strokes (as well as presenting varying interpretations of them) and then detailing individual writers within those movements. Here are my small suggestions for improvement:
The dramatic effect given to the writing, the powerful language, the diction and the style maintained throughout the narration has earned Ranna a place among the immortals of Kannada literature. - Perhaps this is a little too much praise?
Brahmashiva portrays contemporary life and beliefs of the people of the Kannada-speaking region and criticises Hinduism, the conversion of a Jain temple originally dedicated to the Tirthankar Chandrapraba in Kholapur into a Hindu temple deifying the goddess Mahalakshmi and the existence of religious cosmopolitanism within a household where family members followed multiple faiths. - I think this sentence needs to be broken up into two sentences. I hesitated to do it myself, however.
Karnaparya's account of the life of the 22nd tirthankar Neminatha, the Neminathapurana (c. 1145) in champu metre, includes details of the Hindu epic Mahabharata and of the god Krishna from a Jain outlook.[98] Jagaddala Somanatha's Karnataka Kalyanakaraka (1150), a translation of the Sanskrit writing Kalyanakaraka by Pujyapada, is the earliest writing on medicine in Kannada. It prescribes an entirely vegetarian and non-alcoholic diet. - Why is this in the "Consolidation of grammar" section?
DK Only because of the time period it was written. I can move it up one sub-section if you so desire.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be better, yes. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering how much the list of "Other poets" helps readers. Will these names someday be linked and have articles? If so, perhaps the list is helpful. If not, I would suggest pruning the list.
DK Pruned a bit. Yes, I hope someday, I find time to write about each one of them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod above that some quotations would benefit the article - it seems a shame to have an article about literature and not quote any of that literature. What do you think of adding either a few quotations in the text or perhaps a quote box or two?
DK Would you like me to quote one poem (three liner or so) for each of the three great Vachana poets (Basavanna, Allama Prabhu and Akkamadevi). There is no shortage of their published poems.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds excellent. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Done. I have added one poem per poet.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated article. I have learned more from reading this article than almost any other FAC I have read - thank you! Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image:Basava statue.jpg - This is the source of the cropped image of the statue in the article. We need to know that the uploader created it - some sort of declaration such as "selfmade" or "I took this photo". Could you leave a message for the uploader and ask him to clarify this? Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Switched to uncropped image which has original uploader's name.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We still need a statement from the uploader that says "selfmade" or "I took this photo". Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK I have removed the image. Looking around for the right one.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of all your concerns. Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
As one of those video games that is more often considered a work of art than a game, Ico was developed specifically around immersing the player into this story that has maybe less than 20-30 lines of dialog, including nonsensical text, yet is considered one of the more emotionally-moving games of all time, despite selling poorly worldwide.
There is one source Kikizo that may be of questionable reliability but is providing an interview with the game's designer. MASEM 10:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Kikizo link ,as noted, is an interview with the developer. The site itself, I don't have any strong assurance as a RS for general news, but the interview would be legit. The Interactive Awards link moved (again!) but is fixed. The Boy Choir/Soloist Directory link is working - as for being an RS, it would likely be the equivalent of IMDB: it is semi-self-published to the extent that entries appear to be monitored but would not base a whole article on it. The only reason it is being used here is to identify the singer that is identified singing that track, and that's the most reliable site that I can find to make that link. --MASEM 15:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have two problems with interviews, one they are really primary sources, even when interpreted through a reporter, and in this case it's on a site we're not sure about the reliablity, so how do we know it's been presented without bias/error? The boysoloist site is likewise, marginal enough that I'm not sure that just eliminating the information wouldn't be better than having it from an unreliable site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was able to replace the kikizo with a 1up interview, so that should handle that one.
I'm at a loss what to do with the boysoloist one. I can get you reliable sources that say that a person named "Steven Gregerty" sang the last track, I can get reliable sources that connect a "Steven Gregerty" to Libera, but there no significantly reliable source that connects that they are the same Steven Gregerty - every blog and self-pub source gives this connection. I could simply remove the info (it is certainly not critical) but leaving it out feels inappropriate. I'll keep looking to see if I can find anything. --MASEM 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, for the time being, I have removed the reference to Libera, since I cannot satisfactorily make that connection without a source more reliable than boysoloist.com; I still mention his name (that's liner notes) but leave the connection to the reader, or until such time I can find something better. (I'm digging as best i can at archive.org and japanese translations) --MASEM 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that: I just found a reliable source, from music store HMV though in Japanese. I've got it reffed but I am looking to get an accurate quote from it (Google gives me enough to know it's the right statement, just not in proper english to use here). --MASEM 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded appropriately. --MASEM 16:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't understand the plot as it is described in the lead:
"The titular protagonist, Ico, is a young boy with horns who is locked away in an abandoned fortress near his village. Ico encounters Yorda during his explorations, the daughter of the Queen who plans to use Yorda's body to extend her own lifespan. Ico seeks to escape the castle with Yorda to prevent this fate from occurring,"
If he is locked away in an abandoned fortress, how can he explore? And how does he get to the castle?
Not trying to be hard on you! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded this part in the lead. (To go into how he was actually in a sacraphagus and then got freed would be too heavy for the lead - it's important just that he is placed in this fortress that he tries to escape from. --MASEM 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The thing that irks me is the audio section. Can you get rid of that infobox (put any information in it in the prose), as its better suited to a separate and individual article dealing with a soundtrack, not a subsection in this article. I'd also like to see the {{tracklist}} template collapsible. Combined, these two things make for fairly horrible presentation in that particular area of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took the infobox out and put the details in the body. As for the tracklist, which uses {{tracklist}}, there is no option to allow it to start expanded while allowing it to be collapsed. Since having things start collapsed is not appropriate for an FAC, I'd rather make sure it is all shown at the start. (That said, maybe the tracklist template can be changed to add this). --MASEM 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I support. -- Sabre (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boysoloist appears to be a site that allows visitors to add information and I have no idea how much proofing they do. Surely you can use another more reliable source to confirm his work on this soundtrack? - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can go to the liner notes of the album and get the name - that's not the issue (though I'm sure I can find a source that also states this) The problem is that they just present the name - the Boysoloist source is used to connect him to the choir he was in (and I scoured that choir's page and found nothing of use either); otherwise the name is just a name and means little. As I note, I did look around the boysoloist site and they do have some moderation, a source in the same manner (but without the same visitor rate) as IMDB. --MASEM 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Originally planned for the PlayStation in 1997, Ico took approximately four years to develop."- this doesn't really make sense. If it was planned for 1997, it must have been in production before then, right? So it wouldn't be four years to develop it.
If it's the titular protagonist, you really don't need to mention his name again.
"The game introduced" to keep clear, use Ico again as its the beginning of a new paragraph?
"... it was critically acclaimed for these elements and received awards" - it was critically acclaimed for its bloom lighting? That doesn't seem to be the main thrust of reception. Likewise, "received awards" is generic and incredibly boring. Can you give some specifics?
"in conjunction with the release of Shadow of the Colossus, the spiritual successor to Ico, developed by the same team." I know its only implied by the spiritual successor bit and not explicitly stated, but the 'developed by the same team' is awkward in the construction and in my opinion unnecessary.
Plot
"the souls of the other horned children sacrificed to the fortress" what other horned children? As they haven't been mentioned before, axe the "the" before 'other'.
"Ico finds he cannot be harmed by the shadows, but neither can he defeat the shadows completely with his simple weapons, though he is able to defend Yorda by driving them away." Awkward, try 'Though Ico cannot be harmed by the shadows and is able to drive them away from Yorda, he finds he cannot defeat the enemies with his simple weapons' or similar.
"Yorda that, as her daughter, she cannot leave the castle." Any real reason for the pause created by the commas?
"The Queen's spell on Yorda is broken, although now Yorda is a creature of shadow, and she carries Ico safely out of castle and onto a boat, sending him adrift to the nearby shore and choosing not to accompany him. Ico awakes to find the castle in ruins, and that Yorda, in her human form, has washed up beside him." bad. Try "The Queen's spell on Yorda is broken, and as a shadow creature Yorda carries Ico safely out of the castle and onto a boat, sending him drift to the nearby shore..."
Gameplay
Perhaps you should preface the section with what kind of game it is?
"The player is able to tell Yorda to follow him, or to wait at a spot, as well as make Ico take Yorda's hand and pull her along at a faster pace across the environment." Cut down on redundancies? "The player is able to tell Yorda to follow him or wait at a spot. Ico can take Yorda's hand and..." Also, I'm not sure about the player-Ico usage; while I understand there's a difference between saying the player can do this and Ico does that, you can't mix the references such as "the player is able to tell Yorda to follow him".
"shadow creatures from the Queen" sent by the Queen, perhaps?
Should vortex be linked?
"will also need to" this "need to" seems like unnecessary extra fluff.
"both Ico and Yorda" -less both as redundancy
Development
"and no heads-up display elements" this is awkward, rephrase? Also, its head-up display
"a connection between two characters" what kind of connection.
"] Ico's design aesthetics were guided by three key notions: to make a game that would be different from others in the genre; that would feature an aesthetic style that would be consistently artistic; and that would play out in an imaginary yet realistic setting." This construction doesn't make must sense; "that would feature" doesn't connect to "three key notions"; also, if you're listing, commas are more appropriate than semicolons.
""subtracting design"" doesn't need to be put in quotes after the first use; you've defined the term, let it be used.
"After two years of development in 1999" In 1999 only muddles the sentence and offers confusion (two years in one year?). Just remove it. Readers can count.
"faced a critical decision"- wouldn't it make more sense if the decision had only two options? Perhaps subbing 'choice' in would make it more expected.
"The team" - who? Why couldn't they provide it in time?
", except France," more commas not really needed. Just say "save France" and save the pause?
"In the North American and PAL releases, Ico and the Queen's words are given in English sub-titles, and in the Japanese release Japanese subtitles, but Yorda's speech is presented in a symbolic language." So there's subtitles to the subtitles in the Japanese version? Unclear.
"Ico's audio featured a minimal amount of music and sound effects." - not loving the continued us of minimal, try synonyms (limited, et al)?
"The album was produced by VORN" - VORN?
Reception and legacy
"The lack of features in the North American release, which would become unlocked on subsequent playthroughs after completing the game, is said to reduce the replay value of the title." - I think considering this is past reception, that it should be formatted in past tense: "the lack of features was said to reduce", et al throughout.
Do you really need a subsection for one paragraph of awards?
"gaming press" redundant with gaming previous, say 'video game press' to reduce?
"In 2004, a" Revise to cut out passive voice: "A novelization blah blah blah in 2004."
Half-Life series → Half-Life series
If Shadow is a prequel, why is this section called 'Sequel'?
"Team ICO is presently working on a game for the PlayStation 3 since at least early 2008, though no details have emerged on its name, the type of game, or what connections, if any, there are to Ico and Shadow of the Colossus.[43][44]" Run on sentence
Just respond to everything in a block below this so I don't have to hunt for your comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above should be taken care off. The only one I left was the Awards paragraph, simply because, since I've called out the Awards in the lede, taking out the section title won't allow people to jump to that right away. --MASEM 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and performed a copyedit, removing redundancies and overlinking. I also changed 'Sequels' to Sequel, as it's not been confirmed whether their new game is in fact part of the series. Regardless, as my issues have been taken care of and I see no new ones, I'll support. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am familiar with this article, having done a little copy editing. I commend it for being interesting, enlightening, clearly presented, and accessible to the non game player (me). I appreciate the copy edits and suggestions made by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs which improved the article and provided the finishing touches. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes, per WP:FN, footnotes after punctuation, please :-) Also, for future reference, somewhere in MoS discussions, Tony1 recommends avoiding the user of "#" in prose (OK in tables). So, for example:
IGN ranked the game at #18 in 2005, and at #57 in 2007.
would be
IGN ranked the game at No. 18 in 2005, and at No. 57 in 2007.
Also, please work over time at standardizing the date formats in the citations (they're all over the map). I realize the citation templates are constantly in flux, but it is doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spelled out #. All the full dates are ISO, but only the cite video game template (for ingame quotes) currently leaves the date up to autoformatting to complete...and there's a magazine one. Probably best to convert them int. format for all (gotta grab tony's script) and see about fixing the vg cite template to be consistent with the other cites - I will do in the next 24hrs but can't immediately. --MASEM 21:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that this article meets the featured article requirements. It has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I found this an excellently-written and very interesting article. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Footnote 5 links to an entry on Hopemoor, a British vessel. Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the one you want. Kablammo (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. Now fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sentence: "After a refit and loading cargo, Ohioan sailed for Saint-Nazaire, France,..." - Do you mean "After a refit and a load of cargo..."? or "...receiving a load of cargo"? Or is "loading cargo" one of those ship terms?
I changed it to "After a refit and taking on a load of cargo…" to make it more clear — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also: "Upon her return to the United States on 5 December, Ohioan was selected for conversion to a troop transport and transferred from the NOTS to the Cruiser and Transport Force.[6] Before she could begin returning troops, Ohioan had to undergo conversion from a cargo and animal ship." - Seems like this is somewhat redundant with the repetition of "conversion".
I reworded it to avoid the conversion-conversion usage. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article is very well written. I could only find the nit picks above, which do not prevent support. Everything else seems perfect. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. (My replies to each are interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Any way you can expand out DANFS in the short footnotes the first time you list it, so that folks know what it is later?
Will be happy to do, but not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean that note 6 should have "Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS)" rather than just "DANFS"? Or something else? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so that folks when they look at the short notes (the numbered ones) can figure out which bibiliography is meant. Probably just the first time DANFS is mentioned in the footnotes is fine to expand it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I updated the {{cite DANFS}} template to allow for a "first" version of the short form and set the parameter in its first invocation. Can you take a look and see if that is satisfactory? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Internal and external links check out. I made a few minor changes and alphabetized the categories; other than that everything looks very good. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that the different category arrangement matters a great deal to me, but is category alphabetization an MOS thing? I've always done categories in sort of a taxonomical/chronological order… — Bellhalla (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the only reason I do it is because on all the peer reviews I've had that PeerReviewer Bot says to alphabetize them; but I don't know where/if it's in the MoS. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, and I'm not 100% sure about this, shouldn't the lead have some footnotes? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary in the lead unless there is a controversial statement. In general, leads don't have to have footnotes. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't sure, but now I know something new. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make sense to me: "... so Ohioan's activities after the United States declared war on Germany in April 1917 are unknown. On 5 August 1918, the United States Navy acquired Ohioan from American-Hawaiian ...". Is the suggestion that the ship's activities between April 1917 and August 1918 are unknown? Or did the war end early for the US? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The activities between the declaration of war and the time the ship was taken into the U.S. Navy are unknown. Also, thank you for the copyedits you made, but I'm confused by one change you made. I thought poems were treated like short stories and quoted rather than italicized. Is that not right? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked. Seems to depend, bizarrely, on whether it's a long poem or a short poem. No idea how "long" or "short" are defined in this context though, or how long this particular poem is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a version of it in Google book, and it's 15 lines long, which I would put in the 'short' category, regardless of how one defines 'long' for a poem. (I also found that I had the name of the poem wrong: It's "In Tempest's Tavern" not "In Tempest Tavern". Now corrected.) — Bellhalla (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen lines does sound a little on the short side, I agree. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs, please repair the one dab link identified in the dab finder in the tool box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Another Aussie swimmer who I've never heard of. Would this be part of a featured topic drive involving 1956 Aussie swimming medalists in the Olympics, by chance? Either way, I'll take a look at it now.
Any more books with information on her? I notice that the same books have been used in all of the recent FACs from you. While they provide a good amount of details, additional references wouldn't hurt, if avaliable. If not, don't worry about it.
Early years: "with Crapp winning an individual gold medal." This is an example of the noun plus -ing structure, which I rarely catch here. How about "; Crapp won an individual gold medal."
National selection: "However, Morgan she was not regarded as a likely selection in the final team." Remove a word after However.
"She was six swimmers selected for the 4 x 100 m freestyle relay squad, the first time Australia had entered the event at Olympic level." The connection between the two parts of this statement is somewhat lacking. Try a variation of "the first from Australia to compete at Olympic level."
"Morgan was placed under substantial pressure by media comment that regarded her as the weak link in the relay team." Should it be comments? I don't have the book, so I can't say if there were more than one. But the grammar is off one way or the other.
I don't have time for any more at the moment, but I'll come back later to look at the rest. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done all this. No I don't have the intention of writing up all the 1956 Australian swimming medallists, I'm only finishing what I already have. Dawn Fraser, Lorraine CrappJon Henricks and Murray Rose would take a lot of work with their long careers, and in the case of Fraser, she became an outspoken politician and also commentator on sport. As for books, it seems that in the old days swimming was a very fringe sport and the only old swimmers that have biographies are very famous ones who won multiple golds like Rose, Fraser, Shane Gould, Frederick Lane, exceptions being Fanny Durack (first woman) and Boy Charlton (general national icon) and Frank Beaurepaire (won 34 national titles a stack of medals although none were gold and became a politician and millionaire tyre magnate (billions in modern currency) and organised the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne as the Lord Mayor). The rest are restricted to 3-4 pages in combined compilations of great Australian Olympians. In modern times, most individual gold medallists will have at least a minibook somewhere, but in this case Morgan only came 6th in the individual event. And in the old days we don't have Swiminfo to trawl through. Luckily, Morgan has been a borderline public figure in modern times as a Christian preacher, Olympic ambassador and Australia day ambassador so there are some bits cut out of websites about her later life. But those books are as good as we'll get for the swimming details. The Sydney Morning Herald doesn't have online archives yet...YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back to finish my review; sorry for the delay.
"With 25 m left, Morgan took her head out of the water—a cardinal sin—and seeing the American...". It's only a cardinal sin in swimming terms, not real life.
After swimming: "She then ran a swimming school at Bonnet Bay for 15 years and worked at the Bates Drive Special School and received a grant to teach preschool handicapped children swimming." A double and without a comma. Either break it up with a comma, or connect the two together differently.
That's all, at least from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under Guthrie's coaching, Morgan quickly became one of the quickest junior swimmers in the state, winning the under-14 110 yd and 55 yd freestyle as well as the 110 yd butterfly at the New South Wales Championships in 1956. - "Quickest" → "fastest".
Although her times were among the fastest in the country, Morgan's youth meant that she was not selected for the Olympic training squad. - This might be better as "Although her times were among the fastest in the country, Morgan's youth prevented selection for the Olympic training squad."
The team were expected to swim three times a day, totalling more than 16 kilometres. - Needs a unit conversion.
the Australian lead thus being cut to 0.9 s. = "The Australian lead was thus cut to 0.9 s".
Her chest problems remained when she returned to competition at the 1960 Australian Championships, coming third in the 220 yd and 440 yd freestyle and fifth in the 110 yd freestyle. - "Remained" → "persisted", "coming" → "placing".
Support. My issues were addressed. This was an interesting, well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments. I enjoyed this article. Just a few quick comments:[reply]
Does the first sentence really need to say that she was a swimmer "of the 1950s"; later in the sentence it mentions her win at the 1956 Olympics, so that should be implied.
"Marsh was given twice the number of lessons as the other students" - is this supposed to be "Morgan"? Why was she given twice the number of lessons? Because she was that bad or because she was pushing herself to improve more quickly than the others?
FA's don't need an image, but I'm highly surprised there is no free picture here. I would encourage checking around a bit on this (she seems to be in the public eye still, so a non-free is not appropriate). However, it's not a failure if one can't be found. --MASEM 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian copyright law allows PD prior to January 1955, when Morgan was 12.5 years old and not on the national scene. None of the fair use pictures pass NFCC8 - they just show what she looks like. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Is Nyngan Observer a newspaper? If so, should be in italics, and same for the Chronicle.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those missionary sources are only used to indicate that Morgan works with them. The second is the TV schedule of a Christian talk show. Also the chronicle article mentioned that Morgan was talking at a Seasons function. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the dabfinder in the tool box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - The pending source concerns account for the weak. Primary sources aren't the end of the world, but it would be better to cite media stories for her religious work, if possible. Also, is a media source avaliable for the government medal that she won, which is currently sourced to Christianityworks? Other than that, I think it passes the criteria and personally prefer it to the Faith Leech article, which is also at FAC. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the info from the Christian websites has been doubled up by other newspaper sources. The only thing that is exclusively referenced to a Christian website is the TV schedule that shows that Morgan partcipated on a chat show. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I started to re-write this article in October, and it passed an A-class review yesterday. It also went through a good article review, and was copyedited (although I didn't agree with everything that was done); the article also was copyedited during the two review processes. Since Third Battle of Kharkov is going slowly, I can handle two simultaneously. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all free (either taken by the military, taken by a user (the tank picture), or created by a user; licensing tags are present for all. No problems. --MASEM 00:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments—It seems decent overall; pretty close to FA-worthy.
Should the beligerents be in alphabetical order? Or is it by order of engagement?
An order of battle would be nice. There are no Qatar forces listed under the Strength. Should the strength box be reflective of the actual companies involved, rather than entire divisions? Wasn't 3rd Marine artillery involved? What about air units?
Armored is spelt "armoured" at one point. It should be made consistent.
Can the purpose of the table listing the AMX-30, V-150 and LAV-25 be explained? These vehicles are not listed in the text description in "Coalition forces", so the content seems irrelevant at that point. Perhaps a caption could be added, such as: "|+ '''Coalition armored vehicles in the Battle of Khafji'''".
"Soon thereafter, A-10 ground-attack aircraft arrived but found it difficult to pinpoint enemy targets and began dropping flares to illuminate the zone." Is this a single aircraft? If so, it is missing an article.
The lead states that, "its subsequent recapture by Saudi and Qatari ground forces provided a major morale boost for the Coalition." However, there is no mention of this or its military or political effects in the article.
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I put the listing of units that took part in the battle in alphabetical order. Unfortunately, my sources don't state which specific Qatari tank company took part; although, when I get back from work I will look again. I changed that specific instance of "armoured" (everything should be in American spelling). The purpose of the table was to provide background information on the relevant armored fighting vehicles which took place; during the A-class review it was suggested that I got rid of the tables. What do you think? I added titles to the tables, nevertheless. I also clarified the sentence about the A-10s and added "a number of". In regards to the lead, at the end of the article it's mentioned that the Saudi victory was a morale boost because the Saudi Army had successfully defended Saudi territory from a foreign invasion. Again, thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I changed my position to support. Good luck with your FAC.—RJH (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - some quick comments:
Is there any way to add an image next to the table in the "Coalition forces" section? That white space bothers me a bit, but it is really no big deal at all if it is not possible.
References look perfect to me, but I'll let Ealdgyth or Julian have the final say on that. —Ed17(Talk / Contribs) 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Moved the image of the map down, to cover part of that white space. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome...but thank you for an entertaining read. :) —Ed17(Talk / Contribs) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with small reservations. The article is very good, but I wish that there was information on the impact of the battle on the town. Since that information is not available, I am unwilling to oppose the FA nomination or delay a support. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments by karanacs. I found this an interesting, well-presented article, and I am close to supporting. There are a few minor MOS-y things that need to be fixed, but I am most concerned about the last bullet point below.[reply]
Dates are not presented consistently in the article. Most are in Day Month Year format, but some are in Month Day, Year. They need to be consistent.
"the United Nations began to pass a series of issues " - should this be resolutions instead of issues? I've never heard issues used in this way before (but feel free to prove my ignorance!)
Did the bulk of the damage to the Iraqi Air force really take place on the first day of the 38-day campaign?
Sentences that include a quotation should have a citation, even if that means the citation is duplicated in subsequent sentences (see background)
Make sure to use ndash instead of hyphen in page ranges
Is there any information on the consequences of the battle for the town itself? How much damage did the town infrastructure suffer? What impact did the battle have on the civilians who lived there?
Thanks for commenting! Here are my responses. I have fixed the dates that I didn't format the same (should be day and then month), and will continue to look through the text just in case I missed some. You're right, it should be resolutions, not issues (I double checked with the source), thank you! After the first day of the Coalition's air campaign there wasn't much of an Iraqi air force to talk about, and as the text mentions, a large portion of what had survived had fled over the Iranian border. I moved the citation directly behind the quote, as the next sentence was "double-referenced" anyways. Ndashes are used, but they are copy & pasted from Wikipedia's dash MoS page, as opposed to using the HTML code for it. And, unfortunately, I don't have information on damage to the city (I don't even have a picture of the city after the battle; I don't think damage would be too extensive, given that at this point collateral damage was probably fairly low, except for firefights with small arms and maybe some tank shots). Again, thank you for commenting! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes, the use of named refs again :-) If you need help learning how to review for repeat refs by putting them into an Excel spreadsheet, please let me know. Also, pls doublecheck Wikilinking, as I found a missing link in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Question: is she reclusive or the like to make it difficult to get a picture? If there's sufficient validity to that, it may be appropriate to use a non-free image in this case (particularly a photo of her olympic win). But if it's just the fact no one on the project has a picture of her of their own, then you're right, we don't break NFCC for purposes of FAC. --MASEM 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She has had cancer recently and probably doesn't want to be bothered. She no longer runs the jewelry shop and handed control to her son. A non-free image will require it to satisfy NFCC8, but in reality all it does is show what here face looks like. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
"as child" – "as a child"
Could you break up the lead paragraph into two or more to make it easier to read?
That's the first section. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
"she won gold in the 4 x 100 m freestyle relay and bronze in the 100 metres (m) freestyle event." Can the full spelling of metres be moved to the first use of the distance?
"She twice broke the Australian record in the 100 yardsd..."
I see fourteenth and 15 in the lead. Is this your cutoff?
International career: "This feat has only been equalled by the Americans in 1920 in Antwerp." With the 1920 link, try to make it clearer that the link goes to an Olympics page. Otherwise, readers may think that this is a normal date link.Giants2008 (17-14) 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — Some things I noticed from the first section:
The second child of Johnstone Melmore and Jessie Francis Leech,[2] Leech was born in the inland regional Victorian town of Bendigo. - As an American reader, where is Bendigo?
This achievement prompted her parents to rent an apartment in Melbourne, so that she could train with Froelich on a regular basis. - Remove "that".
The regular sessions bore fruit at the 1955 Victorian Championships; Leech won the open 110 yd and 220 yd freestyle in times of 1 min 7.2 s and 2 min 39.3 s respectively, setting state records in both events. - Is there a better term for "bore fruit"?
Leech trained once a day, swimming no more than three kilometres. - Needs a conversion.
Her long streamlined action prompted observers to call her a "flying fish". - Not sure "prompted" is the best choice of words. "Caused" or "led" might work.
Image review - I fixed the image tag and organized the image description - all is good now. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Awadewit and others point out, everything seems to be good now. If there are any other issues they can be brought up here, but the article looks great to me. It meets the requirements, has a enough sources, and is very informative. Job well done. Khoikhoi 08:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was only commenting on the image. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The story is interesting but the prose and structure doesn't do it justice. Examples:
Too many large paragraph blocks that could be broken down more by subject matter.
The article is still difficult to decipher. For example, the last part describing her wins at the Olympics does not stand out, especially her winning of the gold. I reread it a couple of times, and finally did a search for "gold". Then I discovered, buried in the lead, that she did win gold. Is this fact not is one of the highlights of the article, a major reason for her notability? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is at times awkward: "After conventional medicine had failed to rectify her daughter's dietary issues, Leech's mother put her on a fast for ten days at the recommendation of a naturopath. Leech was later put on a diet of fruit, salad and vegetables, with an emphasis on beetroot and carrot juice." - These two sentences repeat "put". Also, "After conventional medicine had failed to rectify her daughter's dietary issues..." seems unnecessarily stilted.
Seems overly wordy in places: "This achievement prompted her parents to rent an apartment in Melbourne, so she could train with Froelich on a regular basis. Leech moved to the city with her mother, while her father stayed in Bendigo to look after the family's jewellery business." - Perhaps these too sentences could be combined for efficient wording.
Would be improved by more variation in wording: "Leech's regimen differed from most swimmers because Froelich was not an advocate of distance training, and designed shorter workouts for his students. Leech trained once a day, swimming no more than 3 km (1.9 mi). Froelich did not push her to continue training when she felt tired. Froelich emphasised an efficient stroke mechanism, which Leech implemented with a long and graceful arm action." - These four sentences all start with the name of a person.
Perhaps this usage of the word is common word in Australia. I looked it up in dictionary.com and it was given as the last meaning of the word, so you are right. I have just not heard it used in that way. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use of stilted language: "was feted upon returning to her hometown" - I suggest a more contemporary word than "feted".
I guess this is a personal preference issue. To me, that is a word found in poetry, for example, but not really in contemporary use. Perhaps it is different in Australia. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wonder if there is a way to present some sense of Faith Leech's personality to liven up the article. The writing seems to me to be factual but remote. There is no sense of how she dealt with all these "issues" in her life. Perhaps some quotes from her would help, or some descriptions of how those close to her perceived her. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike today, sportspeople in the old days were not seen as stars, and were not profiled and interviewed a lot like they are today, especially, for sports which aren't mainstream ball sports that regular get 20,000+ spectators in a stadium each week. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why she discouraged her sons from being involved in competitive swimming? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interestng read, fast paced – just like the sport. An inspiration for the physically handicapped youth and a good lesson in "determination and training".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support by karanacs. The prose suggestions by Mattisse have helped polish this to a very well-written and interesting article. Two minor issues:
Isn't Bendigo Weekly a newspaper? It should be italicized in the references if so.
From what I can figure out, the template give the press release italics. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The changes you made have greatly improved the article and I feel good in supporting it. Thanks for being so responsive. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been a GA for awhile and now, after a peer review from Awadewit and the like and a lot of work from the gang at WikiProject Shakespeare has, in my opinion and others', reached FA level. (Members of the collaboration are invited to add their names under "Nominator(s)" above.) Wrad (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am delighted to co-nominate this article. AndyJones (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am similarly delighted to co-nominate this article. -Malkinann (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I helped very minorly with the prose but as usual the dream team of Andy and Wrad has polished this article to a point where there's not much to be cleaned up anymore. Great work, guys! —Ceran♦(Sing)(It's snowing in NJ already!) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wrad (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as PLMA.
Gosh, I don't even know what PMLA means. I've never heard it referred to as anything else. Can't we just use the common title? Wrad (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the actual name of the journal? Or is it just the shorthand, kinda like EHR is shorthand for English Historical Review? As a note, PMLA redirects to another article, use that? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the journal's homepage. It doesn't even say what it stands for (surprised me too!) So if they don't bother to tell us, should it matter to us? Wrad (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMLA says what it stands for here - I've changed the MLA's wiki page to say what it stands for, and spelled out the abbreviation in R&J - although if the journal is nearly always said as PMLA, that might be confusing too. -Malkinann (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm kind of torn here... Wrad (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is referred to as PMLA in conversation and in citations. Awadewit (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we're using that now. I changed it. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick look, the prose appears to be good. Tony(talk) 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images are spot-clean-free as a whistle with appropriate out-of-copyright PD tags for all. No problems. --MASEM 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another wonderful article by the Shakespeare crew! Wow! This article covers all major aspects of the play: its plot, its sources and dating, its interpretation, its reception and staging, and its adaptations. I'm so impressed! The research is impeccable and the writing is clear. The only tiny problem that I saw in rereading the article is that the "Sources" are not listed in a completely standard style - for example, some are missing publication locations, some have information on the series to which they belong in the wrong place, etc. If someone could go through all of the sources again and fix these small problems, that would be wonderful. I would do it myself, but I don't work with templates since they are the devil incarnate. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Publication locations fixed. I'm having trouble finding the series problem, though. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same question from me: if you can clarify the series problem, I'll be happy to try to fix it. AndyJones (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the "series" parameter to Gibbons and Levenson with related tweaks. Awadewit, does that deal with your point? AndyJones (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbons, Brian (1980). Romeo and Juliet, The Arden Shakespeare Second Series. London: Thomson Learning. ISBN 9781903436417. - I don't think Brian Gibbons wrote R&J. Shouldn't he be the editor? Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. First, thank you for taking the time to work on this important piece of literature!! I thought the writing was excellent, and overall this is a good and valuable article, but I don't think it is quite ready for FA status yet.
I do not like that the body of the article begins with a section that is essentially a list. I expected the character section to include only the major characters, and to provide a short description of the character and/or that character's importance in the work.
See discussion below your comments. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am lost as to where to reply, so here it is. I think this section is much, much better, but it needs an introductory sentence, something along the lines of "Romeo and Juliet depicts the interactions between three prominent families in Verona..." I also think that the "Others" bullet point needs to go away. The prose may also need a bit of work -- " He feels alienated by the feud between his family and the Capulets" -- alienated from what? Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I like your introductory sentence suggestion: I'll incorporate that and fix the alienation sentence. I'm at a bit of a loss to deal with your suggestion that we lose "others", though. Is it your view that we can cover the play's characters without dealing with Friar L? Or that we should pretend that he belongs to one of the households? If either of those then I disagree. What is your suggestion? AndyJones (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original list is back in the article. I find this a violation of 1a (the article body begins with a list that is not even in complete sentences, with no context given whatsoever) and 4 (the list duplicates some information discussed in other parts of the article and includes information that is overly detailed for this article). Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think that the Synopsis should begin with a quote from the play. To me, that is not very encyclopedic. I'd put the quote in a quote box and embed it further down the section.
Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The synopsis seems to miss a few details. It mentions that Romeo and Juliet don't know that their families are feuding, and then the next sentence Juliet is vowing her love despite Romeo being from a family that her family detests. It also doesn't specifically point out which is the famous balcony scene (a large oversight considering a picture caption points to this event). I also don't know why the nurse is mentioned. Yes, she is a character, but is it really important that we know in the short synopsis that Juliet was raised by a funny nurse?
Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Friar's name is spelled both Lawrence and Laurence in the article
Fixed with 'w' version. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not exactly correct - " Another reading introduced early in the century argued that the tragedy is allowed to occur as a just punishment upon the two families, who are reconciled by the experience" because in a previous paragraph the article mentions that this thought (that the tragedy is a punishment for feuding families) is first attributed to Nicolas Rowe in the 18th century.
Removed it. Not sure how that got duplicated. Good catch. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
subplot or sub-plot? Both are used in one paragraph, and the latest incident is wikilinked, not the first.
Fixed. Used hyphen. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Critical history section should probably be moved further down the article, into Context and interpretation or into themes and motifs
I can see why you would think this, but I disagree. I think it's valuable to preface any critical discussion with a short history of that discussion. This is how we did it in Hamlet. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image caption of the painting of Samuel Pepys should probably also include the details that he was the earliest critic
Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Romeo's reckless nature and the feuding families are briefly brought up in the critical history section, but never expanded on anywhere else in the article. Are these important themes that might need to be mentioned in greater detail?
Those are brought up as themes that were once popular among critics, but no longer are. We tried to reserve the greater detail for more current theories. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this ties into the fact that I thought the critical history section should be moved into a different area. Much of what is in the themes section expands on the critical history. You could really take the entire second paragraph of critical history and stick it in the Fate and chance subsection. Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of that second paragraph is that older critics argued about the morality of the play, not the fate and chances of the play. Nowadays the argument is "fate versus happenstance", back then the argument was "'They deserved what they got' versus 'they didn't deserve what they got.' I'll try to fix it a bit to make it clearer. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it a little, but could others comment on this? I can see why Karanacs wants it moved, but I'm not sure where else it would fit, and I don't want to merge it with the fate section because the current fate debate is different in many ways from the moralistic arguments of past centuries. Wrad (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Shakespeare's Day section refers to the other playwrights by their last names only; many readers may not be familiar with this time period, so I would recommend including the full names of Marlowe, Kyd, and Jonson.
Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I agree that the character list is pointless as it stands, but I've had no success forging a consensus on that issue with the Shakespeare editors. Awadewit (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To call the character list "pointless" shows how uncompromising some of this pages editors can be, and completely negates the opinions of other editors. While valid arguments for and against may be made, to call the whole section "pointless" is insulting.Smatprt (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of removing it. We have a precedent for doing so in Hamlet and there simply isn't enough room to discuss the characters individually in prose. We already have relevant discussion in criticism sections. Wrad (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed my mind on this point. I'd written up a long rambling argument for why removing the character list would violate 1(b) and 1(a), and suggesting several possible compromise solutions (and even a few counter-arguments, in the interest of fairness); but looking at Hamlet again I find I've changed my mind. With a See also/Main article type setup, dropping the character list from the article actually works quite well. My one worry is that it will tend to nudge editors in the direction of including an explanation of the characters as they are mentioned in the Synopsis. That thing is convoluted enough as it is without adding a few tens of words extra to each sentence. --Xover (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose removing the character list and will oppose this article becoming a featured article without it. This is a play, not a novel, and as such, the character list is an indispensable element. The precedent set by Hamlet was a huge mistake. Any reader coming to this article will expect it and deserve to have it provided. Just as most every movie article has a character list, and most every Broadway and West End play has a character list, so should every Shakespeare play article. Another key reason, as minimally referred to above, is that it simply makes the synopsis far easier to understand, especially in the convoluted plots that are evident in many Shakespeare plays. The alternative, expanding the synopsis to properly explain each character, would become, at best, unwieldy and, at worst, ridiculous. If these plays were written now, they would come complete with cast list, originating actors, national tour actors, etc. Why is this different for a Shakespeare play? Just because we don't have a list of the original actors to go with it? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Thanks for hearing my long ramble.Smatprt (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look here [26], there are only three play articles that are FAs, Hamlet, The Country Wife, and A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. None of them have character lists. We had a huge discussion about this at WP:Theater and came to the conclusion that it should be decided on a case by case basis. The character list for the Hamlet article is easily accessible through a link and, I think, provides everything you are arguing for above. The character list simply doesn't fit into the article. It seems way out of place in an article full of great prose and citations to have an uncited list of characters where it isn't really needed. Wrad (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Of course a character list is needed. You want citations for a character list? Easy. To restate - having a character list in a different location from the synopsis is a huge error. Smatprt (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is, that with all current FA play articles not having character lists, opposing because such a list is absent really doesn't seem valid. Wrad (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When "all" is a grand total of "3", I think your argument does not carry much weight. My opposition is as valid as the next person, especially since this has generated so much discussion over the years. I will continue to oppose if the list is removed. If the main opposition is "a list" - then simply turn it into prose, with citations! Please explain why this would not be a credible compromise. In articles on television series and films, the character section is a required element, but it is recommended it be in prose. I suggest we take the same approach with this article and see how it develops. Smatprt (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would such a section contain that the article doesn't already have? Wouldn't we just be duplicating things and wasting space? Why can't we just provide a link to a character list for people who want to know more as we did in Hamlet? How is that deficient? With film articles at least you can discuss the cast and how they interpreted their roles and why the director chose who he did to play the parts. No such possibility here. Whatever such a section would conceiveably contain is already in the rest of the article, in my view. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the works of Shakespeare are often compared to modern films, why don't you check out the NUMEROUS (far more than 3) FA film articles, including these "3" - Mulholland Drive [[27]], Sunset Boulevard [[28]], and Richard III [[29]]. These cast sections either provide a simple list (Sunset Blvd) or, in prose, briefly discuss THE CHARACTERS (Mulholland Drive), or, in prose, provide a character description, along with some trivia about the actor who played them (Richard III). You could also peruse the NUMEROUS (far more than 3) FA television articles that have character sections that actually discuss the characters (and not much about the actors interpretations or directorial choices involved)Smatprt (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unind) I have already stated why film articles are not a good comparison. Television is no different. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Support if cast list is retained.Smatprt (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
**Strongly Oppose if cast list is removed.Smatprt (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Comment: On the issue of character lists, I agree that they are not necessary in all theatre articles, especially when there is a link to a separate article that gives the information in an easily accessible form. There are good scholarly reasons not to include such a list in Shakespearean play articles, namely that no such lists ever appeared in any published editions during Shakespeare's lifetime. A dramatis personæ list is a later editorial imposition, along with many act and scene divisions. Taking a quick glance over the article now, there are, however, a couple of points I'd like to raise. Firstly, I'm looking at the article on a widescreen monitor, and the layout of the pictures, the synopsis one esp., needs some work. This leads me to consider whether all of those pictures are relevant to the article. I see that the performers and critics are relevant, but the others, the illustrations by later painters, just seem misplaced. I know that it's nice to have some kind of image to illustrate the article, but I find the current four paintings--the madox brown, hayez, fussli, and bunbury--just look cheesy and anachronistic. I don't have my nice Shakespeare images book to hand here at the moment, but maybe there's a better historical actor/actress one i can upload later... The Cushman sisters would be a great header, but perhaps it would be a little too controversial to have a cross-dressed lead. Perhaps there's a Artistic depictions of R&J subarticle waiting to be written? (Not that I could...) Coming from a theatre background, the intro statement about tragic romances stretching back to ancient greece seems a little misleading too, as stands. It makes it sound like there is a connection between ancient Greek drama and R&J, which there isn't; not explicitly, i know, but that was the first thought i had when reading. Perhaps something like classical romances? Using Ancient greek to describe 2nd century doesn't seem quite right, since this is usually used to refer to 5th c bce. Finally, the separation of feminist and gender studies sections seems wrong. Looking at the crit described under gender studies, it doesn't seem to be a gender studies argument at all, but rather a queer studies one. Do the critics mentioned explicitly describe their approach in these articles/books as gender studies? Otherwise, the article is collapsing sexuality into gender, which most gender and sexuality critics would repudiate. Oh yes, one final unpleasant one. The precise format of the citations isn't standard. At least, that used in Hamlet is the MLA author-date system. The one here isn't that. Is it another standard? Compare the use of brackets and fullstops in the two articles to see what I mean. That's my two-pence worth. Good work and congrats to all. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent comments, thanks. I'm breaking out your action points for ease of discussion, below (and feel free to edit me if you feel I'm misrepresenting you) AndyJones (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC):[reply]
Various re:character list.
I think we have a consensus now to remove the character section. Several have spoken against it and offered their reasons, with only one opposing. Wrad (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this proposed action and dissagree that a "consensus" exists. I also object that no reasonable compromise has even been contemplated. I strongly oppose on the grounds that this would strongly violate section 1(b) of the featured article criteria, and, as a result, violate 1(a) as well.Smatprt (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to admit, though, that you're the only one who thinks so, and that five other editors have provided reasons for removing it that are just as strong, if not stronger, than yours are. Seems like a consensus to me. Wrad (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Character lists: The original objection stated: "I do not like that the body of the article begins with a section that is essentially a list. I expected the character section to include only the major characters, and to provide a short description of the character and/or that character's importance in the work." This is completely different from advocating the complete removal of the list. Instead of using this criticism as a way to delete the list entirely, I suggest you work towards a compromise that actually addresses what the reviewer was saying. Again - at the very least the article should have the major characters and a short description and/or the character's importance. To jump to "we now have a consensus" is a) a rush to judgement; and b) someone underhanded. Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smatprt, let's cut the accusations here. Most people want this article to do what Hamlet does. You can't deny that. We've had this discussion before. What exactly constitutes a "main" character? Why list them all when they're already talked about in the article body. It's like the infobox discussion all over again, except now you're on the other end. If you think there is a way to make a good character section, then make one on your userspace to show us. As of now, I don't see how such a section would add anything to the article that isn't already there. Prove me wrong. Until then, there is a clear consensus that the section as it stands now is detrimental and should be removed. Wrad (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El Señor Presidente has a "Character" section, if you are interested in a model. It describes the main characters and is not a list. Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove the section as it is currently a list and the vast majority are against it. If anyone wants to re-add the section with prose and citations, they are welcome to it. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How pushy you are Wrad. I think it hurts these pages sometimes. Thank you, however, to Awadewit for offering a character section in prose to use as a model. Until it is added, this article is sorely lacking and should not pass FA. I will work on it as time permits, but other editors should have a go as well, especially the nominators. To start, I will restore the character list and work from there. It is good to see at least one editor on this page is able to either compromise or offer alternatives instead of just threatening to delete material. Here are some other models from FA articles:Mulholland Drive [[30]], and Richard III [[31]]. Take out the actor trivia from the Richard III article and you have all that is needed. These models show why film sections are useful, and in no way reflect Wrad's earlier dismissal of them. (Shakespeare plays and Films are compared all the time, in countless ways, Wrad. Give it a chance at least.)Smatprt (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unind) Stop with the personal attacks Smatprt. What was just added had no citations and added no commentary besides what we already have on the page. It basically just disguised the list as prose. A list is still a list, even if it looks like prose, when all you do is essentially delete bullet points. If that paragraph is a sign of what is to come, then I don't see how such a section will add anything to the article. Wrad (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No serious scholarly work that I have seen discusses R&J characters in the way El Senor Presidente does, unless you count Sparknotes as a serious, scholarly work. I see no reason why we should do it when no other serious work does. Wrad (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The layout of the pictures, the synopsis one esp., needs some work. This leads me to consider whether all of those pictures are relevant to the article. I see that the performers and critics are relevant, but the others, the illustrations by later painters, just seem misplaced. I know that it's nice to have some kind of image to illustrate the article, but I find the current four paintings--the madox brown, hayez, fussli, and bunbury--just look cheesy and anachronistic.
See also the discussion at Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet#Images. There were certainly placement problems and I think I've reached a version that I'm happy with, if you'd like to take another look. I can't quite see how to address your "cheesy and anachronistic" problem, though: cheesiness doesn't sound fixable to me, and I think you'll need to explain why you feel an illustration of Romeo and Juliet is anachronistic in an article about Romeo and Juliet. AndyJones (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image you particularly drew attention to, L’ultimo bacio dato a Giulietta da Romeo, looks fine to me: can you clarify what "esp. needs some work" about it? AndyJones (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've fixed it myself, if that edit works for everyone else. It was breaking into the following section on my monitor but is no longer doing that now. The c18th actress image is still breaking into the 19th section on mine, but i can't see how to fix that. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the images of paintings in general: what I mean by anachronistic is that they offer images that are neither of Shakespeare's time nor of contemporary versions. They don't reflect actual stage practice so I'm not sure that they serve any real purpose. The fix for cheesiness would be to delete. I can see how one, or a galley, would be pertinent to the section on literature and art, but not really for the rest of the article, unless the painting illustrates a particular critical argument. No doubt it's my own distaste for c19th art in general that motivated initially, but i also thought that having a picture in an article required it to be more than merely illustrating, but rather had to be relevant to the body of the text. The italian one in the synopsis and the friar lawrence one could both be used in the synopsis (layout permitting) with relevance as illustrations of particular episodes in the story, i guess. perhaps the italian one could have a caption that points to the text in that way (the caption stating the episode in the synopsis and the act/scene)? DionysosProteus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent do today's image changes satisfy your concerns here? I now see only two images that could be described as illustrative in the sense that you've used it here: the main picture next to the lede, and the one you moved yourself in the Synopsis section. AndyJones (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the image layout looks much better. The c18th is still overhanging into the c19th on this widescreen, though only the sub-header itself is affected. I can't remember the structure of the play well enough to do myself, but a clarifying caption on the synopsis image might still be a good idea - something along the lines of... oh, I just went to check the synopsis to pinch a sentence, but the scene that's illustrated isn't detailed in the synopsis. Something like "Romeo leaves Juliet after a night of passion ([act].[scene)." Just to underline why the image is there. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Cushman sisters would be a great header, but perhaps it would be a little too controversial to have a cross-dressed lead.
Yes, but we already have so many headings that adding another would be pushing it. Wrad (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think Proteus means that the Cushman image would be a good one top-right in the article. (Is this right?) AndyJones (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the very first image I was thinking of, but the Cushman sisters would probably be a little eccentric. I'll have a look in my image book (won't get to it for a couple of days) for a more suitable historical image and run that past you all. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intro statement about tragic romances stretching back to ancient greece seems a little misleading too, as stands. It makes it sound like there is a connection between ancient Greek drama and R&J, which there isn't.
I guess that isn't really Ancient Greece, though? Wrad (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was an implied sense when I read it, rather than what it actually said, that I was thinking of. Students habitually think of Shakespeare as writing with Greek tragedy in mind, when this is at best a minor marginal influence, if at all. The present version reads much better I think and avoids the implication. However, looking at it now, I wonder whether it's needed in the intro at all. The Ovid et al are detailed in the sub-section. Might that bit in the intro not start simply with "Its plot is based on..."? DionysosProteus (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using Ancient greek to describe 2nd century doesn't seem quite right, since this is usually used to refer to 5th c bce.
the separation of feminist and gender studies sections seems wrong. Looking at the crit described under gender studies, it doesn't seem to be a gender studies argument at all, but rather a queer studies one. Do the critics mentioned explicitly describe their approach in these articles/books as gender studies? Otherwise, the article is collapsing sexuality into gender, which most gender and sexuality critics would repudiate.
Yes, you seem to be right that there's a problem, here. I fixed the prose in this section in response to a peer-review comment, but didn't think to revisit the heading. I don't have Halio here, but I'll be able to check it when I'm next at the University. My recollection, though, is that Halio doesn't divide up the ideas expressed in this section under the subheadings used in the article. Therefore as an interim fix I'll change the "gender" heading to a "queer studies" one, pending me doing some more research in the next day or so. AndyJones (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source I used referred to it as queer studies, but since I couldn't find the article on it to link to, I linked instead to gender studies, and that kind of got carried over. The best heading is clearly 'queer studies'. Wrad (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. My amendment maybe enough to consider this done then??? AndyJones (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Wrad (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can link to Queer theory - I meant to mention this, too, but forgot. Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although I used the heading "Queer theory" I linked to "Queer studies". I wonder why those are two separate articles and if one is clearly a better target than the other. At a quick glance, they both seem to cover similar ground.AndyJones (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget I spoke: Queer theory clearly the more thorough of the two articles. AndyJones (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The precise format of the citations isn't standard. At least, that used in Hamlet is the MLA author-date system. The one here isn't that. Is it another standard? Compare the use of brackets and fullstops in the two articles to see what I mean.
Hmm, no, Hamlet uses something close to APA style. Romeo and Juliet uses the Harvard referencing format (see second example in lede). More importantly, the article is internally consistent, clear, and unambiguous in its citation style; lets try to avoid descending into debates about which citation system is The Right One™ and what color to use for the full stops after an abbreviated citation to a journal article published only bi-quarterly if the current quarter had a full moon and the author was blonde. :-) --Xover (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your problem on this one? A typcal R&J footnote reads:
Spencer (1967: 284).
...and a typical Hamlet footnote reads:
Hattaway (1987, 16).
...so I can't really identify the issue. Are you saying you would be happy with a comma after the date but you aren't happy with a colon? If your problem is with the "Secondary sources" sections then remember that these sources are all templated: if you don't like their layout it's a problem with user preferences, not with this article. AndyJones (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hamlet is the MLA author-date system. I instigated it. See the MLA manual for details. My concern was simply that the R&J is using a system, rather than expressing a preference for which one ought to be standard. If it's consistent with Harvard, which I've never used myself, that's fine and dandy. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: please read the WP:FAC instructions regarding the use of graphics. I've removed the green "done" checkmarks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, don't use the {{done}} template, right? :) Wrad (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the {{Done-t}} ( Done) and {{Not done-t}} (✗Not done) templates instead as they emit just plain text. --Xover (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't. There is a limit on the number of templates that can be on a page, and if you use templates on an FAC, when it's archived it can cause problems on the monthly archive pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great articte I agree it should be a FA.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Registered today, second edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Character section resolved - Smatprt wrote a new section here that I am happy with. Leave comments on the section here. Wrad (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: that may be an acceptable compromise. We will have to see if those who have commented on the old section are happy with this new arrangement. One practical difficulty was that it was an entirely new section introduced into a featured article candidate while the FAC was going through, with no time to achieve FA-quality prose or FA-quality sourcing. I have vigorously attacked it today, but I could use some input from those who have commented above on whether this section staisfies their concerns or (at least) is going in the right direction. AndyJones (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Andy. Really. To give credit where its due, I didn't really write the section - I merely imported the information from the individual Character articles. Due to Andy's fine work, it's much better now.Smatprt (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smatprt has two declarations; one needs to be struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is going on with the gallery? Usually galleries are only used in articles about art, when it is imperative to see each image. I am not sure that it is imperative to have all of these images. Do you know how many more illustrations of R&J could be added? The article will be taken over! I suggest a Commons gallery instead. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with taking it out. We can't put all of our images in there, you're right. Wrad (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A gallery is not the answer here, though some if not all can be spread around the article. There's room for one next to the huge TOC for a start. The Pepys portrait seems dispensible to me, and some of the paintings. Are there no free images of productions? One of the two Leightons on Commons (not the "in art" category) and/or this Millais, or the rather different drawing for it here are better than most of those used now. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery is now removed. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now too few images; I find it hard to support as it is, with several screenfuls passing with no images. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it'd be a good idea to use {{TOClimit}} the same way it's used in Animaniacs to reduce the length of the TOC? -Malkinann (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably would. Wrad (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually let me try something else. Wrad (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrad, you really need to read the comments here better. Awadewit suggested creating a "Commons gallery", not simply deleting the gallery to oblivion. You created the same problem with the Character section - simply deleting instead of reading the comment that it should be in prose, not in a list. Could you please be more attentive and not so quick to simple delete?
On the Gallery issue, I would create a commons gallery, but I am not up on that process. Does anyone of our editors know how to do this? Having a Commons gallery on the plays of Shakespeare sounds very useful for the many individuals that look for images (students, media, theatre companies, designers, etc.). Right now we have a nice group of R&J images collected together and waiting for a home. Once it is started, I will happily keep it going and start moving the other Shakespeare galleries into it. Smatprt (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a category, not a gallery. In a gallery, one can annotate the images. See, for example, the Mary Shelley gallery. Awadewit (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool. Well, one needn't worry in either case, since all the images are in the category and haven't been sent into oblivion. I look forward to seeing a Romeo and Juliet gallery, if someone should choose to make one, but I don't plan to be part of it. Wrad (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the images should be sent to WP:GL to be fixed up. A lot of them were scanned on an angle and could be relatively easily fixed up with some straightening and a good (modest) crop. Most of the images could use to be higher resolution but at least the first step is doable and should be attempted before this becomes an FP. grenグレン 01:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you experienced with this? Could you fix them? Wrad (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind. Good one, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I can't get my head around all of this images stuff. I'm told we have too many, too few, not enough of one type or another... When we add them, we're told they aren't in the right place. What exactly are the rules on this? To illustrate the confusion we're having, let me copy below a comment made by a project member:
"This is why Wikipedia is such fun. We have the Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep principle, yet we cannot place this picture because:
We have a rule that says we must place it within the section.
We have a rule that says we cannot encroach on another section.
We have a rule that says we cannot resize it.
We have a rule that says it cannot be on the left.
We have a rule that says it cannot be on the right.
We have a rule that says we cannot turn it around so it could go on the right.
We have too many rules." - AndyJones
So again, what exactly do people want and what exactly do the rules say we can't do? Wrad (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some images, including one of a performance. Hopefully this resolves things for all parties. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Firstly, thank you for your responses and work in light of my concerns above, it all looks good. I've left comments with regard to the on-going debate about character lists on the article's talk page, but I wanted to add one final thought about the images on the page. I had a look in my Shakespeare image book and there was nothing particularly iconic for R&J. I would like to suggest that the new one of a 1908 performance be considered for the Introduction section, instead of the painting that's currently there. It's actual stage practice (albeit not a famous production) and seems more iconic an image to me. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I fail to see anything iconic about it at all. There just aren't any really iconic R&J images I think, or apparently any good free production ones, but the Ford Madox Brown certainly catches an iconic moment, and is a significant painting. In terms of artistic quality that and the Fuseli, which matches the light & dark theme, as has been mentioned, the Millais (drawing best perhaps) and the Leightons seem to be the best available - the last two artists also include a wider range of characters, which is useful as all the actor pics are just one or two people. The Boydell Gallery one now added is far too fuzzy, and just not a very attractive or significant image. Why we need a great big Pepys I can't see. The Hayez seems dispensible to me; it is more or less illustrative, but not very attractive. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Pepys is too big for you, then you can adjust your preferences, can't you? I don't think that there is any better image for the Critical History section than Pepys. The Boydell Gallery image is a bit lame, but Pepys is perfect, in my opinion. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DP. Can we compromise and have a painting in this one rather than a stage photo (Different from what we did in Hamlet?) You know my feelings on this. :) Wrad (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was more the desire to get rid of the Madox Brown than to praise the 1908 photo, though the latter does read more clearly and immediately, to my eyes, as a R&J image than the former (it's a death-bed scene, whereas the melodramatic excess of the MBrown I find visually confused). However, it's not ideal as a lead picture. I agree that Pepys is useful and appropriate. In general, I think that a picture of actual stage practice, or an illustration/drawing/painting based on that practice, is preferable for illustrations to the articles, for the same reason that it would seem strange to have a photo of an operatic or balletic adaption of the play as the main image; the artistic renderings on the theme of the play translate one art form into another, whereas stage-practice-based images are inherent to the subject of the article. The article should also be visually arresting, however, and draw in the casual browser with a good, dynamic and relevant image in the intro. That ought to be the most important consideration, I think. Given that, perhaps I might suggest this image from the commons as a possible introduction image. It gives the same general information as the MBrown, but without the excess. Thoughts? Also, I'm sure you've probably investigated this already, and I'm not too clear on how copyright/fair use works in that area, but is it possible to have a cinema image for that section? What's the deal on screenshots or the like? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As true as it is that the play is...a play, the fact is there are many representations of Romeo and Juliet and none of them is more legitimate than the other. Theatre directors sometimes have organized scenes based on Romeo and Juliet artwork that they saw, and vice versa. This story is not confined to the stage any more than it is to the original pages it was written on. Therefore, I don't think that an image should be taken from the intro just because it isn't of a theatrical production. Wrad (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, image rules make it very difficult to justify an image in the screen section. Sad but true. Some people have a very broad definition of what a "merely decorative" image is. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A play is its productions; they are identical. Just as the play's text, in all its various forms, "is" the play. Paintings, opera, ballet, novelizations, films and tv dramas are all "representations" at one remove. There's an increase of relevance with an image based on practice. But in this case it looks like a painting is going to offer the best option. I've scanned a couple of R&J images into the commons, so take a look if any are useful to the article: Fanny Kemble, David Garrick (detail), Sprangler Barry, Ellen Terry. I don't think there's a intro candidate there, though. If I understand you right, then, a cinema picture can be justified if it's tied in directly to the article text? In theory, that doesn't sound too difficult? DionysosProteus (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is one of MANY philosophies. If a play were its productions, then all productions would be identical. The play is at one remove from the text just like anything else is. However, I guess I don't really mind the image that much. PS: A copyrighted image of a movie can only be shown if that movie is specifically discussed in the text. That's basically it. Wrad (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think of it as a philosophy but it does involve the question of what a play is, I guess. You seem to assume that a play is self-identical, an identity secured by the play-text. Not only is a text often not self-identical (as our Qs, Ffs and the like demonstrate) but a play-text can claim no priority in relation to performance with regard to any claim to "be" the play. That a play's productions exist, especially with Shakespeare, in the form of a multiplicity dispersed historically and geographically doesn't invalidate that claim. A play's text(s) and its production(s) are its two modes of existence; that's what plays are (hence the etymological origin in play). With a vague gesture to Platonic forms, then, we might say that the pure form of the play is imitated bilaterally in its text(s) and performance(s), which in turn are imitated (at a second remove) in art, opera, ballet, novels and the cinema. The text is at one remove from the play, not vice versa, as it were. The article is not on "Romeo and Juliet, the phenomenon" (in which case, all representations regardless of medium would be legitimate and appropriate images), but on the play (in which case images of the text(s) and performance(s) are the most relevant, being the media in which the play exists - anything else is an adaptation). But this is a broader topic for the Theatre/Shakespeare projects in general and I digress. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no reply, as such, but this is a great posting. Can I use it in my Thesis, please? ;-) AndyJones (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to fair use images, I've seen a philosophy around that goes roughly "every fair use image takes us one step away from Wikipedia's mission of a truly free encyclopedia". As Romeo and Juliet is a subject which has many, many, free images available (thank you Dionysos for the uploads!) it would probably be unacceptable to choose a non-free film image, as the bulk of the critical commentary on the films has been summarised on the daughter article Romeo and Juliet on screen. -Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The R&J article has a fair chunk on its cinematic history, so I think that it could be justified, from the sound of it. Captioning the text about R+J's record gross and target audience or somesuch with a good screenshot or even the poster that the film article uses would be my suggestion. Does the fair-use issue lower the usefulness of the article in any tangible way? There are enough images there already if it does, but if not, you might consider it. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that new photo in the lead is just awful. And it could be from half a dozen different plays (aside from being non-notable). Where was the consensus to delete the picture that was there when the article was nominated? Soemone does not like paintings, so we change it. Someone does not like lists, so we change it. I think this article has actually become worse since the nomination.
Who are you? Myself, Andy, and DP liked it, and nobody opposed, so we added it. We don't have to have 20 people in favor to change something, my friend. Wrad (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Who are you"? "My friend"? - Can we cut the sarcasm and attitude? See below for my response to a reasoned argument that avoided being personal. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no one signed the above post. What was I to think? Wrad (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose - the FAC process has caused this article to jump back and forth for all sorts of reasons. Personal preferences are causing mayhem. Compromises are developed and then scuttled. The article does not even follow the Shakespeare project guidelines.Smatprt (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
:Are you opposing the article or the FAC process? The WP:BARD guideline isn't really that official, let's be honest. It only calls itself a "proposed guideline". It's a rough outline, not a set of hard and fast rules. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smatprt, it is inaccurate to describe these recent discussions as based on personal preferences. Where that is the case, it has been clearly indicated and excepted. The discussions are based on what is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, as indicated by the various guidelines, common practices, and rules, and our sense of its possible use. These indications cover the questions of which images should be included and in what way they should be included. I have sought to limit the number of paintings because they are not directly relevant to an article on a play, as based on Wiki guidelines. That I find most of the paintings to be of a low aesthetic quality is besides the point. My understanding is that they should only be there if they can be tied into the text in some way (such as events in the synopsis) or the paintings themselves are discussed in the article. If a painting is the best option for the Introduction section, then it ought to fulfill certain criteria, involving the assessment of its iconic function first and foremost. The FAC process necessarily involves such discussions and changes. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All good points and well expressed. In response I believe that the present lead image, in that it depicts perhaps the most famous scene in the play, in fact the only scene that has achieved its own nickname - the "balcony scene", represents perfectly the criteria you have discussed. First and foremost, it is iconic; and second, it can certainly be tied to the text as it represents a crucial scene that is discussed in the synopsis. Smatprt (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on oppose: this objection cannot be actionable. It is extraordinary that an editor who has singlehandedly done so much to destabilise an article should subsequently oppose its promotion on the grounds that it is unstable. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above comment: Making this kind of comment is rather suspect in an FAC. In actuality, the article is quite close to the state it was in when nominated. To be upfront, I have reverted two deletions - one that was made based on the personal preferences of a reviewer that basically didn't like "paintings", and one that was made as part of a compromise that was scuttled. And I continue to watch for vandalism. Calling that "destabilization" is inaccurate and perhaps betrays a hidden agenda on the part of the commenter.Smatprt (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Just to try and get a handle on the mess that this FAC has become - are the two issues up for discussion the character list and the images? Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume those were the issues, although additional problems may crop up. Having said that, based on the state of the current article I will change my "oppose" to "support". Smatprt (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply & Another Question - Yes, I think the only problematic issues are the "Characters" section and the images. The characters issue clearly remains unresolved. However I wonder if the images issue is resolved now? I see considerable changes to the images on this article, including some new uploads and some really good work at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop#Romeo and Juliet. So my question is: is everyone happy with the current images? Is the character section the only issue at the moment? AndyJones (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the images as they currently stand, and agree that much "really good" work has been done in regard to the quality issues that were raised. Smatprt (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In response to the above comment by Roger, I believe the article has stabilized over the last few days. If there are no further major changes in the article, which currently stands much as it was upon nomination (excepting some nice cleaning up, of course), then I wholeheartedly support it. Smatprt (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This so-called "stabilization" is a false peace created by everyone but you being sick and tired of arguing and re-arguing the same old things. No consensus has been reached on either the character list or the images. You are supporting because, for the moment, the article is the way you want it to be, because everyone else is just to tired to oppose you. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrad, please stop acting like a hurt puppy. For the record, you yourself have just recently stated that you think the article is FA with the character list intact. Andy stated "I wouldn't have submitted the article to FAC with a character list, if I hadn't thought that was the right format for it. Lots of FAs include lists or tables, where appropriate.; Xover's first perference is "a brief list, as was provided when the article was first nominated"; Shoemaker's Holiday believes that "No play article would ever pass FAC without a Dramatis Personae of some sort". And you all certainly are aware of what I believe! It seems to me that the main opposition is coming from those who want no lists (regardless of the reasons), and/or those who want only "good prose" instead of concentrating on providing an accessible article. It's as if the opposition believes that scholars, not students, are our primary audience, and if you are not a scholar then the heck with you.Smatprt (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smatprt, please consider refactoring your comments. It is best to comment on the content, not on perceived (and in this case incorrect) motives of reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issues here are complex. Not everyone agrees with you, and not everyone agrees with me. I submitted the article with the list because although I preferred not to have it, I thought the article still met the criteria. Several editors in our project like them, and several don't. However, I was aware that the issue would probably be brought up at FAC, and we would have to deal with it. If the issue is going to be brought up, I'm going to make my preference known and defend it the best I can. Please, then, don't portray my nomination of this article for FA status as a statement of my support for character lists. Again, it is far more complex than that, and we need to work through the complexities and find a solution. Wrad (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, of course, that you make your personal preference known. However, it is just as important that even now, even you still acknowledge that, with the list, you believe the article still meets the FA criteria. On this we agree. Smatprt (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's great and all, but the fact remains that there are reviewers here that disagree. It might be better for your time to talk to them, not me. I'm not the one to convince, here. Wrad (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I personally dislike the Ford Madox Brown pic, and like the one by Dicksee which heads the article Star-crossed lovers, which brings me to my next point-
Image:DickseeRomeoandJuliet.jpg is a good pic. However I see it's tagged for lacking source information. I wouldn't want to use it on a featured article candidate unless & until that can be fixed. AndyJones (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "star-crossed lovers" is very familiar to lovers of Shakespeare, but not to others. I'm a kid doing my assignment on this, I look it up, and there is an expression in the first sentence of the article that I don't understand. So, I deviate from reading the article, even though I've only read half a sentence, and track the meaning, because presumably it's important if it's in the first sentence. Ok! I've found it! The explanation tells me that it means they're doomed from the start, and then tells me it has to do with astrology, but doesn't bother to tell me what it has to do with astrology, because it doesn't actually explain what "star-crossed" means. So I look up astrology to find out what "star-crossed" does mean, and it doesn't tell me.
In other words, explaining who Romeo and Juliet are by quoting a line from the play doesn't help. Give it to us in modern English.
I think you're doing kids a disservice here. I believe they'll understand it. --Malkinann (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. The simplest way to read it is that they're just lovers that are really in love. I think anyone could see at least that much from the words "star-crossed". All the deeper meanings are cool, but not necessary to appreciate the thing. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have agreed, except that Wrad I think you've just misinterpreted it: star-crossed means something like "ill-fated", not what you just said. ;-( Would this be resolved if I put Levenson's definition ("thwarted by a malign star") in the footnote? I don't think I agree with Amandajm that the lead of Star-crossed doesn't cover it, though. It says it pretty clearly for my money: "Star-crossed lovers is a phrase describing a pair of lovers whose relationship is said to be doomed from the start. The phrase is astrological in origin, stemming from the belief that the positions of the stars ruled over people's fates." I suppose it helps if you're used to Shakespeare's language: phrases like "evermore cross'd and cross'd" don't make sense in modern English because we don't use "crossed" in the sense of "thwarted" or "obstructed", much. AndyJones (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done that. Not sure I want to set a precedent of glossing every line that's quoted in Shakespeare play articles, though. AndyJones (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can also mean what I just said. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I'm just saying what it meant to mean when I read it as a kid *sniff*. :( Wrad (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "star-crossed" article is much improved, and now gives a proper explanation for anyone who needs to look it up.
With regards to doing kids a disservice, I disagree. Some kids persevere with difficult things. Other kids will be put off by having something quite unfamiliar in the very first line. Referring to them as "star-crossed lovers" in 2008 is unencyclopedic. It is fine to say at some point that Shakespeare describes them as "star-crossed lovers" but having it as part of the leading definition is inappropropriate. Amandajm (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be more appropriate? --Malkinann (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read all the comments, but I thoroughly dislike being told in the first line that their deaths are going to end a family feud. I'm sure this info can be given in a plot summary, and that there is a more subtle way of saying that their romance is a disaster.
Wikipedia contains spoilers. Besides, the eighth line of the play is "doth, with their deaths, bury their parents' strife" - so Shakespeare clearly considered it information his audience needed up-front. AndyJones (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. Wrad (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on my dislike of the Ford Madox Brown pic, it looks like Dame Nellie Melba playing Juliet with Enrico Caruso playing Romeo. (or to bring it more up to date Dame Joan Sutherland and Pavarotti)
Minor comment: I like the frequent boxes with quotes from the play, but the blue background is terrible. I personally wouldn't go with any background for any of them. Reywas92Talk 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preference, but I would just say that the background colour is a feature of the template {{pquote}}: it's not the choice of the nominators here, and it's not a fault of this specific article. AndyJones (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wrad (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the difference, the new quote boxes now look pretty dull. A different background color, or the use of boldface might be a better fix. About the quotes, they were all from the play and now one has been added from a book about the play. It seems jarring. Shouldn't the quote from the book be in the article prose section? Finally, the play quote references are not consistent.Smatprt (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of status on main concerns
Character list: Mostly resolved. Smatprt, Awadewit, Andy, Malkinnan, Xover, and myself have reached an agreement on the talk page. Karanacs and DP have yet to weigh in.
Images: Mostly resolved. The only real debate I still see is on the lead image choice.
Critical history section: We need more input on this unresolved concern of Karanacs.
Regarding the third of these points, how do people feel about merging the current "Analysis and criticism" and "Context and interpretation" sections into a single section? It would look a bit like this (here's the diff). Without wanting to give a long explanation (although I will, if asked) I kinda prefer it in that configuration. Would that resolve Karanacs' issue? AndyJones (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if Karanacs is coming back to this page, but according to the R&J talk page and his own talk page, he is apparently still opposed to the list, but willing to let the FAC director make the call. I'm personally fine with the image and with Andy's suggestion for the Critical History section. This FAC is petering out, I think because we've done about all we can do to resolve all issues. Everything else seems to be a matter of personal preference, not FAC criteria. It seems as though we've reached the point where the FAC director will just need to make a call. I would urge whoever makes the call to look over the talk page of the article to see deeper discussions behind the ones on this page, although I've tried to sum them up. Wrad (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have no more to offer in this debate. With two editors vigorously opposing on irreconcilable positions there's nothing more that can be done. I suggest the FA director makes a call. AndyJones (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this article meets the criteria (with or without the character list) and closure is long overdue. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 09:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(od) May I suggest that this FAC is now quickly closed as little will be gained by further discussion. Trial by FAC is no way to resolve the character list issue. I suggest that the FAC director (or delegate) ignores the specific declarations about including/excluding the character list as the two editors' entrenched positions cancel each other out and expressly says so in a closing executive summary. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 09:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With Davies' comments, we now have Awadewit, Roger Davies, and myself, all ardent spokespersons against character lists, nevertheless in support of this article becoming an FA. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Following the related recent FA Bert Trautmann, a nomination for a football (soccer) match of note from the 1950s. Progress on the article has been steady for a few months. It became a GA in September, and since then a significant amount of information from contemporary sources has been added. Most of the significant publications about both the clubs who contested the match have been consulted, and we now feel it is ready for the scrutiny of FAC. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals even when the original is.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have de-capitalised one link title. Please could you point out where Template:Citation is used, as I can't find it.Struway2 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both template citation and template cite xxx can be found here with their choice type and parameters: Citations of generic sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I failed to make myself clear, not for the first time... I can't find where in the article we have used the Template:Citation format, as opposed to the Cite xxx format. Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it using the "edit refs" tool, I have, but it shows up in the edit window on the bottom, where the templates used in the article are listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not guilty, in that case :-) It's transcluded by Cite journal (see [33], about 12th item down), which I have used. Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Botheration! There goes my easiest way to cheat and find that issue... oh well! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support—I've read only the lead. The underlying writing is mostly very good, but it does seem to need a careful copy-edit for polishing. Here are examples.
Snake: "The showpiece event of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup, better known as the FA Cup, it was contested between Manchester City and Birmingham City." We lose the sense of what "it" refers to; winding. Turn into two separate sentences, with a stop after "Cup", possibly.
I've scanned through the text for further long or tortuous sentences, and altered one or two. Of course there's always the possibility that my over-familiarity with the article might mean I've missed one. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colon after "progress" would be better (a "drumroll").
"Manchester City took an early lead through Joe Hayes, but Noel Kinsey equalised midway through the first half"—is "equalised" (without the object) normal lingo in this area? Or is it your invention here? Tony(talk) 14:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops :-) Have asked the editor of 1923 FA Cup Final to look up the relevant page in the book source he used, which he will do later today.Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable defunct newspaper, thereby satisfying WP:REDLINK. Was sold in 1963 to the group which owned Manchester Evening News and eventually merged with it, but in 1956 the two papers were active competitors so wouldn't be accurate to link to MEN.Struway2 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a notable publication, but the small amount of information I have about it would not be sufficient to create a useful stub. I put out a request at WikiProject Greater Manchester a few days ago to see if anyone there has more material. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a match played over 50 years ago there isn't much about how it's remebered today.
Will try to give this a proper review if I can find the time. BUC (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The match is principally remembered for Trautmann's injury. Given that this is already mentioned in the lead, and the injury gets two paragraphs in the "match" section and a further paragraph in "post-match", I'm not sure what else there is to add. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Wem.jpg - This image needs a description and a date. Note that the ostensible author/source - User:Gary Watson - is not the uploader, so it is not clear how this image was released into the PD. Did he upload this at Wikipedia? If so, where is the record of that?
Hopefully this is easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the deletion history of the image, it *was* uploaded by Gary Watson to the English Wikipedia on November 12, 2005. The transfer to Commons by User:Heimdall was done before the Commonshelper tool was available to automatically add history data to NowCommons images. Fixed. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image still needs a description and, if possible, a date. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a brief description. The stadium was demolished in 2003, so "No later than 2003" is the best I can do with the date. Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Not too much from me this time.
Manchester City: I see "quarter final" and "semi-final" in this section. Note the differing hyphenation.
Looks good. I've made some probably hamfisted edits. Some queries below:
"Manchester City captain Roy Paul seizing one last opportunity to stir emotion within the players before the match started". I can guess what you mean, but I think it's better spelled out.
I was a little worried about dwelling on the trivial. I've made the sentence more specific as suggested. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is 20x 3s 6d?
£3 10s. Not sure where you're going with this; I thought it'd be more useful to give a comparison with 1956 earnings. Did you perhaps mean that the footnote give the amounts of money explicitly, rather than just the source of the figure?
Yeah, why not? <grins>
"Lassie from Lancashire" makes sense, but what's the Brum connection with the other song? Put in a note, not in body text, I suggest.
Added a quote to footnote 14 (which sources the mention of Keep Right On in the Route to the final section) which says it's still Birmingham's fans' anthem to this day, and added that footnote to the communal singing sentence.
Not essential, but think it's nice context to amend to "Two days before the final, Bert Trautmann who had originally arrived in England as a prisoner of war, was named Footballer of the Year.[31]"
Done
I'm a little confused as to what is and isn't WP:DASH compliant in the article.
There were one or two inconsistent usages in book/webpage/newspaper-article titles in citations, which I've fixed. The rest were OK.
I'll leave the Roy Paul one for the City half of the editorship. Also, I've undone your change to "scored eighteen goals while conceding only two". MOS:NUM says that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures", so as it also allows numbers greater than 9 to be "rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words", the word "eighteen" is preferable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ace. I'm content on all your replies. I'll wait until the Paul reply comes in before trying to work out how to hide this stuff. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of the refs have authorship shown as (surname), (first name), others as (first name) (surname), I think it would be better to be consistent throughout -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the two (first name) (surname) ones that I found. If I've missed any, please could you point them out, thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any more, but found a couple of other minor points:
"Birmingham won the toss, so Manchester City kicked off" makes it sounds like City were obligated to kick off due to Blues winning the toss, whereas presumably the Blues captain had the choice, suggest a slight reword here
Changed to "and Manchester City kicked off" for now; maybe Oldelpaso has info on why Boyd chose ends.
My notes are insufficient to glean any further information, from memory the article referenced didn't go into a great deal of detail. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"over in the Manchester City dressing room" seems a tad colloquial
Removed "over"
"Sensing an advantage in condition" - I don't understand what this means
I assume it means he felt City seemed fitter/more alert/more "up for it", but will leave to my colleague to clarify.
That's the implication, but given that the reference doesn't say that explicitly I'll remove the phrase if there's uncertainty. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An enjoyable article, and ranks among the cleanest articles I've reviewed to date. The other recent FA Cup article that came through FAC was good, but I think this surpasses it, and sets a high standard for similar pages in the future. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's better than mine ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that this article meets the featured article requirements. It has passed a (rather strange) GA review, a peer review, and, most recently, an A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rodger Haworth, the website's author/publisher, is the coauthor of several of the Starke/Schell ship registers published by the World Ship Society (WSS page describing the Starke/Schell publications). FWIW, the newer editions seem to be only on CD, but the original registers appeared in print form, like Register of Merchant Ships by Tony Starke, Klaus Wernick, and William A. Schell, published in 1980 by A.J.Starke of Lyndoch, S.A. (OCLC221755528). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, although I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reliable to me, too. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
I know it's project standards, but is there nothing better to call the ship than "she"? It sounds more like something a drunken sailor would say than what an encyclopedia would write.
The lead reads like a list disguised as prose; many of the ideas begin with "In X year", or something similar.
Will take a look at it and see about rewording some.
OK, I tweaked the lead so there weren't so many "In x year…" phrases. Does the revised version flow better? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little information on the first year's of West Conob's career is found in sources. - Should that be "years"?
D'oh! Fixed it.
In October 1927, the Los Angeles Times reported on the impending sale of West Conob and 18 other Swayne & Holt ships to a San Francisco financier[14] - Needs a full stop.
Fixed
Mauna Loa continued on the Hawaii – California – Philadelphia/New York service, occasionally making extra voyages from Los Angeles to Honolulu when dictated by cargo bookings. - These en dashes should be unspaced.
I wasn't sure since the last item was "Philadelphia/New York" (with an internal space), but I have made them unspaced en-dashes.
Mauna Loa's movements over the next three months are not found in sources, but by mid-February 1942, she had made her way to Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. - "Are not found in sources" → "are unknown".
Changed.
The convoy was soon spotted by a Japanese Kawanishi H6K "Mavis" four-engined flying boat that tailed the convoy at 10,000 feet (3,000 m). - "Soon" is redundant.
Good point, and removed.
What cites the information in the Notes section?
Some of them have internal cites already, but the ones that don't should be covered by the same reference that covers that section of the prose. For example, [Note 1], that gives more details about the Genoa route, is from reference [3], which immediately precedes it in the text. I can duplicate the reference information in the Notes if it's not clear enough.
Thanks for the review and your comments. I've interspersed my replies above. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards support I don't know much about ships, but this seemed like a comprehensive article to me: a description of the ship itself and an outline of its history and engagements. I did a little bit of copyediting while I was reading and while more wouldn't come amiss, I think the prose in this article is generally quite good. It is hard to make the section on the cargo history flow well - "and then the ship hauled more pineapple". :) My concerns are with the sources - a few of the web sources look a little sketchy to me, but that could be because I am unfamiliar with them:
This source seems to be compiled by Tim Colton - what makes him trustworthy under WP:SPS?
I believe that Mr. Colton would be considered an expert in the field of shipbuilding. Shipbuildinghistory.com is a fork off his main website, Coltoncompany.com. A quick worldcat.org search brings up 3 books + 4 articles on the shipbuilding industry and its history authored or co-authoered by Mr. Colton. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though the response at RSN was that FOTW is "semi-reliable", I've removed one discursive note attributed to the website and replaced the other reference with a contemporary article from The New York Times. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does not look like a reliable site (who wrote it? who checked its contents?). - I think we need a more reliable source for this statement: After the war, a Japanese salvage firm was awarded the contract for salvaging the remains of Mauna Loa and the other wrecks in the harbor, but were prohibited from removing any of the American-owned cargo still remaining.
Fair enough. I'll remove it for now and look for other another source. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After these source issues are cleared up, I look forward to supporting the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to full support. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very clear article and an interesting story. I made a couple little copy editing changes (Hope they're ok). Some might criticize that there are words wikilinked more than once, but I appreciated it. One question, what does a "developed area" mean in relation to a propeller? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure but I think "developed area" is the actual surface area of a propeller that generates thrust. I would love to wikilink it, but I'm not sure where I would link it. There are hints at the term in propeller, but that article doesn't really explain it. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a discursive note (+ ref) explaining "developed area" (which is the combined surface area of all the blades of a propeller). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's part of my featured topic plans. Hurricanehink (talk·contribs) wrote most of the meteorological history. The article's fairly short (but comprehensive), so any concerns will be efficiently addressed. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 18:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Strange, it seemed to work when I used the link-checker. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Other than that I see no problem :) Great job to both you and Hurricanehink. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images - NASA/NOAA or made by editors from same, all free w/ appropriate license tags, no problems (damn, why do they have to make this so easy?) --MASEM 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elena, you supported this FAC three minutes after you reviewed an FLC. Out of curiosity, did you read any part of the article? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This may sound untrue, but I read both of them sometime this week when I wanted to just escape from this season. Now Back to the FAC--Kirk761854 AtlanticHurricane Season 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Expand the primary units in the "Impact" section. Gary King (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice and comprehensive. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 21:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a broken record: why are we back to displaying only the year rather than the full publication date which is available on sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least on my slow browser, the inclusion of full publication dates leads to increased load times. Also, it adds more (IMO) unnecessary text to clutter up the edit window. I'll add them if needed, though. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V (policy): "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." If we have full dates, we should use them; it makes it easier to locate the info in the future if URLs change, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment - For ref 25 (the one that was deadlinked), a page number from the Virginia-Pilot would be nice. Also, the access date isn't needed anymore since the link is dead. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdate removed, and I'll look for the page number for that ref. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"...a temporary decrease allowed the cyclone to become a tropical storm" - a temporary decrease in what?
"No fatalities were reported. No fatalities were reported."
"Virginia-Pilot" is not a publisher, it's a newspaper. It should be listed as a "work" in the cite news template. "Landmark Publishing" is the publisher, but I don't think that's necessary to include in the citation.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria. It has been further improved by a peer review. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Brianboulton has graciously offered to co-nominate. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Sources look good; links check out with the link checker.
One of ten children, he attended the local Brackluin Catholic school until the age of twelve, leaving school to lend much needed help on the family farm. - Numbers above ten are spelled out, per MOS. I see this a couple of times in the article.
Crean soon established himself as one of the most consistent man-haulers in the party, with only seven of the 48–member party logging more time in harness than Crean's 149 days. - Change the en dash to a hyphen.
These included the 12–man party led by Barne which set out on 30 October 1902 to lay depots in support of the main southern journey, undertaken by Captain Scott, Shackleton and Edward Wilson. - Again.
During the first winter Discovery became locked in the ice, and consequently Crean and the rest of the men did not leave the Antarctic until the ship was freed again in February 1904. - I'm slightly confused as to when the Discovery became stuck.
Clarified, by a few explanatory words. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Crean's experience was relied upon as he would be one of the few men in the party with polar experience. - "Indeed" is a slightly POV-ish word.
When they arrived, the men, led by ship's carpenter Harry McNish, rebuilt one of the lifeboats—the James Caird—so that Shackleton and a crew of five could sail to South Georgia and arrange a rescue. - "That" is redundant.
I have seen to the above minor fixes, and also fixed one dablink. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to express too many ideas in one sentence. Take for example: "One of ten children, he attended the local Brackluin Catholic school until the age of twelve, leaving school to lend much needed help on the family farm." The first part of the sentence has nothing to do with the rest, so these should be separated. - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. The elements in the sentence actually flow quite naturally together; I think this preferable to staccato prose. However, I have tweaked the sentence a little, to make it more concise. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That above anon was me: Let me rephrase it. You're not suggesting the school had just 10 children in it, are you? Because that is what the current sentence implies. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree that this is how people would read the sentence, but I've given it one more tweak for clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a few more words, but I like the rewrite. It's totally clear what is meant here and the sentence is grammatically correct. - Mgm|(talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have assumed so. I have sent the uploader a note asking him for confirmation of this - he is not too active at the moment, so he may not respond. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a swift response from the uploader, who has confirmed that he is the author of the image, and has added this info to the image page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images that were scanned from books should have complete publication information for the sources (author, title, publication location, publisher, publication date) - just as if they were a reference in a bibliography.
I have added this information. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These concerns should be easily addressed. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer reviewed this and rotated an image. I find it meets the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, & for helping to straighten the image. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support - This is a clearly written, comprehensive, and well-researched article. This series on Antarctic explorers and expeditions is really fascinating - thanks! Nitpicks:
Crean had caught Captain Scott's attention with his ability and work ethic on the Discovery Expedition, and in 1906 Scott requested that Crean join him on HMS Victorious - What ability?
I've change "ability" to "attitude", which seems more apt in relation to Zatoichi's text on the Discovery Expedition. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shackleton is centre picture. - Perhaps this sentence could be fixed up a bit?
What is the difference between the Smith book in the "References" and the Smith book in the "Further reading"? Do we need to cite both?
I'll leave this to Zatoichi - perhaps this edition had more images or something. I don't know, though. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the second Smith book was added without Zatoichi's knowledge. There's no purpose in having it as further reading, so it has been removed. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will fully support as soon as the image issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the "provisional" bit as the image concerns have now been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support after rereading. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments. This is a very interesting article! I did find a few minor things that I'd like to see fixed.[reply]
"Crean's would be relied upon as one of the few men in the party with polar experience" - not sure what this is trying to say... There is either a missing word or an extra possessive
There are comma issues throughout the article. I fixed a few but I see more. There does not need to be a comma after "and" unless both halves are complete sentences. For example, there should not be a comma in "he did this and then did that" but there should be for "he did this, and then he did that."
Small point: This is optional. One can use commas to separate "and" clauses if one so desires, even if the "and" does not precede a complete sentence. I personally do not use this style, but it is legitimate. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ick. I was taught that it was a pretty hard and fast rule, but I guess things have changed. Thanks, Awa. Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
when I first read this I thought it took him two months to cry - "Displaying uncharacteristic emotion, and after two months of effort, Crean broke down and wept at the prospect of having to turn back, so close to the goal."
I've reworded this to eliminate ambiguity Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"has also been suggested that Surgeon Atkinson, '...suggested by whom?
There seem to be a few POV words/phrases strung throughout. For example, "Worse was to follow,"
POV? As long as its NPOV, that's fine. It's hardly "Better was to follow". I may be snowblind but at least now I've got scurvy! Whoopee! Yomanganitalk 20:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "worse was to follow" and changed a couple of other POV phrases as discussed with Brian on our talk pages. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all possible POVs have now been removed, now Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of passive voice that could be converted to active voice. That usually helps the prose flow better. For example "The hope was..." could be "The men hoped",
Rephrased as suggested, however this was the only passive voice I could find. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few other passive voice instances, and have rephrased them. See Article history edit summaries for details. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His wife is listed variously as Ellen and Eileen
Ellen is correct (Eileen was his daughter) - fixed Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith uses "Eileen" throughout, so I just made a note of that, and left it at "Ellen" in the article. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments. I have done the simple fixes, but I'll let Zatoichi look at the other points, since most of the prose work was his. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Only briefly skimmed it, but it looks fairly good. A bit unhappy with the breaking down and weeping when he's left out of the Polar party. Scott says the three were "disappointed", Bowers that "Crean was half in tears". Does Smith mention his source for the more dramatic version? Yomanganitalk 19:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Scott says (diary entry 4 January 1912) is: "Poor old Crean wept". Admittedly, this was when the returning party said their final goodbyes to the polar party, but it's within the sense of what's written here, and is a reasonable source for Smith's version.Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Broke down" is a bit of an embellishment (although Caroline Alexander makes exactly the same embellishment in her version of the story in Endurance). Bowers is the master of understatement I admit, but "half in tears" doesn't suggest Crean broken down. Also I'm not sure he display of emotion was uncharacteristic: Teddy Evans reports Crean crying a few days later and Shackleton mentions he took the shooting of the pups on the Endurance expedition "badly".Yomanganitalk 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the "uncharacteristic" label - in fact, I think he was a right old crybaby - and I'll discuss with my co-nom (who is the main author) whether this description should go.Brianboulton (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "uncharacteristic" should go. From what I've read in Smith and Alexander about Crean, he was quite emotional. I reworded it.Zatoichi26 (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like "broke down" to go ideally. It is too dramatic in this phlegmatic world.Yomanganitalk 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I removed "broke down". Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a better read, it looks good. The balance between the Terra Nova and Endurance expeditions is a bit off in my opinion: we get full details on Terra Nova and very much a summary on Endurance. A couple of other very minor points:
Looking at the article again, I think you're right on the balance thing. My impression from reading 3 or 4 books on the subject, and Brianboulton can jump in here with his opinion, is that the Endurance related books don't have too much detail on Crean's involvement specifically, they more concern Shackleton's activities, or the group's activities. I think the books on Terra Nova, like the diaries or Cherry-Garrard's book, have more detail on Crean specifically, so this section is longer. Doesn't make it right but that's my explanation... I mean we can expand on the Endurance section with general information but then we risk treading into Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition territory.Zatoichi26 (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crean was very much a minor figure on the Discovery Expedition; Scott's account hardly mentions him, Wilson's just once. On the Terra Nova Expedition he was much more to the fore in several major aspects, and his activities are well documented. On the Endurance Crean, a modest man, was again more or less in the background until the James Caird voyage and the South Georgia crossing. I think these episodes are adequately covered, and don't see much point in writing more about the earlier parts of the expedition where Crean was less prominent. But please let us know if you believe there are episodes on this expedition which are important to the Crean story that are either omitted or inadequately covered. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Discovery coverage is fine (as you say, he was a minor figure). Endurance could perhaps mention: Crean's role as dog handler in the absence of an expert on the expedition, his accident early on where he was crushed while chipping ice, his selection to scout out a better camp site on Elephant Island as one of the 4 fittest men on the group's arrival, his tuneless singing on the James Caird (for a little light relief).
Alexander's book says Crean was put in charge of training the 4 pups (see lead photo), and him being placed in charge of one of the dog teams, but I could not find reference to him being the main dog handler. Brian, maybe you can comment. I'll get to the other suggestions directly above, when I get more time. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added bits to the text explaining Crean's role re the dogs, his narrow escape from being crushed, his being one of the four fittest men, and his tuneless singing. I have to agree with Yomangani that this slight filling-out enhances the Endurance episode. I have cited all these details to Shackleton's account, which doesn't name Crean as the main dog handler, but does mention the non-arrival of a dogs expert—a Canadian, would you believe? Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, don't let the deliquency of one tarnish the reputation of all us Canucks! Zatoichi26 (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to suggest he was a dog handler rather than the main dog-handler (though he probably did more in this area than any of the others what with caring for both the pups and his assigned team), so that's fine. The Canadian possibly dropped out to enlist, so he may not have been a bad apple. Sir Daniel Gooch stepped into his shoes until South Georgia as a favour to Shackleton (he's the bloke sat down next to Shackleton in the crew photo). Yomanganitalk 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Crean was invited on the Quest Expedition but declined (haven't a source for that to hand but it is an important point in his Antarctic career if you can verify it).
Crean suffered snowblindness on the return journey with Lashly and Evans as well which might be worth mentioning.
Any reason why Farthest South has been piped to furthest south? Seems a bit pointless. Yomanganitalk 02:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "furthest south" is used throughout this article, and that's OK provided it's consistent. "Farthest South" happens to be the name of the wiki article on this subject, hence the pipe. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is almost there. Definitely an interesting person. I did some minor copyedits. Here's a bunch of other comments I wrote down as I was reading the article:
You say fifteen in the lead and later 15 in the text. Use of numbers should be consistent throughout. Not sure if the MOS prefers 15 to be written out or not, but one of those is incorrect.
MOS says numbers over 10 should be numeric unless starting a sentence. I've made the lead figure numeric. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...led to the award of the Albert Medal." I suggest something along the lines of: "...led to him receiving the Albert Medal." (without -ing this construction is grammatically incorrect)
Adjusted, per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...probably lying about his age to get in." This is speculation and needs to be sourced or removed. He could have special permission. Also The Boy Seaman article states: "Boy 2nd Class - A boy aged 15 to 17 rated as such on entry to a training ship of the Royal Navy.
Such entry was conditional on a boy's adequate physical height, weight and medical fitness and evidence of being of 'good character'. The boy's parents or guardians would sign a declaration that the boy would serve in the Navy for a minimum period (usually 12 years)." If that is true, nothing is wrong with his age at all.
I'll have to ask Zatoichi to deal with this, as he wrote it. I'm pretty sure the "lying about his age" comes from Smith, but Zatoichi will sort it out. I'm most impressed that you took the trouble to consult the Boy Seaman article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed like the logical thing to do. - Mgm|(talk) 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biographer Michael Smith says it "appears that Crean had a major row with is father" and "swore he would run away to sea", setting off to the Royal Navy station at Minard Inlet and signing up. He further writes that "Officially the lowest enlistment age was sixteen and the assumption is the fifteen-year-old lad will have either forged his papers or lied about his age" Putting this together with the Boy Seaman article, the "lying" part is plausible due to his being 15-17 and not having his parents' consent. I updated the article in this vein. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...and faced a three-day detour around the large icefall..." You didn't specify a specific icefall. Shouldn't you say "a large icefall" instead?
"By early February he was in great pain, his joints swollen and discoloured, and passing blood." Was he passing blood or were his joints? You probably mean he did, but the sentence can be read to mean either.
Prose adjusted to get grammar right and meaning clear. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" In the early efforts to free her, Crean narrowly escaped being crushed by
a sudden movement in the ice, but was pulled free." Was it Crean or the ship that was pulled free? If it was Crean, you can leave the bit after the final comma altogether because that was what the word 'escaped' already implied. If it was the ship, the sentence needs to be changed for clarification. - Mgm|(talk) 18:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On your last point, I've removed the redundant phrase per your suggestion. Thank you for all your helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not a huge fan of "In popular culture" sections, but is it worth mentioning somewhere Crean's various appearances in fiction? I know of at least one play and a big-budget Guinness advertisement based on the man. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 22:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This information was in an earlier version of the article. The Guinness ad was dropped on the grounds of being trivial. There is a possible case for including information about the play in the final section, and I am discussing this with the other nominator. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Provided the play the play gets in. Having a play based on (part of) your life is definitely not trivial and should be mentioned. Depending on the background of the ad, it might be worth including too. It might be trivial in the general scheme of things, but that's why it would get appropriate weight (a tiny bit compared to the entire article). I haven't heard of real polar explorers being used in commercials so it's quite uncommon. (I removed one duplicate word in the lead) =- Mgm|(talk) 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put the film in. As to the ad, there have been adverts using polar explorers in the past. Captain Scott's Terra Nova expedition had heavy commercial sponsorship. I personally don't like seeing genuine heroes' names used in this way; such is media power that the person becomes associated with the product rather than their deeds. It's a personal view, I know, but I hold it strongly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would leave the play out; it seems to be a very minor (indeed one-man) play, too minor to include. But I don't feel too strongly about it. The beer ad I feel should definitely be left out, since it would end the article on a very trivial and superficial note, considering the man's life accomplishments. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The best reason for mentioning the play is that it enables the article to end on a dignified note, with his daughter's remarks, which I think do proper credit to the man. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I found the play did a national tour through the UK. That doesn't sound superficial to me. - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "superficial" description refers to the advert, not the play. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could Image:Pic2ponys.jpg be a bit enlarged. It's hard to get a clear view of its subjects at the current size. - Mgm|(talk) 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOS recommends that image sizes should not be forced, i.e. made larger than the default size. MOS:IMAGE lists exceptions, e.g. lead image, maps, but these don't cover our pony picture. The ideas is that readers use the thumb to get an enlarged image. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a verdict? I think all comments have been addressed. Zatoichi26 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been five months since the last nomination. I think this is ready now. Gary King (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Much has been done to improve the article, all articles worded properly and appropriately sourced, formatting correct, redirects perfect etc: Generally written of very high quality standard. IMO, it deserves the promotion to Featured class.--Dark dude (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images - Both non-free, with rationales and appropriate, no major problems. Cover one is fine, it would be nicer to have a bit more fleshed out in the gameplay one but it hits the right points. --MASEM 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Nicely researched and generally well-written. (I fixed a few clumsy phrases, but I think it could benefit from a thorough CE. Not enough for an oppose vote here, though.) I worry that we – the Wikipedia VG community – might rely too much on IGN as a sort of gospel. In a way, this sort of makes sense, given their status in the field of VG reviews. Still, it seems to me that GameSpot and 1UP might be equally valid sources (and good for diversity).
I also feel like there's more to be said about these games – but you did all the research, so you'd know better than I what's available. Nice work overall, and forgive me for not taking a more definite stand. Scartol • Tok 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great article, seems good enough to join the FA (I could say the Gameplay section is short, specially compared to an FA one, but since only the "straight facts" are needed and the main Metroid article and that one linked list other details, it doesn't matter). igordebraga≠ 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me, although I admit I'm sometimes blind to spelling/1a issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, related to the above, I don't see that the source listed above supports the statement "Metroid Prime 3: Corruption is the first game in the Metroid series to feature full voice acting, although previous games in the series used limited voice acting to varying degrees."
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think MobyGames is considered to be reliable because of the many books that reference it. However, I've replaced it anyways per your second point, with a GamePro magazine article. The article states "Another odd addition is the copious voice acting implemented in Corruption. Part of the charm of the Metroid series was the feeling that Samus acting alone--she always came across as a lone wolf--surveying a planet on her own, with nothing to rely on but her skills and instincts." which is currently backing up the statement "Metroid Prime 3: Corruption is the first game in the Metroid series to feature a significant amount of voice acting, compared to previous games in the series in which Samus "[acted] alone [... and] always came across as a lone wolf"." Gary King (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Guyinblack25
It was a good read and looks like a very interesting game. I'll have to pick it up some day. Here are some issues which stood out to me.
The lead could use some tweaking
The commas threw me off the first time I read this sentence, and I wasn't sure where the spin off titles spun off from. I think an emdash would solves this. "the final entry in the Metroid Prime trilogy, excluding two spin-off titles."
The only dates listed in the lead are the North American and European ones. No love for Japan?
On a similar note, I don't think the full dates are needed in the lead. That's what the infobox is for. I would tweak the sentence to: "It was released in North America and Europe in 2007, and in Japan the following year."
The terminology could use some tweaking too.
I would link to Circle strafing somewhere in the "Gameplay" section, just to offer more explanation to a concept not easily understood through text.
Unlockable in the "Setting" section is something someone unfamiliar with games may not understand. Try something like, "accessible after completing certain in-game tasks".
Minor prose suggestions
"ends abruptly" or "abruptly ends"? I'm not entirely sure which is more appropriate here or if either one is more appropriate. Any thoughts?
I've never been a fan of "herself/himself" and find it generally doesn't add much. "...destroy the Leviathan Seed before she herself is incapacitated."
In the "Release and reception" section, "The "month of Metroid" as named by Nintendo included..." seems like it's missing commas or emdashes.
Sources
I think the instruction book should be cited with {{cite book}}. It also has url, accessdate, and format parameters to link to the web version.
What makes Nintendo World Report a reliable source?
Ref 19 from Edge, should have their name in italics since they are a magazine.
Ref 36-40, the Best/Top awards should probably list the dates as 2007 if no other date is available.
Any more info on Ref 42, the Famitsu references?
Overall, I think the article is in good shape and is close to FA quality. I'll check back in later to check on the progress. (Guyinblack25talk 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
All done. Nintendo World Report has been referenced by several other reliable sources in the past, including GamePro, Fairfax New Zealand, and GameStar, to name a few. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My that was fast. One last thing. Ref 38- "IGN Best of 2007: Best Adventure Game" has two dates listed in the template. Which is the correct one? (Guyinblack25talk 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support: All my concerns have been addressed. I believe the article to be well written, factually accurate, well sourced, and of Featured quality. (Guyinblack25talk 19:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it, my opinion, satisfies FA criteria and deserves to be in the list of the best Wiki works. The article had a peer review sometime ago and was extensively copy-edited. I hope that the nomination will find support from reviewers. Ruslik (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I reviewed this article as part of the PR, and I think it is a fine piece of work. My only significant issue at this point are the large numbers, which aren't consistently one format or the other. (Examples: "57,200", and "63 930".) Thanks for the nice contribution to wikipedia.—RJH (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I changed the format of all numbers to conform to a single style. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all free, all but one from NASA, the other an editor's own creation, and all marked appropriately. --MASEM 22:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with nitpicks. Great work, guys, as usual:
However, it did not appear as expected for a ring. - Have following the paragraph tightly, I'm barely understanding what this means. Is it supposed to mean that the dip didn't appear to be a ring?
The innermost ring of Neptune is called the Galle ring after Johann Gottfried Galle, a discoverer of Neptune. - Could we change the end to, one of the discoverers of Neptune?
The entire article is kind of choppy. Not really certain sections, but it's randomly spread out. Such as the first paragraph in the "Arcs" section. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 12:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issues have been fixed. Thanks for the review. Ruslik (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jargon and wikilinking review needed throughout by someone unfamiliar with the article and the topic. Here's one sample (notice the number of undefined, unlinked terms):
They were studied by analysing results of optical imaging, ultraviolet and optical occultations. Voyager 2 observed the rings in different geometries relative to the sun, producing images of back-scattered, forward-scattered and side-scattered light. Analysis of these images allowed derivation of the phase function, geometrical and bond albedo of ring particles.
A few of these terms are linked or defined earlier in the article, but most of them aren't. This suggests the entire article should be checked for jargon. Also, pls fix the dab links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed dab pages except moonlet. The latter contains a definition of moonlet and should stay in my opinion, because there is no alternative. I also added explanations to the last section, and Mattisse did some work on wikilinking the article. Ruslik (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linking the reader to a dab leaves the reader confused about which definition is intended: I do hope you all will fix this over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I converted Moonlet into stub. Ruslik (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the citation format on author names? Most have last name first, but at least one uses an external template that has first name first. {{Source list/Smith1989}}. Also, pls review WP:MOSNUM: on a quick glance, I saw one issue, not sure if there's more. More jargon in the lead (haven't yet read further): what is an "inner shepherd moon". Also, this comes up on almost every astronomy FAC/FAR: is Voyager 2 italicized or not? The article sometimes italicizes it, sometimes doesn't. Pls decide and be consistent throughout articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Format of author names was my fault, sorry. I fixed this issue. I also italicized Voyager 2. Ruslik (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support although it would be nice to have more consistency in the notes column of the table. Nergaal (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, but what do you mean by consistency? Ruslik (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entries 3&4 contain location information too; at least for 3 it seems completely redundant. Ah, and the LeVerrier radius error is surely ±20 and not 200? Nergaal (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I merged notes. ±20 is correct number taken from Miner, 2007. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am familiar with this interesting and concisely-written article, having been through it several times and done minor copy editing. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and, especially, for the copy-edit. The text is now much better. Ruslik (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cleaned up the lede a bit. The article's prose could be pruned and buffed a bit, but generally well-written, well-researched and well-structured. Eusebeus (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Ruslik (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sentences need to be rewritten. It could be modeled on the other Rings articles, which are not constrained by having the title as the first words. I might say "The planet Neptune has a system of rings that was discovered in 1987 by the Voyager 2 spacecraft. They are tenuous, faint, and dusty and resemble the rings of Jupiter more closely than those of Saturn or Uranus. Neptune possesses five known rings,..." Also, I had to look up the word wikt:tenuous so I'd recommend not using it. "WP:As of 2008" should be removed; this is for items that may not be updated immediately, which this would be.
"their age is probably less than that of the Solar System." I would hope everything in the solar system had an age younger than the SS itself. Should be rephased to bya or something more clear.
"As of 2008" should be removed from the Arcs section. This is for material that is dated and may not be updated when it should be. This article will be updates quickly if anything new is discovered so this phrase is unnecessary.fixed
What exactly is a ring arc? There should be a link or short explanation in the section.fixed
Question: If the rings weren't officially discovered until 1989, then how did we know the Arc measures of Adams in 1986? This should be clarified.
The old observations were reanalyzed after the Voyager fly-by. After it the parameters ring system became known and it was possible to use old results to infer the properties of arcs at the time of occultations. I added a clarification in the Discovery section. Ruslik (talk)
I do not think "This table summarizes the properties of the planetary ring system of Neptune." is necessary in the Properties section. I find it quite self-explanatory. fixed' And Why are there so many question marks in the table? If they are yet unknown by astronomers, there should be a comment about that.
I added a comment just after the table. Ruslik (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, there could be a few more external links. Maybe someone doesn't want an article quite so scientific.
Sorry to be so critical, but I hope this is constructive criticism! The article is very informative and I learned a lot reading it. Thanks for your work and I hope this is promoted! Reywas92Talk 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues fixed. Personally, I prefer the lead as it is. I think it's more concise. I also don't think that the word "tenuous" is particularly obscure. Most of the objects in the Solar System formed at roughly the same time (give or take 50 million years), so the fact that something is younger than the age of the Solar System is relevant. The rings of Neptune are a fairly sciencey topic; most external links that I've looked at have been either very scientific or very short. Serendipodous 23:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Ruslik (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Currently a Good Article, this comprehensive and well-referenced article on a Lower East Side congregation has recently been improved, and I believe now meets the FA criteria. Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images both images are free and seem to be ok with their licensing tags. Can the old picture be better asserted as to its publication date? --MASEM 05:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. The Jewish encyclopedia (the source of the old picture) was published between 1901 and 1906. While I cannot pin down the specific publication date of this image any more exactly than that, I can say with confidence that it was published no later than 1906, and is in the public domain, as is the rest of the Jewish encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real image problem on that end, I would just take a notch of effort to explain this situation in the image page just to be very clear that the work was published no later than 1906 and thus clearly PD. --MASEM 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already uploaded the image to Commons, but hadn't deleted the one here yet. I've deleted the local copy, and will try to clarify on the Commons page. Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Per the MOS, we don't put link titles in all capitals, even when the original is in all capitals.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that out. I've fixed the link titles, and deleted the dead EL. Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (changed below) As an article on a listed building, historic landmark, currently unoccupied, the article is seriously deficient in material on the architecture, which is surely very easily available. I know you're not interested in architecture, but the comprehensiveness requirement mandates a decent section. The architects are only mentioned in the infobox, and the extraordinary style of the building is hardly adequately covered by just calling it Gothic Revival. The precipitous decline in attendence in later years needs more coverage. Linking the "Welsh" chapel to "Welsh people" is not really good enough. What would an "American chapel" be? Posek is linked twice, but never explained; some other terms could usefully be explained. Cantor needs a link. The prose gets a bit dense at times. Are no more illustrations available? Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the "posek" issue, thanks. Regarding the Welsh chapel, several sources, mention it, but none actually say what it means beyond that, so I'm not sure how to fix the issue. Regarding more illustrations, the building is padlocked, so it's hard to get in, but I'll try to get an interior shot. Also, I'd be happy to add more material about the architecture, but I'm not sure where to find it. Do you have any ideas? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link to Religion in Wales would be a start; "chapel" in Wales means a nonconformist church, probably Welsh Methodist. I don't know about books on NY architecture, except that they exist in superabundance. Try Dunlap's bibliography, or ask User:Wetman, who should know. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've changed the link. The books on New York architecture I've seen don't give much detail; I've added a little for now, and will ask Wetman if he knows of others. In general I find that there are very few even partially complete sources on Jewish congregations or their buildings, most sources have a few paragraphs at most, and usually much less. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of getting hold of:
Synagogues of New York's Lower East Side (ISBN: 0814725597)
Wolfe, Gerard R. , Washington Mew Books, New York, New York, 1978
Synagogues of New York City : A Pictorial Survey in 123 Photographs (ISBN: 0486242315)
Israelowitz, Oscar, Dover, 1982
Synagogues of the United States - A Photographic and Architectural Survey.
Israelowitz, Oscar, NY, 1992
American Synagogues, A Century of Architecture and Jewish Community
Gruber, Samuel D., Rizzoli, NY, 2003
Synagogue Architecture in the United States History and Interpretation
Wischnitzer, Rachel , Philadelphia, 1955.
-The Wolfe surely must have decent coverage. What is the stone panel above the door? Is it a Hebrew inscription? Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do cite Wolfe in the article, but a different book. However, I've found what might be an even better source, the NRHP registration form. You can find it here: [40]Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Architecture now covered adequately, and as well as sources allow, though a look at the Wolfe book sometime would probably improve it still further. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fascinating article about well-known NY establishment. 68.37.3.247 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Do you normally edit with a Wikipedia account? Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great. Very well cited. A few minor comments:
In the intro, Ephraim Oshry is introduced as "noted", which is a potential peacock word. Can you replace it with a more factual description?
The first sentence of the "Early history" section has four consequent citations, which seems like too much for such a short sentence. Are they all necessary?
In the "Move to current building, Jacob Joseph" section, Joseph "lacked administrative skills", which is a bit POV. Maybe something like "had no administrative experience/training" would sound more neutral.
All in all, look very good :) -- Nudve (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your close read of the material, and kind words. I've fixed the issues you spotted. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The material on the architecture is certainly interesting but more important I think is the account of different rabbis and changes in the membership - articles like this are critical elements of our coverage of the social history of Jews in New York. It appears to be accurate, NPOV compliant, well-sourced. A fine article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; "covering the social history of Jews in New York" is a nice turn of phrase. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely done. Any chance of pics of any persons mentioned? I know it's a bit obscure, but I'd love to see them if they exist and are obtainable. IronDuke 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I know there's at least one picture of Joseph, here, but I don't have a free license. Jayjg (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no visible concerns from what I can see; seems to make all the basic requirements. Good job. Khoikhoi 08:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments - Yohhanstalk 05:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All issues resolved, Yohhanstalk 05:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose needs some touching up before it can meet criterion 1a. Yohhanstalk 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
located at in a historic synagogue building - Something is amiss here. Should it be, "... located in an historic synagogue building ..."?
It was the first Eastern European congregation founded in New York City and the oldest Orthodox Russian Jewish congregation in the United States. - This needs clarifying. Is it currently the oldest Orthodox Russian Jewish congregation, or was it the oldest? I assume the former (the source seems to corroborate this), but the way the sentence is currently worded suggests otherwise.
Founded in 1852 by Rabbi Abraham Ash as Beth Hamedrash, it split in 1859, with the rabbi and the bulk of the members renaming their congregation Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, and the president and a minority of the members becoming Kahal Adath Jeshurun (the Eldridge Street Synagogue). - Snake sentence that needs to be split up into two or even three sentences.
From 1888 to 1902 the congregation was led by Rabbi Jacob Joseph, - Try not to use passive voice. This ought to be changed to "Rabbi Jacob Joseph led the congregation from 1888 to 1902, and was ..."
From 1952 to 2003 the congregation was led by Rabbi Ephraim Oshry - Same as the last sentence.
"However, the congregation dwindled and was unable to maintain the building, which had been damaged by storms and fires, and despite some funding and grants, was critically endangered." - This is a rather disjointed sentence and could be structured better. Also, this sentence doesn't really contrast with anything said previously, so the "however" is not warranted. It could be better replaced by "As time progressed,". Also, what was "critically endangered"? The building or the congregation? I suppose it's possible that it could be both, but even that is unclear given the way the sentence is currently structured.
raise an estimate $4.5 million → raise an estimated $4.5 million for repairs
was sharing facilities with a congregation on Henry Street. - Does that mean that they are not sharing facilities anymore? If that is the case, where are they now? If that is not the case, "was" should be changed to "is".
I've only had a chance to get through the lead, but this many problems in so short a space is worrisome. I'll look at the rest later tonight. - Yohhanstalk 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful evaluation and careful read. Regarding your points, in order:
Fixed.
I agree the sentence is a bit long, but I think it's fully understandable, and other wordings I've tried were awkard. Can you suggest a better wording?
I was thinking something like, "Founded in 1852 by Rabbi Abraham Ash as Beth Hamedrash, it split in 1859, with the rabbi and the bulk of the members renaming their congregation Beth Hamedrash Hagadol. The congregation's president, Joshua Rothstein, and a small number of the members eventually formed Kahal Adath Jeshurun (the Eldridge Street Synagogue)." What do you think? - Yohhanstalk 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed per your suggestion, and Rothstein's name removed. He wasn't really famous enough to rate a mention in the lede. Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
I've turned the section into a paragraph, in order to make it clear it's all as of 2008. The article uses the past tense, to avoid the issue of becoming out of date if the facts change. If the congregation moves to another location in 2009, or disbands entirely, it will still be true that "As of 2008" it was "was sharing facilities with a congregation on Henry Street."
Thanks again for your careful read, and I look forward to additional helpful advice and copyediting. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I like the changes you've made. Also, forgive me if it seems I'm being too picky. But, what better place to be picky about prose/grammar than at FAC right? And feel free to contest any of the changes I suggest. I promise not to be offended. :)
Actually, I really appreciate your thoroughness, and I hope you don't mind that I've interspersed my responses with your comments, for clarity and simplicity. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way you responded is how I prefer it. It's a pet peeve of mine when people respond to my bulleted list with a bulleted list of their own below mine. As you said, interspersing only serves to promote clarity and simplicity. - Yohhanstalk 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
congregation's existence Ash was not paid for his work as rabbi, instead earning a living as a peddler → "congregation's existence, Ash was not paid for his work as rabbi, and instead earned a living as a peddler"
and wealthy Sephardi Jews who sympathized with the traditionalism of the congregation's members - Is the bolded phrase really necessary? Because if it's taken out, it makes the sentence a lot easier to read
I thought the mention of their motivations was interesting and important, as did the sources - otherwise why would they support this congregation whose members were so different from themselves? Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something like that, but wasn't sure. Struck. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"rapidly became the most important center for Orthodox Jewish guidance in the country" - Since this is a quotation, it should be attributed to someone.
Why is beadle linked to shamash? Would it not make more sense to just either, A.) use the word shamash, or B.) link to beadle?
People complained about foreign words in the article, so I changed them to English ones. :-) Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but I still think that for clarity, you should link to the word you're using. I became quickly confused as to why I had directed to shamash until I went to the beadle article and found that shamash is Hebrew for beadle. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to wikilink "immigrant Eastern European Jews" rather than "entering the United States in large numbers only in the 1870s"?
Yes it would. Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
viewing religion and the synagogue as marginal - not sure "marginal" is the best word here. How about something like, "... viewing religion and the synagogue as something minimal"? Minimal still doesn't feel quite right, but you get what I mean.
Good point. Re-worded. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Members took sides in the dispute - What does this have to do with Ash taking Rothstein to court? I think changing the beginning of this sentence gets across the same message in addition to making things flow better. Something like, "Following synagogue disturbances and a contested election among members, Ash took ..."
The point the sources make is that, rather than just being a dispute between the two men, the issue spilled over into the membership too, with opposing factions taking different sides, which in turn escalated to synagogue disturbances, contested elections, and finally a court case. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, might I suggest rewording that sentence to this? "Members took sides in the dispute[21] which led to synagogue disturbances, a contested election,[31] and eventually to Ash taking Rothstein to an American court in an attempt to oust him as president of the congregation." - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
adding the word "Hagadol" ("Great") to the original name - Not sure this is necessary. Earlier it is stated that Beth Hamerdash translates to "House of Study", and I think we can then infer from this that Hagadol means "Great"
The point I was (and I think the sources were) trying to make was that it was a not only a minor name change, but also one intended to indicate that Ash's faction were even "better" than those who remained with the president. I'm not adamant about this, but I like it because I think it is a palpable indication of the animus between the groups. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such animosity! And over religious quibbles, too. Who'd have guessed? - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think putting an {{otheruses}} link at the top for Beth Hamedrash Hagadol Anshe Ungarn would better serve to let readers know to what congregation you're referring. However, if you choose to leave it as a "not to be confused with ..." as johnbod suggested, then the right parentheses needs to come after the period in that sentence. That is, this, "by Hungarian Jews.)" needs to be changed to this, "by Hungarian Jews)."
Beth Hamedrash Hagadol provided, according to historian and long-time member Judah David Eisenstein, → "According to historian and long-time member Judah David Eisenstein, Beth Hamedrash Hagadol provided"
and introduced some mild innovations - I just want to make sure your word usage here is intentional. By "mild" you mean not particularly controversial right? If that's not the case, then might I suggest changing this to "minor"?
In addition, though the original founders of the synagogue had scorned the use of cantors, in 1877, the younger generation hired a professional cantor, Judah Oberman, for $500 per year, in order to bring greater formality and decorum to the services[33] (and to attract new members). - It is probably safe to drop the phrase about the original founders scorning the use of cantors since it was mentioned a short while ago. This would allow you to change the rest of the sentence into something more readable: "... for $500 per year in order to bring greater formality and decorum to the services, as well as to attract new members." If you feel that it is necessary to have that phrase in there ("though the original founders of the synagogue had scorned the use of cantors"), then disregard this comment.
Looks good to me. By the way, you make the most readable long sentence I have ever seen. Except for maybe Thomas Hardy. Great writer, but I don't think the man knew how to end a sentence. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
traditional; men and women → "traditional. Men and women ..."
Sigh. Why do people so dislike semi-colons? They're a very useful punctuation mark. Anyway, I've changed it to your wording. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That they, are but sometimes a full stop just reads better. Gives the brain a chance to rest, you know? But, that's all my criticism was; I was trying to improve readability. If you prefer to use the semicolor, feel free to. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine, I've used your wording. People seem to object to long sentences, so it's probably better. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for rabbinic ordination, and sponsored Talmud and Mishna study groups,[19] which were founded in the 1870s, and held both mornings and evenings. → "for rabbinic ordination. Additionally, Talmud and Mishna study groups, founded in the 1870s, were hold in both the morning and evening."
Less characteristic of the style are the plain squared tops, with square windows, of the two front towers → "Less characteristic of the style are the plain square-shaped towers adorned with square windows"
Johnbod just added that, and I'm not sure exactly what he means by it, but I think he means the tops of the towers are squares, rather than point. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any way it can be reworded? It feels pretty awkward as it is. My wording does not have to be used, but it would be nice if the sentence was massaged a bit more. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it may have originally been intended to complete these more appropriately. - Meaning... what? Add more decoration? Add spires? More glass? More buttresses? Assume the reader has no imagination and doesn't know what the Gothic Revival style is (probably a decent enough assumption).
Johnbod also just added that, and I'm not sure what he meant by that either. I'd prefer to delete it, but then it might piss him off, and reduce my chances of him withdrawing his "Oppose". :-) Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Fair enough. I'll let him respond then. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All reworded. I'm just not used to people who can't tell the difference between a Gothic tower and a plain oblong. Sorry about that. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnic makeup of the church's neighborhood was, however, rapidly changing, with native-born Baptists being displaced by Irish and German immigrants. → The ethnic makeup of the church's neighborhood began to change rapidly. Native-born Baptists were replaced by Irish and German immigrants."
Fixed, using a different wording. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, still not crazy about using "with" as a connecting word, but it works well enough. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The congregation would found the Fifth Avenue Baptist church, then the Park Avenue Church, and then build the Riverside Church. → "The congregation founded the Fifth Avenue Baptist church, previously Park Avenue Church, and then built the Riverside Church."
Actually, they founded them in that order, Fifth Avenue -> Park Avenue -> Riverside. I've modified the wording to make that more clear. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh... I see. That's more clear. - Yohhanstalk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
according to the New York Times report of the day. - 'the' New York Times report of the day, eh? Me thinks maybe this definite article should be an indefinite one. (change "the" to "a")
That was an insertion by Johnbod. I'm not too keen on it, and I don't think the claim is contentious, so I'm just going to live on the edge, and remove it. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seen in the old photograph above, - Err... with my screen resolution (1680x1050) it's actually to the left. How about just dropping "above"? That way you don't have to worry about people's screen resolution.
That was also some of Johnbod's material. I've removed the word "above". Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, they hired → "They also hired" (what you had is fine, I just figured we'd throw in some variety since "in addition" is already used a lot in the article)
Much better, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 1800s, other synagogues in Manhattan each focused on a particular constituency, typically Jews from a single region or city in Europe. - Is the whole paragraph containing this sentence cited to Rischin? If not, this sentence needs a citation.
Good eye. Found a source, and cited it. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"
Oppose
Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (also Beth Hamidrash Hagadol or Beth Hamedrash Hagodol or Beth Midrash Hagadol) is an Orthodox congregation which was, for over 120 years, located at in a historic synagogue building at 60-64 Norfolk Street in Manhattan, New York, on the Lower East Side. - "At in"?
I thought I fixed that already! Fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the late twentieth century the congregation dwindled and was unable to maintain the building, which had been damaged by storms and fires, and despite some funding and grants, the structure was critically endangered. - Split this sentence, and remove "some".
As of 2008[update] the Lower East Side Conservancy was trying to raise an estimated $4.5 million for repairs, with the intent of turning it into an educational center. - "Turning it into" → "converting".
The congregation moved frequently in its early years: in 1852 it was located at 83 Bayard Street, then at Elm and Canal, and from 1853 to 1856 in a hall at Pearl and Chatham[18]/Centre Streets. - That backslash format is odd.
In addition, he ran a small food concession stand in the vestibule; mourners who came to recite kaddish could purchase a piece of sponge cake and small glass of brandy for ten cents. - Remove "in addition".
They attempted to re-create, in Beth Hamedrash, the kind of synagogue they had attended in Europe. - Not sure those commas are needed.
Commas are always a contentious matter of style. In this, and previous FACs, other editors have been encouraging me to add commas. I've removed them. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In 1859,[29] disagreement broke out between Ash and the synagogue's parnas (president), Joshua Rothstein,[9] over who had been responsible for procuring the Allen Street location,[30] and escalated into a conflict "over the question of official authority and 'honor'". - This is an example of the many sentences that are rather long and confusing. Try to break these long snakes into slightly shorter sentences, or alternatively (and more importantly), avoid excessive use of commas to improve prose flow. Some more examples:
Excess commas removed. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Men and women sat separately, the full service in the traditional prayer book was followed,[34] and the congregation still trained men for rabbinic ordination.
There the congregation's younger members gained greater control, and introduced some minor innovations; for example, changing the title of parnas to president, and in 1877 hiring a professional cantor, Judah Oberman, for $500 per year, in order to bring greater formality and decorum to the services[34] as well as to attract new members.
Designed in the Gothic Revival style by an unknown architect, its "characteristic features" included "the vertical proportions, pointed arch window openings with drip moldings, three bay facade with towers", and an interior that included "ribbed vaulting" and a "tall and lofty rectangular nave and apse.
As above, commas are a contentious matter of preference, with some editors preferring more, others preferring fewer. I've removed some more commas, and some sentences have been shortened. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Talmud and Mishna study groups,[21] founded in the 1870s, were held both mornings and evenings. - Remove "additionally".
Another copyeditor told me to add it. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less characteristic of the style are the plain squared tops, with square windows, of the two front towers; it may have originally been intended to complete these more appropriately. - Needs a source.
It has been completely re-worked by the editor who added it a couple of days ago. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(or $300 per year — the following year a new cantor, Simhe Samuelson, would be hired for over three times as much, $1,000 a year). - Em dashes are unspaced.
I'll stop there, but the prose needs significant work. I strongly suggest you find a copyeditor to deal with the usage of commas and the length of sentences. It's an interesting article overall, though. Cheers, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. As mentioned, use of commas is always a contentious matter of personal preference, and other copyeditors have insisted I add them, so I feel I'm kind of being whip-sawed here. As you can see (above) the article has already been read by quite a few editors, and had a thorough copyediting, though more eyes are always welcome. Do you have any other specific issues with the prose? Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, the usage of commas is often a personal preference, but it's still possible to get excessive. In any event, I've striken my oppose for now, not because I'm convinced the article meets the criteria, but because I don't want to hold it up until I get a chance to review the rest of the article. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate that, though it appears something went wrong with your strike-through. Jayjg (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and comprehensive. Someone asked about the Welsh chapel. In case this is helpful, it seems to refer to an architectural style (as well as referring to chapels in Wales or built by the Welsh), namely a two-storey gable-end facade, often with three windows on the first floor and two on the ground floor. See e.g. Welsh Chapels by Anthony Jones, p. 59. [41] There's a reference to that particular Welsh chapel here. SlimVirgintalk|edits 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think here it is a demoninational rather than architectural description. In Wales "chapel" is used as a demoninational term for nonconformists, especially Methodists, including as a descriptor of people. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. The exact meaning of "Welsh chapel" is indeed mysterious; some sources, and editors, indicate it is a reference to religious practice, but the source you provide indicates it is an architectural style. Perhaps it was a mix of both. Unfortunately, regarding Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, the sources are frustratingly vague; they either state "Welsh chapel" or "old Welsh chapel", with no more detail. I've tried finding more information about this specific Welsh chapel, independent of Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, but with no luck. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Well-sourced, well-written article that is a joy to read. -- Olve Utne (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written, has good sources, has image and is interesting to read.— Ѕandahl ♥ 01:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: there are several dab problems. Cantor, sexton, and the dab template in the lead is irregular since it doesn't dab another article, and doesn't allow for correct punctuation on the footnote. I don't know how to fix it; hopefully someone will. I'm not sure if that non-standard use of a dab works with WP:ACCESS; it may be worthwhile to inquire there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Quite a bit of effort has gone into this article, and comments on how it can be improved, hopefully getting it to Featured Article level, would be appreciated. Algorerhythms (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has clearly met FA standards. --Rschen7754 (TC) 08:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can this article be merged with U.S. Route 40 in Maryland? Currently, I do not feel that it is notable enough to warrant its own article. The sources being used for this article do not, in my opinion, satisfy the "significant coverage" aspect of notability. They do not "address the subject in detail". They address other topics and small bits of information are being pulled out of them to assemble this article. Awadewit (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I suppose you can merge them if you really work hard at it and ignore length recommendations for articles. For example, you can merge the article on the Bronx with the article for New York City, although many people would probably prefer the articles separate. Having said that, notability is not one of the featured article criteria. If you feel this topic is not notable, AFD is the proper venue, not here. --Polaron | Talk 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the AfD page earlier today, preparing to nominate this article for deletion. However, I never venture over to AfD (I don't remember ever having nominated anything for AfD before), so I wanted to make sure that I proceeding properly. One of the suggestions on the page was to merge articles rather than delete them. That seemed reasonable to me, so I started searching for a suitable merge candidate. If there is a better one, please do suggest it. However, if you feel it is impossible to merge this article with any other article on Wikipedia, I will continue learning about AfD and proceed there. Awadewit (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find nominating a FAC for deletion pretty disrespectful. If you're looking for a SNOW keep, then by all means go ahead and nominate it. --Rschen7754 (TC) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now initiated a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the notability of the article. Again, it is my understanding that one isn't just supposed to nominate something for AfD without first discussing the matter with the article's editors. Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked in detail, but a 1983 MDSHA map is being used to support the statement that it first appeared on that year's map. For that you'd also need a 1982 map (which you hopefully have). I also think the route description needs work; it talks about the summits but doesn't mention what sort of terrain it follows. Is it all up-and-down or do significant portions run through valleys? If the latter, what rivers does it follow? It could also use more early history; I believe it was part of the Braddock Road, which predated the National Road. There's certainly more to say about the National Road too; this should be treated as a subarticle for that article. Why do old bridges remain? Has there been any organized preservation? National Register of Historic Places listings in Maryland lists several sites along US 40 [sic]. --NE2 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the previous map reference (the closest I've been able to find is a 1980 map), and I've expanded on the terrain and Braddock's Road. There's still more that I haven't finished yet, though, but I think I'll have time this weekend for it. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. So we don't actually know that it was first on the 1983 map? --NE2 09:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a 1982 MDSHA map and I'll fix it for you. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... it's your responsibility to make sure your references support what you say. If you don't have a 1982 map, there's no way you can say it first appeared in 1983 without making a wild guess. --NE2 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's been fixed to say "early 1980s". I'm still worried by how you assumed it was 1983, and that there may be other invalid assumptions in the article. --NE2 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments prior to the FAC restart. Also, NE2's oppose can be addressed by simply saying early 1980s instead of a specific date. --Polaron | Talk 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments interesting article. I have skimmed over a few of the arguments. I have a question, have any notable events, car accidents etc. happened on the road at all? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Third time lucky. I have nominated this twice before, but both nominations have failed. I have worked with the suggestions from the past two nominations, and hope that the article is now ready for featured status. I have also kept the article updated. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel that the prose still needs work, preferably a thorough review by an experienced copyeditor. Some examples:
Despite being received negatively by critics... How about "Despite its negative critical reception..."?
In October 2007, it was reported by the Express & Star that... This is still passive voice (presumably changed from the last FAC), even though we now have a subject. The subject should be the focus of the sentence: "In October 2007 the Express & Star reported that..."
Talbot has said that the belief her grandmother was watching gave her confidence... Keep it simple: "Talbot drew confidence from the belief that her grandmother was watching..."
These are a few random examples. I recommend having the entire article copyedited carefully by someone with a careful eye and significant distance from the evolution of the project. You can probably find someone to help on the peer review volunteers page. (I looked but didn't see evidence of such an outside-perspective copyedit prior to the FAC.) Good luck! Scartol • Tok 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I'll ask there now- I realised that the prose could perhaps use work. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been worked on by me and five others. Has it improved enough? J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Looks like it's almost there. The prose isn't professional though, which is a requirement of a FA. You might want to consider aiming for GA status first because it's more lenient with the prose. TKGD2007|TALK 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose is rather vague. What about the prose, exactly, needs work? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been GA for months. I have contacted a couple of people who may be willing to give the article a copyedit. Any specific suggestions would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aah... I thought all good articles had the little green plus icon in the corner. There was some strange wording within the first paragraph alone but I see that it has been through a copyedit so I retract the oppose. TKGD2007|TALK 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prose needs significant work, but featured standards are within reach. Comments through halfway of the Over the Rainbow section:
Talbot had been destined to sign with Sony BMG but the label pulled out of the deal due to her age. - "Had been" → "was".
Songs from the album are to feature in an upcoming video game about Talbot. - "Are to featured" → "are to be featured".
What's wrong with the current wording? I'd argue it's more concise and flows better. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal, but "are to feature" sounds slightly odd to me. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its negative critical reception, the album has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and reached number one in three countries. - Which album?
On top of her musical career, Talbot continues to attend primary school, and lives in Streetly with her family. - "On top of" → "aside from".
IMO the current wording is better, again J Milburn may disagree. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although auditioning for the first series of television reality show Britain's Got Talent was originally a family day out, Talbot's confidence increased when Simon Cowell, whom she is said to have idolised,[2] described her as "pure magic" and said that he would make her earn "£1 million-plus this year". - What is a "family day out"?
It's when a family go on an outing together, as a group. Since clearly not everyone is familiar with the saying I've reworded it. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite her never taken singing lessons, and the judges expecting a "joke" performance, Talbot's initial performance received international press coverage. - "Despite her never taken singing lessons" makes me cringe, unfortunately. Change to "Although she never took singing lessons".
She reached the final after winning her semi-final with a live performance of "Ben" by Michael Jackson. - Sounds like there's a word missing after "final". The final what?
According to journalist and Britain's Got Talent judge Piers Morgan, it was thanks to Talbot that so many children, including Faryl Smith, auditioned for the second series of the show. - "It was thanks to" doesn't really sound encyclopedic.
Series 2 winner George Sampson spoke after his victory of his participation in the first series - Change to "After his victory, Series 2 winner George Sampson spoke of his participation in the first series".
Cowell had preliminarily agreed to sign Talbot with his own record label, Sony BMG. After recording two songs in London with Talbot ("Over the Rainbow" and "Smile"[2]), the company changed its mind. A company doesn't have a mind, nor does it change it.
In October 2007 Talbot signed with the Rainbow Recording Company for a six-figure deal. - "Six-figure deal" is vague. Was it as low as $100,000, or closer to $999,999?
It's not known, and the ref says a six-figure deal with no more specifics. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A schedule was worked out so that Talbot could continue with her normal school activities while recording the album in her aunty Vicky's spare bedroom, which her mother described as "a better solution [than Sony BMG offered] which has not robbed her of her childhood". - Using "that" in this context is one of my pet peeves; more importantly, it's redundant.
Although Arnison claimed he did not "want to put her through the promotional grind which most artists go through because she is too young", plans were laid out for appearances on daytime television programme This Morning and perhaps even The X Factor, as well as an appearance on Children in Need on 16 November 2007. - The plans were literally laid out on the ground?
Try to avoid "the album...the album...the album" to begin sentences.
Thanks Julian; I've replied inline to comments that aren't resolved. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Talbot drew confidence belief her grandmother was watching? Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I think that was me- God knows how I managed that. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - For now. It's incredibly hard to fix the volume of prose needing a touch-up from the last FAC. I'll try to copy edit, but I doubt that this will pass at this time. —Ceran♦(Sing)(It's snowing in NJ already!) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote, and I'll try working on the prose whenever I can. —Ceranthor (Sing) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any specific examples? All of Julian's above are addressed and copyediting is ongoing. Giggy (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by MacGyverMagic (I've run through the article and done a copyedit. If the following points are addressed adequately, I will support - please inform me on my talk page if you do):
The lead says: "Despite its negative critical reception, Over the Rainbow has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and reached number one in three countries." Neither the lead nor the section on the album mention those countries by name. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're mentioned in the discography section. Should they be moved into the prose? I just felt that sort of specific information should be reserved for the album article. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Telling were the album reached number one gives an indication of how many people know her as well as how succesful the album was. Also, telling there are three countries will generate the question which in the reader and it is not immediately evident where to find it (I was expecting it to be in the section about the album) - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Arnison claimed he did not "want to put her through the promotional grind which most artists go through because she is too young", plans were made for appearances on daytime television programme This Morning and perhaps even The X Factor, as well as an appearance on Children in Need on 16 November 2007." The words perhaps even are speculative and the reference does not mention the X-factor. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't appear on the X Factor, and I'm not aware of any plans for her to appear on this series. I'll just remove the mention. The source does mention it- the DM interviewer asks Talbot "Are you scared of the television appearances on This Morning with Fern and Phil, and possibly even X Factor which are coming up to promote your album?" J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It was later announced on Talbot's official website that the release date for the U.S. version would be 14 October, and that Talbot and her family would be travelling to the U.S. at the start of the month." This line should be updated. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deal with that now. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. - Mgm|(talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Despite the "free" images, I question if the article requires three photos showing the same subject. If they displayed her at significant stages of her life, it would be great. They are, however, of a child who has not changed much. Since for images, we are asking for the best representation of the subject or idea, what do Image:ConnieTalbot3.jpeg and Image:ConnieTalbot2.jpeg have that Image:ConnieTalbot1.jpeg cannot hope to serve as? Jappalang (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image three (the one in colour) shows her recording with Sony BMG, while the others are with Rainbow, so does illustrate something a litte different. The one with the band in the background is obviously a good "this is what she looks like" photo, and I feel that the other is a good one to show the recording (well, it shows the recording equipment) and the way that she is portrayed by her management. As the images are free, I don't think there is any problem with using multiple images- they all display the text that they are next to, and liven up the article a little. As it happens, I am currently talking to Talbot's agent about getting some more images, specifically of her trip to Jamaica- something that is mentioned in the article but not illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge their "freedom" (heh), but question their indiscriminate use. I fail to see the relevance of her recording or the recording equipment requiring a photo to add additional information (unless the article specifically states that her singing is enhanced or altered by those equipment). How are those photos supposed to show her portrayal by her management? If she was in costume, or in a publicity shot that is free and different from her everyday persona, that could be valid. As it is, the three photos show the same girl (I will even hazard that she is wearing the same dress in all three photos). I would think that "free" pictures are given a looser reign for use on Wikipedia but still need to be justified in their use. The infobox's picture is good enough to identify her. There is Commons to host a collection of free photos of Connie for others to peruse at their pleasure. Jappalang (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to remove ConnieTalbot2, but I feel that the other images do add significantly to the article. However, I do feel that the image adds a little interest to the article- does anyone else have an opinion on this? J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now that my concerns have been addressed via a copyedit. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:ConnieTalbot1.jpeg - Could we get a direct link to where on the website this image appears?
Image:ConnieTalbot3.jpeg - Could we get a direct link to where on the website this image appears?
Image:ConnieTalbot2.jpeg - Could we get a direct link to where on the website this image appears?
Hopefully this is easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of a direct link? They were supplied via OTRS, so there are no sourcing issues, and the indirect link allows people to see the captions. I would provide a link if I was on my own laptop, but I'm not going to the site here- I'm on a college computer. They should be easy enough to find, they'll be somewhere in the pictures section of the official website. They're early photos, so they'll be on the oldest pages. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've realised what you meant. I've updated the links to show the gallery pages where the images can be found. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there are three different date formats in the citations: unlinked ISO dates, linked dates and unlinked day month year dates. Please work to standardize these over time to one format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello all. 2000 Sugar Bowl is another in a series of college footballbowl game articles that I have created. Similar featured articles can be seen at 2008 Orange Bowl and 2005 Sugar Bowl. This article has been through the Good Article vetting process and received an informal peer review by a handful of editors in Wikiproject College Football. Its biggest drawback is a lack of photos, but I don't feel this is an overly large problem. The external links checker has turned up no problems, but any comments, concerns, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated, and I will address them as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to look at this article, and have a great day! JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support—The standard of writing is pleasing; here's a skilled editor. I do hope you're helping to raise the standard of US sports writing here more generally. However, I was still able to pick out things that could be improved just in the lead, as an example of the whole text. Can you find someone with fresh eyes to go through it during the nomination period?
Of course. I'm contacting editors who were involved in previous college football FACs, and I have high hopes that they'll participate in this one as well.
Are you aware that date autoformatting is now deprecated at MOSNUM? I've removed it. Many US writers would disagree with the comma after the year in a full date, although some like it. To me, it's an unnecessary interruption to the flow. There are other commas that could go, too, since the writing is quite dense with them. For example, after "Big East Conference".
Thanks for the date catch. The portion of the article you removed the links from was written prior to the rule change. I'm aware that you were a driving force behind that rule change, and I'd like to say thanks for removing that bit of drudgery.
"School history"; many English-speakers think of "school" not as college, but as high school or grade school.
Changed to "program history."
Watch those close repetitions: "highest ... high ... high.
Rewritten during trim.
I was about to say that "kicked off" and "fumble" were overlinking, but no, they're good, since the destination articles are quite specific and technically focused on American football.
I understand that a lot of these college football articles can be somewhat technical, so I try to err in the direction of putting more wikilinks than are needed. I do make an attempt to avoid linking the same thing twice in the same section, however, so if you see any of those, please let me know.
"This allowed Florida State to score first, then take advantage of ..."—smoother as "... first and take ...". "Then" is often redundant in sequential narrative.
Rewritten during trim.
I was a little uneasy with the loss of the sense of overview in the lead, with all of the vivid, cinematic detial provided in the third para. Can it be vastly trimmed or moved, and perhaps something of more broad significance added in its place (or not, leaving just a shorter lead)?
I've trimmed that third paragraph slightly, removing information about how the teams scored and keeping more of a basic scoring summary. That also addressed some of your other concerns about the lede. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Comment - many of the references are to the teams websites or the BCS website. While not a big deal, it might be nice if there were more third party discussion type references. Also, something of the game's place in the broader recent history of college football, and/or the two teams in particular. Otherwise, nice read. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, Rocks. I also appreciate the suggestion. I've added a "Subsequent seasons" subsection to the Post-game effects section that covers the matchups that have happened since the Sugar Bowl. It's kind of appropriate, because this Saturday is just the fourth matchup between the two teams since the Sugar Bowl back in 2000. As to the item about potentially too many items from the schools' Web sites, let me draw your attention to the author information on many of those cites. In many cases, the schools are reprinting information originally published by the Associated Press or another third-party source such as the NCAA. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Just a quick note to say that a website (like BCSfootball.com) isn't strictly speaking the "publisher" for the site. In this example, the publisher would be the Bowl Championship Series. It would be nice if the correct publishers were given instead of the website urls in the references. Also make sure you spell out the lesser known abbreviations in the references.
Fixed, for the most part.
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
Fixed.
Newspaper titles are usually in italics.
Fixed.
Why does ref 53 (Weiss, Dick) have a last access date when there is no weblink in the reference?
Because I'm a moron and forgot the link.
I also note the heavy reliance on team websites for the information and point this out for other reviewers to watch out for unintentional bias creeping in.
As I mentioned above, the Florida State links and many of the Virginia Tech ones are reprints of Associated Press and other reports. The authors listed for those are AP writers or other members of the media. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support - No need to contact me. I'm here already for my typical review.
Regarding the pictures, you could always use ones of players involved in the game. I noticed that there weren't any good photos of Michael Vick, and that's a tough brerak. But I'm sure something can be thought of to illustrate this.
Thanks for the suggestion! I managed to dig up a few photos, but I'll keep looking. IIRC, Vick participated in one of those USO tours overseas, or there might be a U.S. government photo of him because of his trial. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2000 Sugar Bowl, was the ..." What's the purpose of the comma.
Illustrating my stupidity and ability to use comma splices, of course. :)
"the team's second national championship in program history." I'd suggest changing "program" to "its" because the former seems repetitive when combined with team.
Good idea.
Extra bracket in the third paragraph.
I don't see it, but I might've removed it when I trimmed up the lead.
Fourth paragraph: Peter Warrick's first name would be helpful, as I don't see it in the first three paras.
Good catch.
Florida State: "The victory was FSU head coach Bobby Bowden's 300th win as a coach..." Again, some repetition with two coaches. I know what this is trying to say, but I just think it can be worded clearer.
Fixed.
Virginia Tech: Italics for Sports Illustrated.
Did you mean the wikilinked ones or the ones in the references? I italicised the appearance where it wasn't wikilinked, and added italics for the ones in references.
I mean the wikilinked one in the text, where the magazine predicts that VT will contend for the Big East title. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Florida State offense: "including 33 of his past 38 kicks less than 50 yards." How about "of less than 50 yards"?
Fixed.
Before I stop, I should touch on the references. Things like game reports and general news should still be avaliable online through Sports Illustrated, USA Today or ESPN. If you'd like, I can search on Google News to remove some of the school site links. While I'm on the subject, ref 34 is the one in caps that Ealdgyth was talking about.
I'd appreciate any help you can give. The game reports are surprisingly difficult to find. ESPN doesn't make any game prior to 2002 easily accessible, and I didn't have much luck looking for other stuff. As I stated above, however, the FSU site just reprinted AP reports, so those, at least, are perfectly fine. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not happy when I started reading the article, but cheered up when I dug further into it. I'll be back later to look at the game, but I'd like to make a simple cleanup pass beforehand. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I begin reviewing the game recap, I should declare that I changed 18 primary sources to third-party references. I still count 20 references from the Florida State and Virginia Tech sites, but print sources should be avaliable for most of the rest, if necessary. I did change a couple things, but nothing major.
Thank you for those fixes.
In Virginia Tech's fourth-down fumble in the first quarter, there are two "pick up the first down" uses that are quite repetitive to me.
Replaced one usage.
If I remember right, a Seminole receiver is referred to as Don Dugans and Ron Dugans at various times in the text.
Good catch. That's a misspelling on my part.
Third quarter: "The play (two-point conversion attempt)... failed. Despite that failure..." Can a word other than failed or failure be found for one of these? How about unsuccessful for the former?
Fixed.
"As Winke completed a five-yard throw." I think we both missed that one.
Oh, he just winked a lot, that's all. :) Fixed.
"Unlike Virginia Tech's failures, the Seminoles were successful in a pass to Warrick" I don't like this because it reads like the Hokies had Warrick on their team too.
Fixed.
One more thing from the Game Summary that I almost forgot: "79,280 people attended the game in person" It's not encouraged to have numbers lead off a sentence like this.
Yeah, and I don't really want to spell it out, so I just added a prepositional phrase before it.
That's it from me. Great read overall, at least from a college football fan's perspective. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for all your help, particularly with the citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent readability, strongly written and nicely sourced. Another great Hokies article by JK. --Geologik (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was quite impressed with the quality of this article. I would prefer it to have more images, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to fail it. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking those images. I'm not that familiar with image procedure. I don't recall your question coming up before, which is probably why we don't have a year-specific logo for the 2005 game. I'll see if I can dig one up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the dab finder in the tool box indicates numerous links in the article needing disambiguation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The Third Battle of Kharkov was a German counteroffensive in Southern Russia, which took place between 19 February and 15 March. This article was developed over a series of weeks, and this included a good article review and an A-class review. I believe that the article meets the requirements for featured article status, and it was copyedited (slightly) by Roger Davies, and received further copyediting during the A-class review. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACCESS, left-aligned images under third-level headings, and pls decide if you're using p. or pp. on plural page citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be fixed now. There was only reference with a single p, if it was covering multiple pages. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it; a poor transliteration of the Russian from my sources, or perhaps how the Germans referred to it. I will change it to that. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks pretty good for the most part. Some comments from the first section:
On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army surrendered to the Red Army, costing the Wehrmacht an estimated 90,000 men captured. - Is there a better way to word that?
Throughout 1942 German casualties totaled around 1.9 million personnel,[8] and by the start of 1943 the Wehrmacht was around 470,000 men below full strength, on the Eastern Front. - Remove "personnel"?
For example, by 23 January only 495 German tanks remained combat ready along the entire length of the German-Soviet front, most of which were older designs such as the Panzer IV and Panzer III. - "German-Soviet" should be an endash.
In comparison, at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa the Wehrmacht was equipped with around 3,300 tanks. - Add a comma after "Barbarossa".
This opened a 60–kilometer breech between these two German forces, shortly to be exploited by Rokossovsky's offensive. - Change the endash to a hyphen. Also, 60-km needs a {{convert}}}.
In some instances, you say "on the 25 January", while on others, simply "on 16 February".
On the other hand, the Soviet 2nd Tank Army had successfully penetrated 160 kilometers into the German rear, along the left flank of the Soviet offensive, increasing the length of the army's flank by an estimated 100 kilometers. - "On the other hand" isn't really encyclopedic language. Also, that sentence needs some conversions to miles.
Thanks for the comments! A point by point response:
Reworded to - On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army surrendered to the Red Army, turning an estimated 90,000 men into captivity.
I think in this case personnel is relevant, because later in the campaign on the Eastern Front the Germans would also lose hundreds of thousands of civilians.
En dash added.
Comma added.
I removed the en dash entirely (I don't know why it was even used there). Also, units converted.
Removed "the" in all instances.
Removed "on the other hand", and also removed it elsewhere.
I think that took care of everything mentioned. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Mostly grammatical and stylistic, this being for a FA
At the start of 1943, the German Wehrmacht faced a major crisis as Soviet forces encircled and reduced the German Sixth Army. Hadn't they been encircled since November?
On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army's commanding officers surrendered an estimated 90,000 men into captivity to Red Army. The wording is still awkward, as we don't normally say "surrender into captivity" in English. Suggest: On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army's commanding officers surrendered and an estimated 90,000 men went into Red Army captivity
For example, by 23 January only 495 German tanks remained combat ready along the entire length of the German–Soviet front, most of which were older designs such as the Panzer IV and Panzer III. In comparison, at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the Wehrmacht was equipped with around 3,300 tanks. Most of which were older designs like the Panzer IV and Panzer III. Suggest deleting the phrase about types, as this is mentioned later.
The German general informed Hitler And Hitler's response was?
The surrender of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad freed six Soviet armies Which ones?
deployment problems forced the Red Army's command Elsewhere in the article this is referred to as Stavka.
known as the Voronezh–Khar'kov What's with the apostrophe?
The German Wehrmacht was considerably understrength, especially after continuous operation between "operation" be "operations"
However, the effects of this recruitment was not seen until around May 1943, where the German armed forces were at their highest strength "where" should be "when"
At the start of 1943 Germany's armored forces were in considerably poor shape Delete "considerably"
most averaged only 70–80 tanks in serviceable conditions I think what is meant is "most averaged only 70–80 serviceable tanks"
After the fighting around Kharkov, Heinz Guderian embarked on a program to bring German divisions up to strength. No. Guderian was Inspector General of Armoured Troops. His work was to bring the tanks up to strength. And he was appointed on 1 March 1943, which was not after the fighting around Kharkov.
The 6th, 11th and 17th Panzer Divisions were commanded by Generals von Hünersdorff, Hermann Balck and von Senger und Etterlin, respectively. Why isn't von Senger und Etterlin linked?
These were under the command of Field Marshals M. A. Reiter, Filipp Golikov and Nikolai Vatutin, Golikov was not promoted to Marshal until 1961, and Vatutin and Reiter never were.
On 9 March, the Soviet 40th Army counterattacked against the Panzer Grenadier Division Grossdeutschland How come Grossdeutschland is sometimes in quotes and sometimes not?
The Fourth Air Fleet, under the command of Wolfram von Richthofen Field Marshal Wolfram von Richthofen
The German Donets Campaign cost the Red Army fifty-two divisions These were permanently destroyed?
including around 70,000 personnel losses. Of these troops lost, an estimated 45,200 were killed or went missing, while another 41,200 were wounded. This doesn't add up.
Most the grammatical errors should be fixed. Here are some other responses; for example, the first point. Although Operation Uranus commenced in November 1942, encirclement operations continued well into January 1943. I don't feel comfortable taking out the part about the Panzer IIIs and IVs because although it's mentioned later, it's mentioned in a completely different section (sections should be independent, in regards to information, IIRC-in both cases the age of the armor is relevant). I took out Panzer III and Panzer IV and left it at "older designs", and just left the specification below. In regards to Hitler's response to Manstein's report, obviously Hitler acceded, since the battle continued as it's described in the text (I don't think an affirmation of Hitler's agreement with Manstein's plan is needed, since it's sort of redundant). The same goes for specifying which six armies were freed after the Sixth Army surrendered. Adding that seems like adding more numbers and and un-readable prose, when the important part is that Stavka was able to reorient six armies.
On the matter of Guderian. The date of his appointment and the date that he could realistically begin rebuilding Germany's armored forces do not necessarily coincide. Most of the effort to rebuild the German Army took place in late March, throughout April and May, and June. Furthermore, he was appointed not only to increase Germany's tank strength, but to rebuild Germany's mechanized forces - this includes, to a degree, Germany's infantry divisions. Most of the effort to bring Germany's army back to strength was offered by him; other efforts are also mentioned in the text. I clarified that sentence to say "Germany's mechanized forces".
What do you mean by "permanently destroyed"? They may have been reformed after the battle, but that's not really relevant to the article. This is the terminology used by my sources (as referenced). In regards to the casualties, one is a general casualty count provided by most sources and the other is a more specific count provided by Glantz. I will make it read around 70,000-80,000 casualties, so that it adds up better.
Unfortunately, I have to return to the US and cannot continue the discussion. I have a few more quibbles (below) and comments.
(1) I like the new wording about the tanks, which puts things more clearly into context.
(2) The meeting between Hitler and von Manstein's in the field was significant beyond what you say, because by meeting von Manstein in the field, Hitler inadvertently cut Stavka off from its usual sources of intelligence. (You mention that the Germans had good intelligence on Popov's dispositions, but don't mention its source, ie sigint.)
(3) You mention supply lines (by rail? truck? barge?) a couple of times but there is no section on logistics.
(4) I still think the article is far too slanted to the German POV. For example, "Fight for the city 11 March – 15 March" mentions various German units and some commanders but not one Red Army one. Which unit counter-attacked? Who was in command of the defending forces?
More quibbles:
Can we have double quotes around "Totenkopf" to conform to the style of the other entries?
Why isn't the Bryansk Front linked? Because you misspelt it Briansk?
"Field Marshal's Rokossovsky's" should be "Field Marshal Rokossovsky's"
I don't like the expression "Russian Stavka". Stalin was from Georgia after all.
You still haven't put every instance of Großdeutschland in quotes.
Thanks for the continued comments. Here are some responses. Hitler's visit to von Manstein doesn't necessarily mean that it cut the Soviets from their usual source of intelligence (a source which at that time wasn't very strong or accurate, anyways), because von Manstein did not necessarily plan things out with Hitler. Furthermore, he still had to issue his field reports and reports back to Germany, so I'm not sure where the connection in lack of field intelligence is made. As the text points out, von Manstein simply dissuaded Hitler from directly influencing a decision to retake Kharkov immediately. In the case of Germany's intelligence, my sources really don't say where they got it from, just that they had it.
I was sort of looking for a paragraph on intelligence.
Unfortunately, there is really no study on the use of intelligence during this particular portion of the war. AFAIK, most studies deal with the Soviet preparations against the German Kursk offensive (using Ultra). Therefore, either intelligence (other than standard field intelligence) didn't play a major role in the battle (beyond what is already stated in the article), or nobody has really researched it. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to say in the logistics section? I'm not sure how this is relevant. The important part is that the Soviets over extended their logistics during the winter offensive.
I wanted a section on logistics. An article on a battle or campaign should always describe the logistical and administrative arrangements that made it possible. Especially when it was the decisive factor.
This makes sense for a battle whose logistics are simple to explain, but I don't see how I could fit in a paragraph on German and Soviet logistics (well, I could fit it in ... but the point is where to get the information from). This battle did not employ any special logistics factors; the only factor is that the Soviets extended their supply lines... that's it, and it's already mentioned. I don't see how anything else is relevant (and will just be redundant). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority is actually written from a Soviet perspective (heavy reliance on David M. Glantz); there's just a lack of sources on the fighting in the city itself. The only source I could find was written from the German perspective.
What sources does Glantz use?
Mostly Soviet archival evidence, and he compares to German sources; it's as neutral as any author can get. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Grossdeutschland and Tontekopf, all of them should have the quotation marks removed from their names. Briansk seems like a German transliteration of Bryansk, but I'll change it and link it.
I think it's best to keep a consistent spelling throughout the Wikipedia. To me, the letter is a Ya.
STAVKA was not a Georgian entity, it belonged to the state of the Soviet Union. I'll change Russian to Soviet.
That's what I wanted.
Finally, according to the dictionary a unit is, any group of things or persons regarded as an entity".
That is not the military usage. A unit is a military element whose structure is prescribed, ie has a table of organization and equipment. A formation is an ordered arrangement of troops for a specific purpose. Corps, Army, and Army Group are always formations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to your own definition, a formation is a unit. I was in the Army, and we used both formation and unit interchangeably. Especially in prose, I think they are more or less synonyms. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So was I and we didn't. The point is that one is fixed in size while the other varies in size according to the mission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia disagrees with you. Division (military) defines it as a unit (and formation), while Company (military unit) defines a company as a unit. Corps is described as a formation, and army group is described as neither (as an organization). It seems to me that these definitions are rather arbitrary. When I was in the 3rd Mechanized Division at Ft. Benning it was our unit (our unit could refer to our platoon, company or division). Free dictionary also describes it as arbitrary nomenclature, meaning the two are interchangeable. In this news article the 1st Brigade Combat Team is described as a unit. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Platoon/company/division are called units - but only because they are. I'm not sure about the brigade combat teams - they came after my time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You seem to have responded to all of the things I was going to bring up when I commented, mostly about prose, and I can't see any other issues with the article, so I'll support. Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Doing a good job mate. -- Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"the German counterstroke led to the destruction of around 52 Soviet divisions " - I would change 'around' to 'approximately', and 'counterstroke' to something like 'offensive' or 'operation'; there's no indication in the lead of what the strike is countering.
wikilink 'salient'; it's an unfamiliar term for any non-expert
"around 470,000 men below full strength, on the Eastern Front." - remove comma; unnecessary
"For example, by 23 January only 495 German tanks remained combat ready along the entire length of the German–Soviet front, most of which were older designs." - remove 'for example'; "By 23 January" is strong enough to stand on its own
I would personally place the portrait of Manstein at the top-right of the section it's in; looks tidier to me.
"At the start of 1943 Germany's armored forces were in considerably poor shape.[36]" - seems vaguely unencyclopedic and repetitive; perhaps something like "German forces had sustained heavy losses by the start of 1943" (if the reference supports the statement)
"a German panzer division could count on an estimated 10,000–11,000 personnel" - should probably be "could only count on..."
The 'captured German tank' photo should be on the right, as it 'faces' left
Subheads under "Manstein's Counterattack" are a bit confusing. Perhaps they should be something like "First stage: 19 February – 6 March"
Image:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg - should be left-aligned, as it faces right
"in the face of German success against the Southwestern Front, including attempts of the Soviet 6th Army breaking out of the encirclement," should be "...including attempts by the Soviet 6th..."
Missing 'See Also' section
I feel that the 'Sources' should go before references; it's not much use IMHO to see lots of "Smith, 47" without having first seen the name of the book that Smith wrote. I am not sure what MOS says on this, however.
That's all I can see. [ roux ] [x] 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I moved the images and did most of everything else. The only thing I didn't do was add a "see also" section; in all of the articles that I have pushed towards FA I've removed the section, because relevant links will already be linked through the text or through a navigation box. It's come up, as well, that it should be deleted because it's not aesthetic. In regards to the sources and notes, I normally put the notes ahead so that if the reader wants to manually go down to sources he or she doesn't have to scroll down through a list of references. Besides, it allows the sources and the further reading to be together. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. I look forward to seeing another star on your userpage! [ roux ] [x] 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - has answered my concerns. [ roux ] [x] 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - has answered my concerns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - comprehensive, engaging and well-written. Please allow me one comment: I don't like this sentence. Hoth repeated his order at 01:15, of 12 March, and Hausser replied the same as he had replied on 11 March. How about "..and Hauser responded as he had on 11 March"? Graham ColmTalk 17:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Battle of Stalingrad first tank.jpg - it's public domain in Ukraine, but no indication it is in the United States. When did the image's author die (according to the tag, he would have to have kicked the bucket less than three years after the image in order for it to be PD in the United States).
Image:Vmanstein.jpg - I have no knowledge about this seized property rationale. Can we get a (online) source that confirms this use?
Image:Vmanstein.jpg refers to a specific legal case. Without looking, I assume the image was subject to the Alien Property Custodian. Those works are not protected in the US [46] and can be used on en-wiki, but cannot be moved to commons. Gimmetrow 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, I'll put the image of Manstein back and replace the image of the T-34. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image questions. The template on Image:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg doesn't explain its status unless the uploader is the copyright holder. If this image is claimed US-PD as a seized Nazi photo, then say so, and then it should have a not-commons template. Can someone explain exactly why Image:Third Battle of Kharkov sector.png is PD? [47] only states a non-commercial license. Is it claimed that anything produced by faculty of the USMA is a "work of the US federal government"? Some other USMA faculty seem to assert copyright on their works. Gimmetrow 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the map, this was the map which was originally used in the article. I checked out the site it was linked to, and this is the "main page" - http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ . It seems that these maps are there at least to allow users to download them, as the academy's "outreach" program. I don't see anything on the site which says that the maps are copyrighted, or at least not free for use. In regards to the other images, I just tried to find images that seemed that I could use them in the article. I will have to replace them all, since I didn't upload any of them. The image of the T-34 is from the T-34 Wiki article, which is featured, and all of their combat images have the same tag. In fact, looking at most images of the Eastern Front during World War II, they have this tag. I will have to find a way of uploading something and claiming it under fair use. I think, though, that I've found a replacement for the map. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the map; can images from the U.S. National Archive be used? JonCatalán(Talk) 19:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two fair use images in the article now; if I need to expand the template for the images please tell me and give me a hand (never been good at making drawn out fair use rationales). The only original image left is that of von Manstein (as I try to find a suitable replacement; if U.S. national archive images are fine, then I will replace it with one from there). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
National Archive: [48]. Note that the {{PD-Ukraine}} template has "if known" - difficult to know date of death of author if the work was published anonymously. Gimmetrow 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the image was already on Wikipedia; the image of Manstein has been exchanged with one in free domain. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tag on the image of the T-34 was incorrect as well, since the battle the tank is said to be in took place in 1943, which is beyond the dates provided by the public domain tags. So, I changed it with the image from the National Archives, and put the image of von Manstein back up, since it seems that one is OK. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the free images should meet criteria now. I'm unsure about the additions of nonfree images, however; how does an image of tanks at the battle significantly increase reader understanding? Has there been any attempt to negotiate free use of the images? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those images are of the fighting in Kharkov, during the battle. They illustrate the equipment being used by the Germans (well, examples thereof), and there are really no free domain images of the fighting (as this FAC illustrates, there are few free domain images on the Eastern Front, in general). So, it's also an argument between illustrating the battle with two images, or not illustrating it at all. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This article only deals with military issues I would like to know what happened to the city (in what degree was it destroyed) and it's inhabitants during the battle. Mieciu K (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You find a single source (in languages that I can read) that talks about that, and I'll add it in. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 23:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the problem of lack of reliable English language sources. This is why I have placed a comment not an objection. The high loss of civilian life during World War II seems to be a taboo subject in modern Russia, maybe some people think mentioning such issues is lessening the Soviet victory. Mieciu K (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem, I think, is that Western sources explain the battle more as an example of a great German strategic victory, as opposed to giving it a more human dimension. I mean, the fact that I could only find one source on the fighting in the city itself shows how most see the fighting outside the city as more important as the city inside the city. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination. Constitution has gone through a GAR and an ACR, passing both. There are a number of redlinks in the process of being filled as the article required that 12 Royal Navy ship articles be created. This was my first effort at a serious article and is also my first FAC. Brad (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say for sure; my reference does not get anymore specific than the name. The timeline does fit, however, as I could imagine that Ville de Paris was in port as a troopship by the late 1870s as the article states. --Brad (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've wikilinked to the article as I'm quite sure this is the same ship regardless.
Comments sorry for nit-picking. :)
End of the Armament section: "The marine detachment onboard were the naval infantry that manned the fighting tops armed with rifles to fire down onto the decks of the enemy ship." needs a ref. (I'm assuming 28 covers it?)
It was 28; fixed.
Beginning of "Mediterranean and Pacific section": "Elliot had himself appointed Captain of Constitution and got underway in March 1835 to New York, ..." How exactly did he get himself appointed? (Do the sources say that?)
Poor wording on my part; fixed
"1925 Restoration and Tour" section...
3rd para, last sentence. Is "camboose" linked right? If so, why in heck was a caboose on a ship? =) Well, if I had read past the first one or two paragraphs of camboose....
Same place. Is it possible to get a quote of what he said?
A quote of what said by whom?
"when Assistant Secretary of the Navy Ernest Jahncke made comments doubting the ability of the modern US Navy to still sail a vessel of her type." ...maybe a quote of what he said? (if possible?) —Ed 17for PresidentVote for Ed 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no quote that I can find. The Time Magazine reference is the only one I'm aware of.
Last sentence of the section. "The same act directed that Constellation be donated to a non-profit group in Baltimore.[155]" Directed who?
Directed that Constellation would be moved from her side-by-side berthing in Boston with Constitution to Baltimore. But there is nothing said about when Constellation actually left Boston. There is a gap between 1954 and when the ship arrived in Baltimore in the late 60s.
"Bicentennial celebrations" section: (third sentence) "Funds were approved in 1972 for her restoration and she entered drydock from April 1973 to April 1974 where large quantities of red oak were replaced from a failed experiment using that material in the 1950s." ...what failed experiment...? At least a link!
Some repairs had been done in the 1950s using red oak which was rotted away 20 years later. Nothing much is described about how the red oak got there or how it was installed or why it was weak.
Hmmm. maybe "...1974. During this period, large quantities of red oak were removed and replaced from the ship. This red oak had been added in the 1950s as an experiment to see if it would be of better quality than the normal live oak, but it had mostly rotted away by 1970." .........better? —Ed 17for PresidentVote for Ed 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified using some of your text above.
Beginning of the "Museum ship" section: "In 1900 Congress authorized restoration of Constitution, but did not appropriate any funds for the project; funding was to be raised privately. The Massachusetts Society of the United Daughters of the War of 1812 spearheaded an effort to raise funds, but ultimately failed. In 1903 the Massachusetts Historical Society's[143] president Charles Francis Adams requested of Congress that she be rehabilitated and placed back into active service." (What exactly does 143 cite? The entire para?)
Ahem.. that was embarrassing. Somehow I forgot that paragraph with references; now fixed.
"Sail 200" section has text sandwiched between images.
I'm not seeing sandwiched text albeit there are only 4 or 5 sentences of text between the two pics.
Ok then, no problem. For me, the first five lines of "Sail 200" is sandwiched, but.... —Ed 17for PresidentVote for Ed 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops one last thing: you've got a couple of disambiguated links in the article...while I realize that two are purposeful (with the {{otherships}} etc.) there are a few that have to be addressed: look here! —Ed 17for PresidentVote for Ed 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. When sources say "yellow pine" they aren't specific to what sort.
Comment - Recommend that you remove wikilinks from common words, per Overlinking and underlinking. There is too much of that "sea of blue" that FAC articles are supposed to avoid. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the entire article and removed the more mundane links and some that were overlinked. Some thoughts I had was over the length of the article and if perhaps some readers may go to one section and ignore others. --Brad (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I've seen this article go through all it's development and I must say that I'm impressed at what Brad has been able to do with an article that I thought about working on when I first started on wikipedia over a year ago. This article meets all the criteria that a Featured Article is expected to and therefore should be one. -MBK004 06:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments:
In this sentence: Her most famous era of naval warfare took place during the War of 1812 against Great Britain - "took place" does not sound right to me, (I'm British BTW). Since an era is not an event "was" would be better than "took place".
Here: ... more lightly built frigates simply could not match. - To maintain neutrality I would delete "simply".
In this sentence; In response to an 1801 demand from Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha of Tripoli - although correct, the use of the year as an adjective sounds odd. Would "In response to a demand in 1801 from..." be better?
This sentence: Built in an era when a wooden ship had an expected service life of ten to fifteen years, Constitution was thirty-one years old. - needs a quick fix, how about "was by now thirty-one years old"?
Please reduce the linking wherever possible. Although this article is about a ship, the sea of blue is distracting. Thanks for an engaging, comprehensive and well-written FAC. Graham ColmTalk 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed your wording suggestions and also made another run through the blue links but this time used a heavy ax so it should look ok now? --Brad (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Brad it does. I was watching you at work. This article would look great on the Main Page, best of luck. Graham. Graham ColmTalk 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Per Strong national ties to a topic (which has been referenced in other FACs), should not the dates be in the American format? This portion of WP:MOSDATE does say that "articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." Is this considered an article on the modern U.S. military? Not trying to nitpick, just curious. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article does relate to the modern U.S. military since the Constitution is still a commissioned warship in the U.S. Navy. Also, the military date format is used in most if not all of the sources to begin with, the U.S. military, as well as in every other military ship FA (of which I can point you to 5 battleships, two aircraft carriers, one destroyer, three transports, one destroyer tender, two ship-class articles, and a few others). -MBK004 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm not arguing with you and accept your answer. No problem. Thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ACCESS, images within sections not above them, but WP:MOS#Images, no left-aligned images under third-level headings. Images need to be moved in to sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over these and had to get rid of two; someone had been mucking about with them recently. --Brad (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed this article for GA and I have been impressed at the steady pace of improvement by Brad to this article. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not clear who "The Pasha" is in the "Battle of Tripoli Harbor" section. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. It was Yusuf Karamanli. Thanks for your edits as well. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure about using bold for Old Constitution. Per MoS, bolding is only to be used in limited situations and I don't think this is one of them. I wonder if "Old Constitution" would be better? Or do you have a reason for the bolding? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unbolded. Normally for ship articles we bold the names that any ship might have had through its career but this particular name isn't very important. --Brad (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I agreed—how many people are really going to know the ship as Old Constitution? :) —Ed 17for PresidentVote for Ed 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Involved support. I reviewed this for sources and copyedited it several times. Maralia (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have been through the article quite thoroughly several times (with some minor copyediting) and can give this article my unqualified support as an interesting, comprehensive, clearly written and clearly organized article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article on the first ever football match at Wembley Stadium for featured article because I feel it meets all the FA criteria, I hope you feel the same :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion we had on exactly the same topic here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm on the road, and the connection in this hotel is... wonky at times. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images all images are free with appropriate tags, only comment is that the picture of the white horse doesn't carry the same "out of copyright in UK" as the other images - a small nit but easily fixed. --MASEM 05:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I'm surprised how much imformation is avaliable on this 85-year-old game. Maybe this can start a new trend of bringing cup finals to FAC. It's also well-illustrated, considering the age of the topic (articles on old topics frequently lack good free pictures). I'll run through the article for any prose issues now.
Actually, I think I'll complain about the references first. There are inconsistencies regarding the access dates, with commas and links in some but not all. My main concern is the linked dates, which have fallen into disfavor across the board recently. Do the templates force this? Perhaps it's not actionable here, but I see no reason why access dates can be linked when publication dates aren't. Hopefully, Tony can convince the MoS people to get rid of these.
The inconsistency appears to be caused by the fact that {{cite news}} leaves the date unlinked but puts a comma in, whereas {{cite web}} omits the comma but links the date! I'm not really sure what to do for the best here, as using {{cite news}} for, for example, the Soccerbase refs, would not seem to be appropriate..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, think I've figured out how to make the {{cite web}} dates unlinked, I'll start on that now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have worked OK :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the prose check: "Eventually anything up to 300,000 fans gained entrance and the terraces overflowed..." Needs something sharper than "Eventually anything up to".
"had to be brought in to clear the crowd from the pitch in order to allow the match to take place." A touch wordy.
Route to the final: The 1904–05 season link redirects to a page that now contains an en dash. The hyphen in the piping can now be converted.
Comma after "The first match at West Ham's home".
"with a goal from Billy Brown. Brown..." Change the second Brown to avoid repetition.
Build-up: Remove the Stamford Bridge link here, because one is in the prior section. Also get rid of the London link a bit further on.
Remove comma after "the crowds remaining outside the stadium" at 2:15. Are the dots after the hour standard in British English? Haven't seen them before, but they're probably fine.
I'm done for now, but will review more later. In the meantime, can any more contemporary reports from The Times be found? To me, the ability to see contemporary reports about such an old match is a rare treat, and it would be great to have more. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, all addressed now I think. Unfortunately other than for some key topics The Times' archive is pay-per-view at £5 (US$10) a day, so I don't think I'll be using it too often :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
$10 per day? That's just robbery. Anyway, here are a couple more comments.
Match recap reads well for me, though that must be balanced by the fact that I'm a sports fan and can miss jargon that other reviewers can easily find.
Aftermath: "Although around 900 people were treated for slight injuries, only 22 were taken to hospital..." Should be a or the hospital.Giants2008 (17-14) 19:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in British English, "taken to hospital" is a perfectly valid turn of phrase - see for example this and this from the BBC...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, various "lead to/led to" clauses are using the "noun plus -ing". Furthermore, there is "to prevent Bolton's David Jack shooting for goal". Jappalang (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picked up all of those, I think, feel free to flag any I missed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix up some easy ones, here are the last three I could find that I fear to mess with: "local fans flocking to the stadium", "one of their fans kicking the ball to Vizard", and "fans arriving in the hope of". Jappalang (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly keen on the abbreviated positions in the team line-ups. Writing them out in full or linking the abbreviations might be better.Oldelpaso (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support. Even looking through the article with an ultra-pedantic eye, everything looks good. As comprehensive as an article about the sport in the interwar period can get. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm uncomfortable with the match details section in general. Apart from the unkeyed abbreviations mentioned above, the reduced font size seems unnecessary from an accessibility point of view, given how much white space surrounds the team lists. And the use of flags runs counter to MOS:FLAG, particularly #2, "provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flags are gone (another editor snuck them in when I wasn't looking :-) ). Reduced-size font has been binned. And positions have been written out in full and wikilinked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
much better now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After the above changes were carried out, I think this is up to the standards now. Do note that I left a couple things unstruck, but they aren't important enough for me to withhold support. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed your two remaining points..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supportonce the points below are addressed.Struway2 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Build-up section, 2nd para. Change some of the 5 occurrences of "forced" or "force" in the 2nd half of the para.
Aftermath. "around 900 people were treated for slight injuries ... Two policemen were also injured". Are policemen not people?
In the team lineups section, could we include the shirt numbers? The format used at 2005_Champions_League_Final#Match_details uses the shirt numbers, for example. That said, it's probably a matter of preference as to which lineups format to use - there are several out there and WPFOOTY has never agreed on a "standard" lineup format as far as I know. --Jameboy (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of shirt numbering was not introduced until the late 1930s, so there are no numbers to include. In fact if you look at the image taken from the match, you can see that the two players with their backs to the camera have no numbers on their shirts..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all my comments were dealt with at the peer review, and the article has improved since. Well written and there is nothing missing. Peanut4 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Couple of disambiguation problems: "Head of the River" and "Swan River." Also, with just seven notes and two references, is this article really detailed enough for FA? The two internet links worked OK though. The copyright on the two pictures looks to be OK as well, but it is a shame you don't have one of Kevin O'Halloran himself.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 10:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a couple copyedits, so you might want to look over the diffs to assure I didn't mess anything up. Also, it seems that seven references are quite few for such an athlete. Are there any newspaper articles or such that might turn up some relevant information? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - It's shorter than Bob Windle, who's also up at FAC now, and I'm somewhat concerned by that. Windle isn't particularly long, though I do think it scrapes by the comprehensiveness requirement. I will, however, offer my usual prose review.
"so in late-1955..." Remove hyphen.
Swimming career: Delink rowing, which is linked in the previous section.
"late-1955" again.
"He did this despite suffering from ear trouble, making him the fifth fastest swimmer in the world for the calendar year, earning him an individual berth in the 400 m event at the Olympics. Because I don't like the double -ings, either add and before the second comma or remove said comma.
1956 Melbourne Olympics: "Hamilton swam a very slow third leg of 2 min 15.4 sec and conceding 8.8 sec to the British." Change conceding to conceded, for past tense.
"With its strong depth, Australia was heavily favoured to win the relay, with four of the fastest individual swimmers in the event, with Sports Illustrated predicting a world record and a victory margin of around 14 metres." Three withs here. It doesn't read well when I say it out loud to myself. If this is revamped, a conversion should be provided for the metres to feet. I saw this in a recent FAC that used many measurements in feet, and I assume that it should be provided for metres too. If I'm wrong, let me know.
I think that this isn't the case. Nobody will say a 333.33 ft freestyle race. Nobody has asked for FACs on motor racing to compulsorily have mph for the speed of the cars if the competition format is not imperial. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're probably right. Don't know why that bothered me and not the 100 other meter examples in these swimming articles. Just disregard that comment. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later years: "...the Kevin O' Halloran Memorial Pool in his honour. and he was..." The period wants to be a comma.
General comment: I think the fact that he was the first Western Australian to win an Olympic medal should be moved up to the Olympics section. This is probably the most important fact about him, and it needs more emphasis put on it.Giants2008 (17-14) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did all the tweaks. This article is relatively short because O'Halloran only competed at 3 Australian Championships and only got a placing at one of the them and was never champion. With Windle, he won 19 titles and competed about 5-6 times and in 8 Olympic races across two campaigns and competed at the Commonwealth Games twice, while O'Halloran only totalled two races in one Olympic campaign. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport, until I get a chance to look at it more in-depth. After a few copyedits and a general read-through, I found nothing of terrible concern. I'll most likely change my !vote to support in time. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No major problems here, a well-written, well-sourced, and an overall good article. Nothing sticks out to me that violates the requirements for featured article status. Also a good read. Khoikhoi 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support As long as the following issues can be resolved, I will support.
This source states that it is the work of several people. What qualifications do they have? They appear to just be people interested in the topic. What makes this site reliable?
What is that? The page also says it is "not sponsored by or affiliated with the Olympics, the United States Olympic Committee or the International Olympic Committee". Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's here.[52][53] The head of the group is Bill Mallon, who is a published Olympics history writer. [54]. The VP of the ISOH is David Wallechinsky, who has published many books on the Olympics [55]. The current P of the ISOH has also published Olympic books and served in the movemnet. [56]YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes 19th century trails important in the development and history of the Canadian Northwest and the US Upper Midwest. Principally authored by the undersigned, it was critically reviewed and ably copyedited by Bwark, and since has been further expanded. Elcobbola has reviewed the images. Kablammo (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hudson’s Bay Company has a unique role in the history of British North America and Canada, and acted in a quasi-governmental role from the seventeenth into the nineteenth century. It has been an irreplaceable contributor to scholarly studies of the history of Canada. [58],[59] The page linked in the candidate article deals with events two centuries ago and serves no contemporary commercial purpose, and is not suspect on that account.
Having said that, the source is used only for one textual footnote supporting undisputed facts. That footnote also cites the Eric Morse book, which is not online. I included the HBC source as it is a good accessible short history of the events in question. Kablammo (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough then! It's more to back up other reviewers, and for when the article appears on th main page, so that folks can see that the sources are reliable.
Comments I'll try to review the entire article in time. Some examples from the lead and part of the first section:
The trails went from what is now Winnipeg in the Canadian province of Manitoba across the international border and by a variety of routes across what is now the eastern part of North Dakota and western and central Minnesota to Mendota and Saint Paul on the Mississippi. - "Went" → "traveled".
Until then, these cartways provided the principal and most efficient means of transportation between the Red River Colony and the outside world. - What does "outside world" refer to, in this context?
That corridor has now seen a resurgence of traffic, carried by more modern means of transport than the crude oxcarts that once travelled the Red River Trails." - Is "oxcart" two words, or one word? In the first sentence of the lead, it's one.
Although fur posts were scattered throughout the Canadian northwest and settlements of Métis fur traders and bison hunters were located in the vicinity of Selkirk’s establishment - Add a comma somewhere.
Isolated by geology behind the rugged Canadian Shield and many hundreds of miles of wilderness, settlers and their Métis neighbours had access to outside markets and sources of supply only by two laborious water routes. - "Many hundreds of miles" is vague. How many miles, exactly?
"Travel" and variants are used a number of times in the article, and I don't think it is best to usage to say that trails "travel"-- it implies they are mobile.
Probably; I'll try to come up with one (and suggestions are welcome). Kablammo (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trails ran? Although it is an active verb it probably is better than "went" (and is commonly used for roads, etc.). Kablammo (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Necessarily so; exactitude is not possible. Where (and when) was the transition between civilisation and wilderness? (There is no bright line.) And by which route? In any event, the very next paragraph gives approximate distances to the two main transshipment points.
Image review (thank goodness for the Minnesota Historical Society, eh?)
Image:MN1949stamp.jpg - Is there any way to add the source of this image to the image description page? When the bot moved it to commons, it just listed "Wikipedia" as the source. :)
The rest of the images look good and I'm reviewing the rest of the article now. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one image I didn't add. I'll ask Jonathunder.
Question-- would it be best practice to credit Minnesota Historical Society for images? Use of the images is not founded on permission from MHS, but rather on their PD status. Kablammo (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally up to you if you want to place a little "From Minnesota Historical Society" under the images. I was just struck with how many of the images came from their archives and thought to myself "thank goodness for their archives". If you intend on working on more Minnesota-themed articles and think you might need a good working relationship with them, you might think about adding the detail. Then, when you ask for a favor, you can say "see, there is an advertisement for you on the seventh most popular website in the world". :) Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the stamp image three years ago. I can't remember now where I originally located it, but it was probably an online repository of old stamp images. I do know United States stamps from that time are in the public domain. Jonathunder (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look around and see if I can find it. Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found a version and added the source. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign words--
Should the foreign words which appear in quotes (shaganappi, traverse) instead be italicized? And, if so, at each repetition?
For accessibility, when should the {{lang|fr|word}} be used in reference to place names (e.g., Traverse des Sioux; there are others)?
For foreign words, see WP:MOS#Foreign terms for guidance. I don't think place names are usually translated, but I can't find the MOS guideline on that. Does anyone know where it is? Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English words are in WP:ITALICS. I don't know where the guideline is, but we once discussed places at MOS talk. We don't italicize places that are the same in English and other languages (Paris, Buenos Aires, Caracas), we do italicize places that are translated differently to English (Firenze, Florence; Roma, Rome; Milano, Milan). I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very impressive article! (I love the notes on the talk page, too!) It is well-organized and well-written: I had never heard of these trails before reading this article and now I have an excellent idea of their development, use, and disintegration. A brief perusal of my university's card catalog suggests that the research for this article is good as well - my searches kept turning up books used in the article. Finally, the illustrations are useful and well-placed. I just have a few small nitpicks:
There seemed to be some overlinking to me - it was hard to determine which links, particularly geographical locations, would actually help me understand the article better. Also, there are a lot of links that repeat throughout the article - these are generally unnecessary. See WP:MOSLINK for advice on linking.
Ox cart is sometimes spelled "oxcart" and sometimes "ox cart". It should be standardized.
I found the last paragraph of "Significance" a bit fluffy after the rest of the article, which was much more detailed. I'm not entirely convinced of its necessity.
Christianson - Why is the volume subtitle in bold? It looks quite odd.
Holmquist - ISBN is not linked - something is amiss.
Any journal that is published in print as well as online should probably not be listed as a "website". Are the journals listed in the "website" section entirely online?
Was this originally published in Prairie Business Magazine by its editor, Rick Killion? The bottom of the webpage hints at that. If so, we need to include that information in the reference.
This was originally published in the CCHS Newletter, March/April 2000 according to the website. We need to include that information in the reference.
It was a pleasure to read this article - thank you! Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rigorous reveiw and kind comments. My response to your suggestions:
The article was, and perhaps remains, overlinked. My understanding of practice was that links were to be repeated if new to a section. I have no strong feelings, but have sliced a few.
I have standardized ox cart, but as mentioned above, even Wikipedia is inconsistent (which should come as no surprise). It seems that "oxcart" is more common as an adjective; Gilman's book itself used it in the title.
I have condensed the final paragraph, and prefer to keep it as a conclusion.
The discordant bolding in Governor Christianson's book is an artifact of the "Volume" call of the citation template. I've redone it to add the volume title to the title field, and blank the volume field.
Holmquist ISBN fixed.
Some of the online cites are published journals-- certainly the Manitoba Historical Society ones are, but until I get back to a library that has them I will not be able to add page numbers, etc. I have merged print and online references.
Tiny thing: The access dates and ISBNs should all be in the same style. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, if I am reading you right. Thanks again. Kablammo (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice work. Thank you for developing this article. I can hear the hooves, just above the noise of the screeching carts. Minor comments below. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is overlinked as someone else mentioned. Except for exceptions, only the first occurrence per article (not per section) needs a link, see Overlinking and underlinking.
Could all of the images be sized according to Images style? That would mean 300px for the lead image, and no px at all on the others except the map.
Two copyedit requests in the section for the East Plains Trail. What operates in, "the Mississippi, which operated to Saint Anthony Falls"? And "permanent settlement" by whom? I think the area was already inhabited and this means immigrants from the U.S. east coast.
Also just curious, were any women on these trails?
Could the lead start with a general sentence or is this too high level? "The Red River Trails were trade routes between Canada and the United States during the nineteenth century."
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
I’ve chopped some more links, but left some, more out of negligence than anything else. It has become a long article and parts are linked directly from others. (I will be adding more redirects from variants of the names; there are a few already.) Chop away, if you like; I have no strong preferences here.
Image sizes are not forced, except for the first one and the map. The top image was set at 255px to cascade with the NRHP infobox. I deleted that infobox as it gave undue weight to the MN, US aspect of an international trail, but did not change the px spec for the lead image. I’ve now increased it to 300px.
River craft operated from Saint Cloud to Saint Anthony Falls. I used “permanent settlement” as the area was clearly inhabited before, but by Plains Indians, who were nomadic. Not until the 1851 treaties was most of the land served by the trails opened to “white” settlement.
Furs: bison from the plains; likely beaver from further afield. I’ll see what the sources say.
Women: Yes. Some traders took their families.
Intro—It could start that way, but I don’t think “Canada” would be the correct term for this area in the early 19th century. No strong feelings either way.
Thank you. Everything on my list is accounted for. If I have time this week I might unlink a few wikilinks otherwise done. Twas my bad on the px, you done good. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Susan, thank you for your help on this. Kablammo (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added a wikilink and done a copyedit on a sentence. If there are any more of that particular type of sentence (a clause starting with wanting, being or a similar verb) that I overlooked, I suggest you change that too. - Mgm|(talk) 15:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
If you've heard of Uncle Tupelo, this is probably why. Despite low sales, its acknowledged as very influential on the alternative country subgenre. It's short (not very many sources out there), but short articles are all the rage these days, right? Teemu08 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Who are the "Some sources" in Note 29 that "attribute the song ['No Depression'] to James David Vaughan"? The talk page says this version (with that problem) passed GA; I think the reviewer should've asked for elaboration on that note (or its removal) before promotion, as it implies that the song was misattributed or stolen. --anoddname 00:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, one source of that is cited in the song's article. --anoddname 01:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Giggy
I'd like to see the lead in two paragraphs.
Audio in the Recording section needs a more descriptive caption (the FURG claims it's used "as part of a historical and critical examination", so more historical/critical detail would be good)
"Uncle Tupelo recorded the tracks for their first album, No Depression" - you've already made it clear that it's the first album (this phrasing would be find on, say, the band's article, but here you can remove the extra words)
"with little overdubbing, with only a few banjo and acoustic guitar parts added to the songs" - can you avoid the "with" repetition?
Generally looks good, just some minor nitpicks. Giggy (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed up prose issues. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind in regards to the FUR, I've elaborated a bit in the song description in the article why it's an appropriate song in regards to a description of the musical style on the album. Let me know what you think. Teemu08 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better. Giggy (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Giggy (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 6 (Dechert..) is lacking a last access date.
Current ref 22 (Bowers..) is lacking a publisher
You need to attribute the "Is cited as one of the most important albums..." to the one saying it, as it's opinion and from a review/opinion piece. (current ref 23 (Shea))
The last sentence "Spin listed the album... and Amazaon named it... " is cited to a site I'm not sure is reliable. What makes this reliable? And wouldn't it be better to cite directly to the source articles?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed citation issues. acclaimedmusic.net is used in quite a few other featured articles (a few of them: [61][62][63]). I cannot link out to the Amazon list because it has since been removed and is not archived. I have been unable to find an issue number for the Spin list—if I do, I'll replace the citation. For the meantime, I've mentioned in the text that the information is from acclaimedmusic.net Teemu08 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I think this part of the lead is too detailed? "Uncle Tupelo was formed in the late 1980s by Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy, and Mike Heidorn. The band produced a demo tape entitled Not Forever, Just for Now, which garnered a positive review by the College Media Journal.[1] The rave review enabled the band to sign with Giant Records (later renamed to Rockville Records)." --Efe (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switched out the last part of that sentence to something more generic. Teemu08 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other lines? I think they should not be in the lead. It seems like its a bio. --Efe (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything wrong with it. The sentences in question summarize the Background section, which is one third of the entire article. Teemu08 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
although its in the article, what does the line "Uncle Tupelo was formed in the late 1980s by Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy and Mike Heidorn." has to do with the lead? its significance or anything that adds up to the fullness of the lead? --Efe (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The review lead to the band's signing with an independent record label. - Can you say which label and in which year (late 80's is too vague). More soon. Ceoilsláinte 17:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a year to the review. Teemu08 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did they sign the same year? Ceoilsláinte 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's now mentioned in the text. Teemu08 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Huge work needed on prose to the extent that the nom might be premature. Eg: The band added drummer Mike Heidorn to the band after Jay Farrar's brother Wade left the band.. And then the next sentence: The band changed their name to the Primitives and toured the St. Louis area. Why are these two statements part of the same sentence, and why is neither dated. Too much work is need to bring this to standard in the time allowed for an FAC, although given his past FA record and ability, I'm sure Teemu can return later with a sucessful nom. Ceoilsláinte 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran through the article with a thorough copyedit. You might want to revisit. Cheers, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happily striking oppose after work. Will revisit. Ceoilsláinte 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some book refs are harvnbs; some are plain text. Not all that important, but annoying. ~one of manyeditorofthewikis(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 02:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ceoil that the prose needs some serious work. The discussion of the Plebes/Primitives history is mostly redundant to the main article and it is unclear why it is being replicated here. Also, the timeline is unclear: why is the signing with Giant/Rockville discussed before the recording if it occurred afterwards? This creates unnecessary confusion. (Did Rockville sign them based on the demo even if the album was already recorded?) In addition, the authorship of the original songs is disputed. jayfarrar.net attributes them all to Farrar-Tweedy-Heidorn. Who is authorative here? Where are the bonus tracks from and shouldn't the info on the re-relase be included in the infobox? I like to see this promoted to FA just like Teemu's other great work on UT/Wilco articles, but I don't think it's there yet. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably take another look at it to tighten it up further, but I took out some of the redundant background information. I also cleared up the timeline and added a bit about the bonus tracks (I can really only mention the covers, since there aren't any RS's that tell me much about the other songs). The song authorship is a bit tricky. The authors attributed in the article are the ones who wrote the lyrics of the song. The music is attributed to Farrar/Tweedy/Heidorn on all of the songs, but as far as I know, we only credit authors on track listings. Also, based on other articles I've seen, re-release info is not mentioned in the infobox. Teemu08 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the authorship reflects the authors as they are given by the music publishers in order to claim royalties, and as far as I know this is still F/T/H for all original songs, or at least I'm not aware of a RS that contradicts this (although I don't have the re-releases). If there are contradicting RS for both (original release vs. re-release?) this should be addressed, maybe in a footnote. All other concerns have been addressed. Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stuck in "All music written by Farrar/Tweedy/Heidorn" in the track listing section. Hope this helps. Teemu08 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the difference is between "songs" and "music". If you mean "lyrics" and "music", that's a different animal. Now it is generally known that Farrar and Tweedy did not in fact collaborate on their songwriting, but like Lennon/McCartney they submitted their songs as collaborative works for royalty claims (F/T/H for the first three albums, F/T for Anodyne), and to my knowledge this agreement still holds. Now if there is a RS that established who in fact wrote which song it should be discussed in the text, but for the track listing the relevant information is what is submitted to BMI or ASCAP. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Media review - The fair use description for the album cover looks sufficient, but I would include the sentence "This song exemplifies the band's start–stop song technique, which was influenced by the Minutemen" in the fair use rationale for the audio clip. It is currently too vague, as it says only "as part of a historical and critical examination". Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added to rationale. T&E, I'll hopefully get to your comments this evening. Teemu08 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns. Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited most of the article (feel free to revert whatever changes you don't like), but some small problems still remain.
The third sentence of Background has "The Primitives" coming out of nowhere. Do you mean The Plebes?
"No Depression in Heaven" is not mentioned in the article body.
Does Christgau's "dud" icon review thing (whatever that is supposed to be) need a mention in the prose? I don't think so; the "review" seems so un-subjective and . . . random.
"The album is associated with alternative country, so much that "No Depression" is sometimes used as a synonym for the genre" - clunky sentence; can you reword it slightly?
I think you can remove most of the "(Farrar, Tweedy, Heidorn)" and put a "All songs written by Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy and Mike Heidorn, except where noted" at the top of the track-listing. It'll give a neater, more uncluttered appearance. indopug (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed. As for Christgau, Homer Simpson said it best: "Brevity is... ...wit". All of Christgau's reviews are very short (even those that receive comments are usually only a few sentences long), but he's renowned as one of the greatest critics of all time. Plus it's one of the only reviews of the album that's genuinely negative—I just wish he would've stated why. Teemu08 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article seemed comprehensive and competently written to me. It covered all of the major topics related to an album: history of the band, production, musical sound, and reception. Although unfamiliar with popular music of any kind, I could follow this article's clear writing. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Following the copyedits the article has undergone, I feel it meets the criteria. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because Netley Abbey is one the best preserved medievalCistercianabbeys in England. The abbey was a royal foundation of the thirteenth century and, after the Dissolution, was a home for important Tudor politicians. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the ruins of the abbey became the subject of much art and poetry of the romantic movement. Today, the extensive remains of Netley Abbey are recognised by the UK government as an Ancient Monument of national importance.Soph (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anything be done about the mass whitespace that starts midway through the Country house section? Giggy (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Now fixed! Soph (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, pending image concerns I see your rationale for the gallery, but I too prefer to see images integrated with the text. If I were the main editor of the article, I would try to move the picture of Paulet's gatehouse into the section on Paulet's house, and move the picture of the west range to the section describing it. The picture of visitors in the crypt would look well in the folklore section, and one of the engravings in the romantic ruin section. The remaining images are on commons and linked via the commons link if a reader wishes to see them. Anyway, absence of galleries is not a FA criteria, and the layout and licences look OK, so I've struck out my conditions. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
*Yes, is it necessary to force the layout of the page? It leaves a big white space on the right. I would prefer the images to be placed another way.[reply]
The images from Wyrdlight probably need OTRS permission, and strictly speaking the image of Paulet should have a source. Given the strength of the other images, these could always be removed if concerns cannot be addressed.
Response:
(i) We forced the layout because there were serious problems with the little blue "edit" links bunching up away from their sections. I've completely revised the layout and image usage and it's no longer necessary now, so I've removed the forcing.
(ii) I've replaced the Wyrdlight images with other (colour) images with no licensing concerns. I've deleted Sir William. It was a shame to lose him as he is important and it was nice to have a person in the article, but on checking back on the image's page I saw that the copyright had been disputed. Hopefully that will be resolved and he can come back in the future. Soph (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary, in my opinion, to have a citation at the end of every sentence when successive sentences are from the same source. The source can just be placed at the end of the section. DrKay (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — That mass of whitespace in the middle of the article is rather distracting. Also, is there a need for so many images, particularly in a row like that? Images should alternate between left and right alignments. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The layout is now fixed. I do think that the number of images was appropriate because Netley is a large building with a long and complex history, and one that has been heavily featured in art. I thought it would be useful to the reader to show it at different periods of its existence. The historical images have now been grouped in their own gallery at the bottom of the page. Soph (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The content is certainly here to take this to FA but I think it needs a lot of copyediting, I counted many short sentences which affected the comprehension and flow of the article and some of the phrases are slightly awkward which also disturbs the way in which the article progresses. Also there are numerous grammar and MOS issues I spotted. For instance why the isolated sentence on "The entire building was roofed with lead, and there were windows in the gables of the attic."[1][5]?? Also I appreciate that the early part of the article discusses its history 750 years ago so accuracy is often difficult to confirm, but if you scan across the article you'll see a high degree of repitition with the words "probably" or "likely". An encyclopedia article should really be based purely on fact as much as possible rather than guesswork. Given the circumstances and what evidence exists though I can accept that it is difficult to be very precise, but it could be reworded to avoid leaving the impession to the reader that it is a grey area in terms of accuracy. Potentially with some polishing up I would be likely to approve of the article. Could do with the removal of some images (some of the black and white images could be removed), and a left and right distrubtion would seemingly give it a better balance from a visual and aesthetic perspective Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
(i) Matters of prose style are, of course, de gustibus. I've done some rewriting in the light of your comment but I am probably too close to the text. I wrote it and have rewritten it and read it many times, it is my academic field so things that to me need a brief note require more for the general reader, and of course one cannot sub one's own work, which is why a fresh eye is so essential. I fixed the example you gave and a few more considering of your remarks, but I'd be grateful if you could give more examples where you think the writing is weak so matters can be rectified.
(ii) re use of 'probably' and 'likely' in the discussion of the buildings and their use during the monastic period qualifying some statements is necessary. Netley is a complex archaeological site with many periods of construction and use; much must depend on interpretation and analysis of the existing ruins in combination with the archaeological evidence (bearing in mind that Netley was excavated in the 1860s using the primitive methods of the time), documentation and comparison to other sites. Where the article says something is probable or likely we are 99.9% sure that it was the case (for instance that the warming house was probably vaulted) but the surviving remains and extant sources do not allow complete certainty. These statements reflect the consensus of scholarly opinion (Netley is not a controversial site) and the full supporting evidence is given in the cited works for the use of the interested reader. Where we have to be genuinely tentative, for instance on the question of the whereabouts of the abbey's infirmary, that is, I hope, made clear. I have perhaps written over cautiously in some places, giving the impression these things are a matter of debate, so I've tightened up several passages to fix the issue. See what you think. Soph (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are some issues to address before I can support.
I don't think the lead picture in the infobox is a good choice, given the many other options in the article, on commons, and on Flickr (with acceptable licenses) [65].
The grid reference is not needed in the opening sentence. That is already provided in the infobox.
Source needed in the Monastic history section for the sentence "The king provided some small grants and the abbey managed to ride through its difficulties, but the sale of much of the property meant that income levels never recovered and it settled into what might be best described as genteel poverty."
Except for the unsourced sentence, the Monastic history section appears to be all referenced to a single source, yet the cite is repeated multiple times in those paragraphs. If there is a quote, then a duplicate cite might be needed. Otherwise, when the same cites are repeated consecutively, I think it's needed just once in the last occurrence.
I also see that some parts of the article text are put into a table, beginning in the "Cloister and east range" section to the "Netley in literature and art" section. I really don' think using a table in this way is appropriate.
There is a large white space in the article, I think caused by the table along with there being too many images. The white space appeares between the "Netley in literature and art" and the "Present day" section.
With the changes, the article is much improved. I made some additional changes, including removing forced pixel sizes per WP:MOS#Images and removing duplicate, consecutive references. The sources all look okay. Though, I'm not ready to support, as I think the article can use further copyediting by someone uninvolved with the article. Sentences like "He died in 1550." in the Dissolution section don't come across as engaging or "brilliant" prose, which is one of the WP:FACR criteria. --Aude (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thankyou for all the work you have done on the article to improve the text and catching the duplicate references that I missed. Perhaps you are right that a completely fresh eye should go through and tidy up the prose as now revised. Soph (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and removed instances with duplicate, consecutive refs. One ref tag can cover multiple sentences, if they are all using the same source.
In going through the article, I noticed a few other issues:
The sentence, "The upper level was reached by an external staircase..." in the "Precinct" section is not cited. I think it needs a cite.
"inhabited the abbey until the close of the seventeenth century." in the "Country house" section is missing a cite.
In the "In literature and art" section, "In 1764, George Keate wrote The Ruins of Netley Abbey, A poem..." does the ref there cover the entire sentence? or just the part of the sentence up to "a poem"?
"Netley has its own opera, Netley Abbey, an Operatic Farce..." - I'm not thrilled with having a one sentence paragraph. Can that sentence be combined with another paragraph? or can something be added about the opera, so that the paragraph is more than a single sentence?
Aside from these issues, I think the article is much improved with the copyedits done by User:Malleus Fatuorum. --Aude (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response:
Done. Moved the cites as they covered everything about the abbot's house.
Done. Moved the cite to a more appropriate place as it covers it all.
Done. Ditto
Done. I'm not sure how that sentence got separated, it was meant to be part of the para above. I've now mentioned that the set of the opera featured a recreation of the ruins, but I'm not sure that we need to go into any more detail about it, it's really is only a footnote in the history of Netley (I've read it, it's really, really bad).
Support - I read through the article again and don't see any reason why the article should not be promoted. Good work! --Aude (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query In the Refectory sectiion what does the phrase "monks' frater" mean? .ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The frater is the medieval Latin name for the dining hall for the monks. Fixed now, and thanks to your comment I also caught a couple of uses of dorter (dormitory) Soph (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is something really wrong in the layout of the page, and I corrected WP:MSH issues.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thanks for your work on the WP:MSH issues. The layout is now fixed. Would you be willing to review the revised article in the light of Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images so I can see and fix where I have gon wrong? I want Netley Abbey and other articles I am working on to be completely accessible to differently abled readers.
Comment Don't kill the gallery. But do desize the pics, and use some more in the text sections. I can't see a particular sequence in the gallery arrangement, and unless I'm missing it, a chronological order would make more sense. Layout looks fine now, on my set up anyway. Prose needs some polishing. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The gallery is done with the template from the the wiki picture tutorial and I don't want to screw about with that as it should display images in the right size for readers' screens. I've now put the images in chronological order per your suggestion. Originally when the article was submitted for FAC the images in the gallery were in the text, but other editors noted that there were too many pictures for an article of this length so I put all the historical images together. I believe that these pictures are useful to the reader as they demonstrate that Netley was a popular subject for artists of the 18th and nineteenth centuries as asserted in the text, show Netley through the ages and also show now lost features such as the vaults of the church. Soph (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the pics in the main text should be de-sized, as Mos dictates. Some could be moved up from the gallery, especially those showing now-collapsed bits, and something to go next to the text on the later period as a ruin. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments. I have made a few edits to the article to hopefully improve some minor problems with the prose. [66]. Please consider merging the short Abandonment section with Romantic Ruin. Reference 42 is missing page numbers and is there an ISBN for the Department of the Environment source? (Apart from this the sources seem excellent). The Folklore and ghosts section is weak, I would prefer to see that long quotation removed and summarised (but this is not a big deal), and I don't like the way the article ends with a quotation (again, no big deal). Some readers might think the Lead is too short, but it is difficult to see how it could be usefully expanded. Will some of the images from the Gallery fit into the body of the article? And, please get someone to double-check of the image licenses. Well done. Graham ColmTalk 11:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The missing page number for the reference is now fixed. Unfortunately, there is no ISBN for the Department of the Environment list as far I have been able to discover as it's simply a government document rather than a published book. I think the quote from Browne Walters is evocative and it's good to have a near contemporary source for the legend of Walter Taylor's dream to show that the legend is not a modern one. Netley has a lot of folklore, far more than is mentioned in the article, but I've had to leave it out because it's almost impossible to get reliable cites for things like that. Soph (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Comprehensive and well structured. Will take another look for minor punct fixes etc. --mervyn (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
I would prefer to see "founded in 1239" rather than the vague "early thirteenth century" in the lead. No reason not to give the date, honestly.
Okay, very first sentence. "is a medieval monastery"... was would be more appropriate if you're going to call it a monastery. If you want to go with current day stuff, "remains of a medieval monastery" or "the site of a medieval monastery"... but as it's written, the first sentence implies that the monastery is still intact and running.
Lead - second paragraph, "donate to the nation"? very formal. Perhaps its my Yank background, but it rings wrong in my ears.
Lead first paragraph - "300-year monastic history", first I'd drop monastic, it's uneeded here. Second, precision, while Netley was close to 300 years, it didn't quite make it, perhaps "its nearly 300 year history was quiet."
Foundation - second sentence - the last phrase is awkwardly tacked on to the rest of the sentence, perhaps reword to "The abbey was one of a pair that the bishop concieved as a memorial to his memory, the other is ..."
Romantic ruin - "to realise the by now unfashionable house for cash from the materials." I think that's a bit opaque to non-Brits. I take it you mean that he demolished it for the building materials?
I'm always hit for this ... "In the 1760's Thomas Drummer, who owned a lot of land...", a lot of is not very encyclopedic.
I find it very odd to have the foundation, then a long discussion of the buildings, then the monastic history and the rest of the history. Perhaps move all the history together?
No need to have the see also section, as both of the articles listed there are linked in the article.
I might mention that although the monks sold some manors, at the dissolution they still had retained a decent number of their original endowment. (that's from the Victoria County History which because it's being used as a ref, you should link the title in the bibliography to the British History Online version and delete it as an external link.
You might note that not only was Peter des Roches a bishop, he was Chief Justiciar and as the ONDB notes "For more than thirty years Peter des Roches exercised an influence over the Plantagenet court second only to that of the king" as a bit of background. He was quite the politician, although I know our article on his sucks, I haven't hit the bishops of Winchester yet.
Overall, a nice article. I'd love to see more on the actual history of the monastery, honestly, as right now it's more a history of the architecture, but I do understand that Netley was one of those very boring monasteries with no great scandals. I'll be happy to support after some of the above is dealt with. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
(i) Done.
(ii) Done. I've now called it a ruined medieval monastery, which should be clearer.
(iii) Done. It's the way such transactions are usually described here in UK. I have substituted 'given'.
(iv) Done.
(v) Done.
(vi) Done. The meaning seemed clear to me from the context, but now changed.
(vii) Done.
(viii) I think that the structure works best as it is, as the discussion of Henry's patronage flows nicely into the discussion of its results, particularly the church. If you were going to move the section on the buildings where would you put it?
(ix) I think the precise details of Netley's land holdings are best left to the VCH. Our readers might find them very boring. I don't know how to link the VCH in the bibliography to the online version. Can you help?
(x) Done. Peter des Roches was a real piece of work, a serious prince of the church. He deserves much better coverage than our current article gives him. I've called him a powerful politician and government official now, which I think makes it clear that he wasn't just a bishop.
(xi) I'd love to have more on the internal history of the abbey, but there really isn't that much more to say because very little is known about it and what is known is, as you rightly say very dull, no lovely murders and villainy unlike say its sister house of Vale Royal Abbey. Netley really was a very boring monastery, it's only the quality of the surviving remains and its role in literature and art that make it interesting.
Thanks for taking the time to do such a detailed critique. Soph (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drop me a note on my talk page so I can link the VCH in the bibliography when I get home. I'm on the road and will be home late Saturday night (hopefully, as long as my car doens't die) and will get to it when I get home. It's certainly not picky enough to not support the article over. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status ? Is the nominator addressing Ealdgyth's comments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response: The nominator has been very ill and no position to do much of anything over the last week. However, she's now back on duty!Soph (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like Juliancolton, and DrKay, I advise to drop the Gallery section. Wikipedia's image policy discourages photo galleries (Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries) unless a convincing reason is given. Frankly, I do not see such a convincing need to display a range of pictures that could have one or two of the best illustrations talked on in an "In literature and art" section (which should be Bucks' and Constable's). Instead, we have an irrelevant gatehouse picture there. The article should be using the best picture available to represent certain ideas or to identify the subject. The gallery here is seemingly indiscriminate in its selection of art on the abbey, judging how all the Common's artwork regarding the abbey have been placed into it here. The duties of a gallery is best left to Commons which is fulfilled by the link in the External links section.Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I disagree with your interpretation of the policy and also your views on the gallery. As has been mentioned above, originally when the article was submitted for FAC the images in the gallery were in the text, but other editors noted that there were too many pictures for an article of this length so I put all the historical images together for the convenience of readers. The images are not there for decorative purposes, nor is their use indiscriminate. They were carefully selected by me from my large collection of originals to illustrate how different parts of the site looked in the past, to demonstrate Netley's role as an inspiration to artists of the 18th and 19th centuries and show Netley at the height of its fame as a romantic landscape (it looked very different to the way it does today). The historical images also show now lost features such as the vaults of the church. I believe they are useful to readers hoping to understand the history of the abbey after it was abandoned and Netley as a cultural artifact.
I agree that it would be nice to have a copy of the Constable painting of the abbey. Unfortunately, it belongs to Cornell University and there is no free image of it available that we could use on Wiki. Instead readers have to follow the link in the references to see it. Soph (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with that, and the reading of the guideline. All the guideline seems to say about galleries in articles, as opposed to the now virtually extinct stand-alone galleries, is "The determination of whether a gallery should be incorporated into an article or created at the Commons should be discussed on the article's talk page" - and it is not all that clear whether that refers to them either. Commons "galleries" are no substitute - personally I disapprove of them entirely for reasons I won't go into here. That having a gallery is not a problem for FA has been established. However I do agree, and have said above, that more images should be moved up into the text - I think the gallery could perhaps be reduced to a single row. Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That supports my position, and indeed only a single image policy wonk favoured keeping the current muddy wording, against the view of the other participants. I note the discussion contains no contributors from the Visual arts Project, probably (and necessarily) the most heavy users of internal galleries, nor, of course, was the discussion notified to them. The FAC for Robert Peake the Elder was where this was discussed. The gallery here is not large, is well captioned, and not decorative. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Robert Peake's FAC was in Feb 2008, while National Ignition's was in May. That itself shows that galleries are contentious in their use and not an automatic allowance (require good reason per policy). While it might be well-captioned, the "decorative" aspect is contestable (see above). As it is, the FAC serves as discussion on this gallery's status. Jappalang (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The timing is hardly relevant, as there is no sign that any of the participants in either discussion was aware of the other. In fact the issue is only mentioned briefly by two reviewers in Ignition; the discussion in Peake is far fuller, and involves more editors. Everything in an FA requires a good reason to be there, and this gallery, though it should be reduced by moving pictures up, has one. In fact, I wholly agree that the Ignition gallery pictures should be moved up into the text, as there is acres of room for them. That is not the case here. One or two of the images could be sacrificed perhaps, but there will still not be enough room in the text for the rest. The article currently has 9 modern photos & 8 print images, which is certainly not over-illustration for a subject with an important visual aspect, and a typical number for an FA on such a subject. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the interest of full disclosure I've made quite a few edits to this article, but none any more than copyedits. I agree with some of the earlier comments about the prose quality, which I think suffered during this FAC in the nominator's efforts to address reviewers' concerns. However, I think it has subsequently been much improved. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image check complete. Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any printed sources that could verify the details in the image descriptions or perhaps add to them?
For what it's worth, I think a Commons gallery would be better than the gallery on this article. I'm not convinced that this gallery meets the high bar for inclusion. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by printed sources to verify the details of the images, could you explain further? I own the originals of all the historical images of Netley Abbey included in the article and on wiki commons, scanned them from the artwork myself, and took the dates and attributions from those given by the artists (save Image:Net1840.jpg and Image:Chapterinterior1840.jpg which had to be dated independently). The three historical images currently in the article are firmly dated and attributed from the information given by the artists themselves at the foot of their engravings. At the moment I think that the captions we have are fairly self explanatory. How do you think they should be improved?
Well, one of the problems with relying solely on the images themselves is that the information included on them is not always accurate. For example, sometimes artists and engravers signed other people's names to make more money. Therefore, it would be best if we could verify that these images are indeed dated and attributed correctly by referring to peer-reviewed analyses of them. However, I know that not every print has been catalogued and discussed. I was wondering if these had been and whether any attempt to find further information on them had been made. Also, printed sources could provide more information about the engravers and artists, such as first names. This information could be added to the image description (I am referring to the image desription page, not the caption). Awadewit (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
Prompted by your concerns I have rechecked everything.
Image:Netleyreredorter1784.jpg comes from Francis Grose's The Antiquities of England and Wales (1773-87) which is a famous multi-volume collection of engravings of ancient monuments. The engraver is actually Samuel Sparrow (I needed a magnifying glass and a strong light to see that) Samuel Hooper was the publisher (he did draw and design things too, hence the mistake). Sparrow is known to have worked with Hooper on the book. I've put all these details in the image description. Full information on the book and Hooper can be found here http://www.heatons-of-tisbury.co.uk/grose.htm, including a listing for the engraving; the original title is "Abbot's Kitchin (sic) at Netley Abbey, Hants".
Image:Netleysamnathbuck.jpg is a hand coloured version of Samuel & Nathaniel Buck's 1733 engraving. It is identical to the copy in A Hamilton Thompson, Netley Abbey (pp 14-15), a government publication, which confirms the date and attribution. It's also identical to the copy in the National Maritime Museum collection, see here: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/prints/viewRepro.cfm?reproID=PU1085.
Image:Transept1776.jpg is by Richard Godfrey (fl 1728-94 according to the Dictionary of National Biography), and published by F Blyth of 87 Cornhill, London. Godfrey specialised in archaeological sites, copies of old paintings and scenes from theatre. He worked with Hooper and Sparrow on the Grose book mentioned above. I have not yet been able to find this image catalogued anywhere, however, the style is very much his, the signature is his and the subject matter what he did. We also know that he visited Netley at least once because he drew it for the Grose book (Image:1759netley.jpg, which has also had its information amended). I also don't think that someone ripping off Godfrey's work would put their address on the print, especially when said address was round the corner from where the man himself lived and worked. All this being the case I see little reason to doubt the date and attribution for the picture.
I am very glad you brought this up.Soph (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding this additional information! Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False descriptions are not much of a problem for British prints of this period, as adequate IP laws were in place. In any case, none of the prints make extravagant claims of authorship; far from it. The "Godfrey" seems to say "Godfrey del.", ie he did the "original drawing", and not necessarily the engraving or etching for the print. No doubt more information could be found (the local museum or art gallery for a start), although "peer-reviewed" information is unlikely to exist. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I was sorry to see the gallery go completely. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response: I was too, I would have preferred to keep it but there seems to be a lot of opinion against it.Soph (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Yay, time for another shot. I feel this article is ready, and its time it gets another shot :). All comments are welcome :) - Mitch32(UP) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were there enough emoticons in that nomination statement? ;-) On another note, is it possible to cut down on the lead, and maybe condense it all into two paragraphs? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried my best :) - Mitch32(UP) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Looks pretty good, but I would like to see a picture of the road itself for the Route description and a picture of the Route 28N bridge for the last sub-section in the History section. Its not required, since you have a picture of NY 28N's shield with a trail marker, but it would be nice. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed, support ~~ ComputerGuy 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With the current fuss over "short" articles I thought I'd have a look at this. As usual the problem is not with length but with other of the criteria. The writing is weak in places and summary style seems to have been employed when there is ample room to expand and clarify. There is little context for the route; we get where it goes and how it is administered, but nothing of its impact. I also agree that the illustration leaves something to be desired. Some examples of problems, in no particular order:
The route though has a rather detailed history before its designations. Not judging from the scant details given in the history section. And why "though"?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...has a 10-mile (16 km) concurrency with New York State Route 30 through Long Lake... through the lake? Not the best word choice.
The town of Long Lake, not the lake itself.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the reader know this? Yomanganitalk 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Mitch32(UP) 22:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond Long Lake, Route 28N remains partly in mountains... - this appears to be immediately contradicted; it is backed by mountains, but not "in" them.
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
passing the high Windfall Mountain - high mountain? Most are. Why do we get stats for the other mountains and not this one?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
climbing in elevation - as opposed to just climbing?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nearby is Vanderwhacker Mountain, a 3,386-foot (1,032 m) high peak and is part of the Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest, which the highway passes through. - "and is part"?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lake, which flows into two creeks, follows Route 28N for about 1 mile - Surely the other way round?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that surely the road follows the lake. Presumably the lake was there first. Yomanganitalk 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there so few distances recorded in the description? Putting in the distance it runs parallel to the County Route 84, for example, would avoid you having to use "eventually" which would be nice as very soon after in the text it eventually passes some lakes (some lakes?). The distance between Country Route 84 and NY 28N would be interesting too. Do they run parallel 10 feet apart? 10 miles? 100 miles?
Mileage is discouraged in US Roads standards, and technology has yet to produce a thing that measure it.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the US Roads WikiProject? Why is it discouraged? I did look at the style guide but I can't see any mention of it being discouraged there. And I'm not sure what you mean by "technology has yet to produce a thing that measure it"; Maps? Odometers? Yomanganitalk 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Route 28N terminates just after entering North Creek in Warren County and intersecting with New York State Route 28, its parent route.- Does it terminate when it intersects or does it just tail off with nobody really knowing where it finishes?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early history - What is this an early history of? Some connection to the NY 28N would be beneficial here. Which of these roads became part of the route? Eventually, highways helped the town grow - how? why? This needs connecting to the relevant information later on. ...and the town evolved into somewhat of a sportsmen's resort. As a result, a road was built connecting Newcomb with nearby Minerva and Long Lake - because...? (presumably good fishing on Long Lake?)
References say nothing.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article is not comprehensive. Are there no more references available? Yomanganitalk 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem was -there was more details, but removed during the last FAC.Mitch32(UP) 22:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Designation - a lot of things going on "earlier" and it might be nice to mention whether McKinley was dead when Roosevelt was sworn in
Already in the article in "Designation" - but remained.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It only says he was "near death" when Roosevelt heard, not whether he was dead when Roosevelt was sworn in. Yomanganitalk 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Mitch32(UP) 22:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minerva, New York is central to the article yet is not linked until the intersection info box
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and NY 10 was rerouted south of Long Lake ... - physically or administratively?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plans have arisen for Route 28N to undergo construction... - It's already been constructed. And how did these plans "arise"?
That meant that its gonna go under construction, Again. NYSDOT did not say why.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"undergo construction" is a poor word choice. Repair or renovation would be clearer, although the new wording is better. Yomanganitalk 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't solve this, no other wording works.Mitch32(UP) 22:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project is predicted to end in 2017, and is said to cost $1.1 million of federal and state funds - the attempt to avoid "projected" or "predicted" in the second clause is not very successful. Do you have details on how the funding is split?
Changed.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The change removes predicted from the first clause rather than tackling "is said to". Yomanganitalk 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it characterised? Are there no stats on usage? Is it a busy route? Busy in parts? It is designated as a scenic route for part of the highway. Is this used by tourists? As an alternate route for NY 28 is it used only when NY28 is busy or obstructed? Why do the bridges need replacing and repairing? General wear-and-tear? Or is the road being used by heavier traffic? Basically, where is "Later History"?
No idea on everything but the traffic counts.Mitch32(UP) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again this means the article is not comprehensive. And if you put the traffic data in I can't see it.
Done) and {{Not done-t}} (✗ Not done) templates instead as they emit just plain text. --Xover (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
