Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

April 2008

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

The article was promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

Degrassi: The Next Generation

edit

previous FAC (02:34, 13 December 2007)

Self-nominator. The article has undergone a Good Article Review and and Peer Review since it's first FA nomination. It is currently a Good Article. The PR closed on April 9, since then the article has undergone minor and asethetic edits. It is fairly stable, except on Fridays, when new episodes air in the United States. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it up to the top of the section and to the right side of the page for now. I'll trawl the internet to see if I can add anything else, but I think the paragraph covers all the information there is. How is the image placement now? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its better (heading wise) but now she is looking the opposite way. lol. That poor girl. I attempted a small expansion relying on the information provided in one of your references. How does that look? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I didn't even think about that! And your edit is wonderful, thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Glad to be of help at the Peer Review. PeterSymonds | talk 06:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • current ref 4 Stohn, Stephen "Shooting Season 3" says it's from a message board.
      • That's right. The prose in the article under the Exec producers section gives more information:
"When production of season three began, a user on the official D:TNG website with the alias "ExecProducer" began a thread called "Shooting Season 3", revealing production details, guest actors, scheduling information and DVD release details. He referred to himself as "Stephen Stohn" in one post, although although it was not until the release of the Degrassi: Generations - The Official 411 guidebook in 2005, when Stohn confirmed the rumor." References are given in the article. I would hope that given this, an WP:IAR clause might apply here :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 15, and 16, I believe they are referencing the actually episodes of Degrassi Unscripted (hence the "No. #" at the end). The links are just convenience, although at the moment they are not linking to a subheading but rather the top of Degrassi: The Next Generation, so they don't really provide much use for the reader. BuddingJournalist 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the useless wikilinking! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, the link checker tool didn't translcude onto the page, so didn't check that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been addressed, I think. Thanks so far! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)
  • Comments - Having followed this article for awhile, I can happily say it is looking very good! I did notice that few sentences appear to be unsourced, though I know at least some are sourced they just got "lost" during clean up/rewording. Here are the ones I noticed noticed that can't just be sourced to the series itself (or to the CD, etc mentioned in the previous sentence).
  • Concept: "Moore realized that the character Emma Nelson, born at the end of Degrassi Junior High's second season, would soon be entering junior high school."
  • Fixed with ref 2
  • Executive producers, script-writers and directors: "Produced by Epitome Pictures Inc, in association with CTVglobemedia, D:TNG receives funding from The Canadian Television Fund and BCE-CTV Benefits, the Shaw Rocket Fund, Mountain Cable Program and the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bell Broadcast and New Media Fund, and the Cogeco Program Development Fund." - this one has sources on three specific sponsors, but none on "Mountain Cable Program and the Royal Bank of Canada" and "the Cogeco Program Development Fun" - also, having funding there doesn't seem to match the header?
No need. I found a page deep in the degrassi.tv cite which did the job. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening sequence: "At the start of season six, the theme was remixed and stripped of vocals, with music by Jakalope." - also any link for Jakalope or is it a group without an article?
  • Went with citing the first episode of season 6. Seemed like the best choice as that was the first time the new remixed version was used.
  • Main roles: "Other characters, such as Caitlyn Ryan and Joey Jeremiah simply did not appear in the series at the beginning of a new season, and no explanation was given to their disappearance." - a new season = seventh season?
Good catch -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guest roles: "He also had Shannen Doherty's character Rene wear a Degrassi jacket throughout his Mallrats film and had Jason Lee's character in Chasing Amy specifically mention Degrassi Junior High as a TV show he would want to be watching rather than going out."
  • First run broadcast: "Elsewhere, D:TNG is shown on ZigZap in Poland as Degrassi: Nowe Pokolenie; in Brazil on Multishow; in Flanders on Ketnet; and in Mexico, Peru and Chile on MTV Latin America." - only Poland airing has a source
  • I think that statement was there before I came across the article. I've looked on MTV Latin America's website and can't find anything. I also think the Brazil info might be wrong, looking at this (no Degrassi episode of any of the five Degrassi series so much as touches on Hong Kong), so I'm going to remove the entire sentence. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-broadcast distribution: "In Canada, CTV airs strip repeats of D:TNG on its secondary A-Channel system at 7:30 p.m. every day except Monday."
  • Criticism: "The producers did not make any changes to the ethnicity of the cast as a result of the university's findings."

Also, I may be wrong on this one, but shouldn't the punctuation be inside the quotes rather than outside. Such as in the Executive producers, script-writers and directors section. Shouldn't "Shooting Season 3", be "Shooting Season 3,"

Collectonian (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed some, and have queried others. Now addressed everything. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "130 episodes have aired as of April 28, 2008." - Don't start a sentence with a number
  • Fixed with "As of April 28, 2008, 130 episodes have aired."
  • "The Degrassi universe was created in 1980 by Linda Schuyler, a former school teacher, and her partner Kit Hood under their production company Playing With Time" - passive voice
  • Fixed with "Linda Schuyler, a former school teacher, and her partner Kit Hood, under their production company Playing With Time created the Degrassi universe in 1980"
  • "During the next few months, they slowly start planning what has happened to the characters of Degrassi High in order to develop a reunion themed show." - wrong verb tense
  • Fixed with "Over the following months, they slowly started planning what had happened to the characters of Degrassi High in order to develop a reunion-themed show."
  • "In May, 2000, the project was pitched with the original reunion episode plan serving as the pilot to the new series." - passive voice
  • Fixed with "The project was pitched to CTV with the original reunion episode serving as the pilot to the new series in May 2000."
  • "During the first three seasons the lyrics, which include the line "whatever it takes, I know I can make it through", were performed by a children's choir over an 80s pop tune." - passive voice
  • Fixed by rewriting the first half of the paragraph.
  • "In season four the theme was reworked by Dave Ogilvie and Anthony Valcic of Canadian industrial/pop group Jakalope," - passive voice
  • Fixed with "Dave Ogilvie and Anthony Valcic of Canadian industrial/pop group Jakalope reworked and performed the song with a heavier sound, reflecting the growing maturity of the characters in season four."
  • "Jim McGrath creates a musical score using an instrumental version of the theme music" - this sentence seems odd. I think it should say "creates the"
  • Done
  • Completely pedantic question: In "Filming locations", is there any reason to write about Stages A, C, and B in that particular order?
  • Done Fixed by rearranging alphabetically
  • "In the pilot episode, seven actors from the previous Degrassi actors fourteen actors reprised their roles for a school reunion." - self-explanatory
  • Fixed with "The pilot episode featured the return of seven Degrassi alumni."
  • "An example of this is when he named Caitlin Bree from the movie Clerks after his favorite Degrassi character, Caitlin Ryan." - start with "for example"
  • Done
  • "In 2005, Smith and Mewes guest star as themselves in the final three episodes of the fourth season" - verb tense
  • Done
  • "While the earlier Degrassi series aired in Canada on CBC, Degrassi: The Next Generation airs on CTV, and as Degrassi, nouvelle génération on VRAK.TV, the French language channel.[51]." - stray period after the citation, "and as" doesn't make sense
  • Fixed with "...and the French language channel VRAK.TV as Degrassi, nouvelle génération'"
  • "and it wasn't until the ninth episode that CTV actually aired an episode before The N" - contraction
  • Done
  • "and it wasn't until the thirteenth that CTV were able to premiere new episodes" - contraction
  • Done
  • "Registered users of the Canadian and American iTunes Stores are also able to purchase" - try "can purchase" or "may purchase"
  • Done. Went with "may"
  • "By the end of season two, it had become the most popular Canadian show for the three younger age groups" - maybe "youngest" should be here?
  • Fixed. Also changed "kids" to children", "teens" to teenagers" and "adults" to "young adults"
  • "Criticism" should be renamed "Critical reception"
  • Done
  • "The latter episodes were not shown for three years, causing an uproar amongst fans who organised a petition and caught the attention of the CBC, the National Post and The London Free Press in Canada, and the New York Times in the U.S." - did the fans catch attention, or did the petition?
  • Good catch. Fixed.

This is what I have for now. Give me a shout when this has been taken care of.-Wafulz (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hopefully they've been addressed correctly. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll give the article another read Thursday or Friday.-Wafulz (talk) 18:17, 29 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

Interstate 70 in Utah

edit

Self-Nom: I'm nominating this article for featured article because... Over the course of the past year this article has steadily progressed from stub to a GA (rated A class by WP:USRD.) I have tried to write this page in a style that it would be interesting to both a roadgeek and a general audience. I think this article would make a good FA, and am willing to fix whatever is found that is not FA worthy.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please spell out acronyms in the footnotes? FHWA really should be spelled out.
Yes we can, FWHA replaced with Federal Highway Administration.
This source largely duplicates material available from the (suwa.org) source, whose authority has so far not been challenged. So I switched to suwa.org.
This is the on-line website for a magazine that was formerly available in print form. The specific article I'm using from this website was from when the magazine was published in print form, and this article available in book stores at the time. Per the website, the magazine still hosts a talk radio show. I believe this to be an acceptable source. However, other sources exist if you disagree. Again, SUWA.org could be used to source this. However SUWA's article on the subject has a politically charged tone, and I felt the source currently used was better given the circumstances.
Never mind, I just found a Denver Post article that can be used to source this.Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The National Bridge Inventory is a program of the Federal Highway Administration. This website is a non-government hosted searchable database of the federal government's data. This same data is available directly from the FHWA, but the FWHA's formatting of this data makes it nearly impossible for a non-expert to find the relevant facts. This non-government clone of the FWHA data has been deemed acceptable on other FA articles that mention bridges, including Interstate 355 and the Kansas Turnpike, which was the featured article from last Saturday.
I have switched to the Federal Highway Administration as the primary source with nationalbridges.com as an alternate link. I hope this is sufficient.Davemeistermoab (talk)
All other links checked out Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my responses resolve your concerns, please advise if you still have concerns Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style calls for the route description to come first. It is my understanding that the ordering of those 2 sections has been the subject of a long-standing debate with supporters on either side. I'd prefer to see more comments before re-ordering. On a personal level, I would be happy with either ordering. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the NY 174 FAC, in my mind, it really depends on what sort of history the history section focuses on to determine whether history or RD should be first. Since I-70's history mostly focuses on construction and similar pre-Interstate routes, I think it would be fine to switch them, since you don't have the lack of context issues due to the comparison between the historic present-day routing that you have with NY 174. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with switching, if consensus says that's better. What I don't want to do is spend 3 hours on a major overhaul of the article, to have the next reviewer say. You know, it would be better if you put the Route description first. =-)Dave (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't take three hours to switch it around. Just copy-and-paste it to the desired location. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To do it right would. I'd have to go through and find all acronyms that are explained in in the Route description section but also used in the History section. Then move the text that explains what the San Rafael Swell is to the history section, etc. It would take time.Dave (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. Personally, I think the Route Description should come before History. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a revision with the sections reversed at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox, if anybody else wants to opine on which order is better. However, I'm inclined to believe the article does read better with the history section first.Dave (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Good, but could still do with a spruce up in the prose department. Here are random examples:

  • Case issues: "Unlike most Interstate Highways"—MOS says generic items are in lower case, I think. And pipe the link to "U.S. Highway" for the same reason. Interstate Highway System ... that seems to require lower case too, despite the usage in the title of the eponymous article.
Interstate Highway and U.S. Highway are proper nouns in the United States. Interstate Highway (with caps) refers to a specific network of highways authorized by congress in 1956. Similarly U.S. Highway (in caps) refers to a different network of highways first established in 1926.
  • "also" is rather freely bandied about. The last one in the lead could go.
Removed
  • "trumpet interchange" redirects to a broader article; can you pipe to the section, at least?
Changed redirect
  • Subtitle "Route description"—why not dispense with the second word?
This is the recommended title to be used per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style
  • "an odd looking mountain"—something missing?
Nice Catch, thanks
  • "Big Rock Candy Mountain" links to an article about a song, so pipe-link "song" instead.
Done
  • "Interstate 70 inside Spotted Wolf Canyon"—Inside is a little awkward. "in"? or recast?
Done
  • "2 major geographic obstacles"—MOS breach.
Fixed, Thanks

And more ... Tony (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fixing the above items on my sandbox copy. I'll have the article updated with fixes shortly. Thanks for the review.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, there is a difference between Interstate Highway and interstate highway... for example, Interstate 16 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "Route description" - that is how all of the road articles are supposed to do it across the board per WP:HWY, WP:USRD, WP:CRWP, and WP:UKRD, including the recently passed FACs, New York State Route 174 and Interstate 355. --16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - very good article, would like to see some more in regards to some minor issues...

Agreed, Those were wikilinked per request at ACR, removed.
  • What is a UDOT? This acronym is wikilinked, ...but a FA article should have all acronyms explained at least once in the article.
This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the "Wasatch Plateau" section, however it wasn't wikilinked, so it still needs to be fixed.
Thanks again.
  • Same with a BLM? This acronym is wikilinked, but still should be written out at least once IMHO
Same, This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the Transcontinental Railroads section.
Thanks
  • The intro states that It does not serve or connect any large cities in Utah. and then their is a tabular box listing major cities. Can this be clarified - what is a large city and what is a major city?
Good point, I'll have to work on this a bit. This is explained in the "Sevier Valley" section of the article, but not accurately summarized in the lead. I'll work on it.
I have clarified the lead. Please advise if you still have objections.
Ahh !I understand now :-)
  • Is there any information regarding speed limits along the route?
I'll see what I can find. I know this information, it's more of a question of finding a "reliable source".
Sigh, I have found websites that list speed limit information, but these would surely be challenged as reliable sources. I cannot find any official table on UDOT or FWHA's website. Sorry. I can add the site I found as an external link, if agreed this would be ok.
Thanks - For the search, the citations would be necessary for such a fact so an external link is fine by me. Twas just curious with the description of the terrain and the emergency semi brake run off and such. SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The external link I found is here:[1]. Although, this is not complete, missing the truck speed limits (40MPH) placed on the hilly areas. I'll keep looking, and if I can't find a better one, use this as an external link. The page is actually very good, but with a URL of members.aol.com would certainly be challenged as a self published source. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The convention for the WP:USRD project is Interstate 80 refers to the national article for a multi-state Interstate Highway. Interstate 70 in Utah refers to the single state portion of a multi-state Interstate Highway and Interstate 215 (Utah) refers to when there are two or more single-state Interstate Highways with the same number. This would be better explained in the Interstate Highway System article, and it is to an extent.
  • Can/should the USA route of the full Interstate 70 be shown in the Utah article for those not familiar with how the interstate highway impacts upon this Utah segment of the I-70?
The national route is depicted on the national article, which is the first wikilink in the lead.

Kind Regards and good luck SriMesh | talk 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am making the requested changes on my sandbox copy and will have them fixed shortly.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement above about redlinks was incorrect; notable topics and people should be redlinked, and there is nothing wrong with redlinks, in an FA or in any article. If you removed necessary redlinks, pls reinstate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would have responded 5 minutes quicker. I just removed them. Thanks for the correction. I'll put them back =-)Dave (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned the red wikilinks, as I have had articles at GAC not approved due to red links and the article needed updating, or red link article creation. Thanks for the heads up, that tis not pre-requisite.SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned above.

Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Formatting a bold title is not always appropriate. I chose not to bold the title so that I could wikilink Interstate 70 in the first sentence, which I felt to be more important. This same portion of the MOS advises against having bolded links in the lead. However, if you have a better way to word the lead sentence to allow both bolding and a wikilink, I would be most grateful. I freely admit I'm not the worlds best writer, as evidenced by the number of grammatical errors found by others. I have debated using the {{main}} template to accomplish this. Thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raul uses the lead to write the blurbs for TFA, so when you can comply with WP:LEAD, it's helpful to do so. I made some changes to bold the article title;[2] more tweaking may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit Sandy. To respond to some of the edit summaries: I knew it was questionable if "State Route 4" should be bolded or not. There is a discussion going on about this at WP:USRD right now, with a misconception currently prevailing. I will report your comments to avoid other road related FAC's from having the same issue. I take responsibility for the sloppy template coding. I didn't know which template to use for a newspaper article, and ended up changing like 4 or 5 times. The slop you saw was leftovers from the older templates. Thanks again.Dave (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's less of a misconception than it is interpreting WP:REDIRECT against WP:MOSBOLD. I'd advise SandyGeorgia to see this discussion for what I believe are valid concerns about removing boldface from designations that redirect to that article. – TMF 04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI feel bad for chiming in so late, but I have a big problem with the unshielded main image. See the New York State Route 28 FAC discussion above and the discussion at WT:USRD/MTF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being picky here. Isn't this like rejecting an FA for FDR because the lead photo doesn't show him in a wheelchair? I'll see what I can do with improving the map, but I don't think this is grounds alone for rejecting an FA, nor do I think the Maps task force could re-do it in time for this review, even if consensus says as current is "bad".Dave (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is way too minor to warrant an oppose. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Comments Very good, almost there.[reply]
    • The lead is a little jarring in its series of short sentences. There are some related ideas that could be connected, such as: "It does not serve or connect any urban areas in Utah. Richfield is the largest Utah city served by the freeway." Actually, the second sentence sort of implies the first.
I have played with the lead. Please advise if you still have concerns.
    • "Unlike most Interstate Highways..." I don't think I would capitalize when you are referring to "interstate highways" generally and not by name.
I know you struck the objection per comments of others, but as this has been raised twice now I would like to explain. Interstate 70 is an Interstate Highway (with caps). There is a difference. Interstate 19 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. U.S. Route 50 is an interstate highway but not an Interstate Highway. It's a roadgeek thing =-)
That makes much more sense than previous explanations - thank you. --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because I-70 was built over an entirely new route, I-70 has many notable oddities in the Interstate Highway System." Notable oddities? The next things you mention are more "trivia" or "interesting facts" than oddities. An oddity would be a loop-the-loop or something.
I see your point, but I've tried 3 or 4 ways and I can't come up with a better way to word this. I welcome your suggestions.
What do you think of it the way I reworded it? --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)s[reply]
That's fine, thanks. Dave (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit of overlinking.. you don't need to link general terms like "motorist" and "environmentalist".
Removed 4 linked terms.
    • In the Sevier Valley heading, there are four sentences (including three in a row) that begin with "The highway..."
The word highway only appeared in 3 instances in the entire paragraph, and once as an adjective, so you're exaggerating a little bit. =-) That's ok though, your point was valid, and I removed one instance.
    • "The construction of the freeway through the swell is considered 'one of the most significant highway construction feats of its time' and is an engineering marvel." You really need a source for a statement like this that isn't published by the DOT.
Currently the claim is sourced by the Federal Highway Administration, not the state DOT that built it. If you prefer, The Deseret News article could also be used to source this claim.
I tried your suggestion and I like it. But this is breaking tradition in the WP:USRD articles, so prepare for some backlash =-).
I love a rebel. It looks good, though - maybe it'll catch on! --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and feedback. Please advise if I have not addressed your concerns.Dave (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Interstate vs. interstate highways & maps:

  • This is a part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, also known as the Interstate Highway System. Not all Interstate Highways run across state lines. There are four such highways on the island of Oahu, thousands of miles from the mainland. Interstate 96 only runs in Michigan. Other highways run interstate, i.e. across state lines, such as U.S. Route 41 which runs from Copper Harbor, MI to Miami, FL. I-70 is an Interstate Highway because it is part of the Interstate Highway System, even if this article is only about the section in Utah. As such I will oppose any an all further discussion to suggest using interstate when it is properly an Interstate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second point that has drawn some criticism from me watching this review is over the map. It is all fine and dandy to express a preference over changes to the map. Unfortunately though, maps are not as easily edited as the rest of the content of an article. Unlike the prose content of the article, graphics do require some specialized tools for editing. The editor that created the map is no longer as active on Wikipedia as previously, something I lament for other reasons. The editor that did the majority of the work on this article may or may not have the graphic arts or mapping skills needed to make the changes being requested. If a reviewer cannot find anything more that he feels is unacceptable than how a map is drawn, a map which forms a small part of the total information presented, and uses that map as the sole basis for an opposition to the promotion of an otherwise fine article, then I say it is well within the judgement of the FA directors to disregard that opposition when deciphering consensus.

Having said all of that, I tentatively 'support promotion of this article, reserving the right to offer constructive suggestions for improvement. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I honestly don't see anything wrong with the article. In my eyes, the prose is excellent and engaging, and made me want to read it until the end of the article. Amazing amount of information and references, as well. A very informing and interesting read. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:52, 30 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

Nebular hypothesis

edit

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been significantly expanded and now, in my opinion, is FA ready. This article is about the currently prevailing theory on formation of the planets. Ruslik (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can not find any Citation templates in the article. Only 'Cite ... templates are used. Could you give a specific example ? Ruslik (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the bottom when you edit, it shows the templates being used. One is citation. That's how I check, I just look at the templates in use. My guess is that because of Harvard ref templates in the article for Wurchterl and Papaloizou that's what is showing the citation template in use. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it shows 'Template:Citation/core/testing', but I don't know what it means. WP:CITE#Citation templates says nothing about Harvard reference templates. I actually used Harvard reference templates because there is no Cite equivalent for citing book chapters. I think it does not cause any inconsistency in the format, because all such citations in the article have the same format (Harvard reference). Ruslik (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the inconsistency, it's that some folks have reported glitches when the two templates are mixed, or so I'm told. Sandy just told me that that was one of the things I should look for when I'm checking sources. You do know that the cite encyclopedia template works for citing works like chapters that are written by different folks than the main author of the book, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed Harvard Refs to Cite encyclopedia. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 41 (Canup, Robin M, Ward, William R "formation of the Galilean ...) seems to be missing the journal it was published in.
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other links and sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent explanation of the hypothesis. Despite the necessary astronomical terms, the prose is engaging. I enjoyed reading the article and I will enjoy reading it again. It is a fine example of those few and far between articles that engage the reader enough to make return visits. I usually spot problems with grammar; there are none that I can see. Well done. --GrahamColmTalk 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm sorry, Ruslik, I did not get to this during PR; not editing much. Please can you deal with the excess bluelink problem? The same terms are linked over and over again. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed excessive bluelinks. Now every long subsection has only one wikilink for every term. Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there are some missing hyphens throughout the article, but I'm not a grammarian: perhaps ask Tony1 to check?

producing 1 cm sized particles.[10] ... The accretion process, by which 1 km planetesimals grow into 1,000 km sized bodies, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

edit

This article on an eighteenth-century project that was dedicated to promoting Shakespeare both through art and through a new edition of the Bard's plays has been quite difficult to write. The project covers a gallery of paintings, a folio of prints, and an edition of the plays. The article has been peer reviewed and critiqued on the talk page. Rupert Clayton has provided valuable assistance, particularly with regards to the gallery building itself. One hurdle to be overcome in writing this article is the source limitations: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. I am not sure this issue has arisen at FAC before, but I wanted to make reviewers aware of it. I know this issue has arisen elsewhere on Wikipedia and I wasn't sure what the ultimate consensus was regarding the use of dissertations. I believe that since there is so little scholarship on this topic and since these dissertations are cited by experts in the field, their use is justified. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment - it's excellent work, but it seems a little confused over what the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was. The lead says it was was a collection of pictures...focused around an illustrated edition of William Shakespeare's works and a folio of prints from the London gallery; later on we are told Boydell's Shakespeare project contained three parts: an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's plays, a folio of prints from the gallery... and a public gallery where the original paintings for the prints would hang; and then we get The "magnificent and accurate" Shakespeare edition which Boydell began in 1786 was to be the focus of his enterprise. The second explanation treating it as a "project" would seem better to me (after all, Boydell published other works "From the Shakespeare Gallery" that weren't anything to do with Shakespeare). Yomanganitalk 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boydell started by thinking that the edition and its illustrations would be the focus but then the gallery took over the project. How best to make this clear? The initial statements attempt to describe what the gallery is and later the articles tries to describe the changing focus of the project. Any help on this would be appreciated. (Note: all of the works associated with the Shakespeare Gallery were on Shakespearean subjects, as far as I know.) Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just reword the opening paragraph, as the rest isn't contradictory. I left a suggestion—very much a draft—on the talk page. (With regard to the note: he published Hogarth's Works in 1790 from the Shakespeare Gallery—admittedly there were a few Shakespearean scenes in there, but it wasn't chiefly a Shakespeare set). Yomanganitalk 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher info reads thus:The Original Works of William Hogarth. Sold by John and Josiah Boydell, at the Shakespeare Gallery, Pall-Mall, and No. 90, Cheapside, London, 1790. I suppose you could argue they weren't publishing it as a "Shakespeare Gallery" edition, but it probably rates a mention. It's reproduced in Hogarth's Graphic Works, 3rd edition, p.20. (The plates that Boydell bought from Jane Hogarth were sold off in the auction too). Yomanganitalk 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can use that as evidence since the Boydell publishing firm was located at that building throughout all of the years of the Shakespeare enterprise and published other books under that address (as the article notes). I think that is just advertising for the Shakespeare Gallery embedded in publishing information. Moreover, everything Boydell owned was sold off in the auction. I think we need much more solid evidence than this that Hogarth's Prints was considered part of the Shakespeare enterprise. I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the published works I have read on the Gallery, so I am reticent to include it on such slim evidence. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with not including it; the "at the Shakespeare Gallery" was what I wanted to point out, and the new lead makes it clear it is more than just a collection of paintings (the mention of the plates being sold off was just for colour. I think it is a sad twist that Hogarth got the whole Shakespeare painting thing rolling and Boydell ends up having to flog his plates off to finance the white elephant of the gallery). Anyway, you've addressed my one niggle, so I'm supporting. Have you considered using Hogarth's David Garrick as Richard III in place of the scene from The Tempest? - you could illustrate two sub-topics with a single image (but maybe that's over the top). Yomanganitalk 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 44 "Quoted on Shakespeare Illustrated" is that website in the bibliography? If not, it's lacking publisher information
  • The West "John Boydell" reference, the link requires registration, probably should put that in the reference.
All other links and sources look good. I don't have an issue with using a dissertation, myself. In medieval history, it isn't that unknown to cite dissertations and theses. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no problem with the dissertations, considering they appear to comply with WP:SPS: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. But. My long experience at WP:FAR tells me that we don't want to be chasing this down five years from now if Awadewit is gone from Wiki and someone questions those sources (it is such a shame to have to defeature articles because no one is around who can locate the original info, and it happens frequently). It would be helpful to leave a record of the authors' credentials and publications on the FAC, where they can easily be tracked down five years from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two major dissertations used have both been published by Garland Press and would be available in any major university research library. I'm not sure what credentials and publications you want me to list here - if these authors had gone on to write books and articles on their dissertation topics, I would have used those. They did not. I have already listed the reasons I used the dissertations. Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they would be widely available, then there's no issue (that wasn't clear from your first statement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick comment on this... I'd say a dissertation (even unpublished) is absolutely a reliable source. And North American dissertations, at least, are easy enough to get hold of (increasingly as online download) from UMI (though that link may require a subscription) in Michigan. In fact, here's mine! If you order it from them, I get a (very small) royalty! Go on, you know you want to!  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entire section was struck by Ottava Rima, capped: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Many statements to facts, dates, and the like, are not directly sourced. The article cannot meet the MoS standards stipulated in 1 and 2 until this is remedied. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The illustrations in "Gallery" subheading sandwich the text. — Ottava Rima 21:18, April 23, 2008 — continues after insertion below

I don't know if sandwiching text can ever really be justified, based on formating concerns. Try moving the picture, shrinking size, adding text, etc, so that they aren't across from each other. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nowhere to move the image to and the image sizes are not supposed to be forced per WP:MOS#Images. This is the best possible solution. Sometimes sandwiching can't be avoided and I think that it is worth it to have both of these images. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following lines need citations: — Ottava Rima 21:18, April 23, 2008 — continues after insertion below

:* "His superb acting—acknowledged as such both then and now—unrivalled productions, numerous and important Shakespearean portraits, and his spectacular 1769 Shakespeare Jubilee, helped to promote Shakespeare as the ultimate British product and playwright."

:*"The exhibitions became important public events: thousands of spectators flocked to see them each year and newspapers carried detailed reports and critiques of the works displayed. "

:*"However, the mid-century Shakespearean theatrical revival was probably most responsible for reintroducing the British public to Shakespeare. The theatre itself was in the midst of a resurgence and Shakespeare's plays aided this revitalization."

:*"In order to turn a profit, booksellers chose only well-known authors, such as Alexander Pope and Samuel Johnson, to edit Shakespeare editions"

:*"Apart from these popular editions, scholarly editions also proliferated. In the first half of the 18th century, these were edited by author-scholars such as Pope (1725) and Johnson (1765), but later in the century this changed. Editors such as George Steevens (1773, 1785) and Edmund Malone (1790) used painstaking care in collating their editions and included extensive explanatory footnotes from previous editors as well as themselves. The early editions appealed to both the middle class and those interested in Shakespeare scholarship, but the later editions appealed almost exclusively to those interested in scholarship. "

:*"The print folio, A Collection of Prints, From Pictures Painted for the Purpose of Illustrating the Dramatic Works of Shakspeare, by the Artists of Great-Britain (1805), was originally intended to be a collection of the illustrations from the edition, but a few years into the project, Boydell altered his plan. He guessed that he could sell more folios and editions if the pictures were different. "

  • "Pall Mall at that time had a mix of expensive residences and commercial operations, such as bookshops and gentleman's clubs, popular with fashionable London society. "

:* "Across King's Place, immediately to the east of the Boydells' building, 51 Pall Mall had been purchased on 26 February 1787 by George Nicol, bookseller and future husband of Josiah's elder sister, Mary Boydell. As an indication of the changing character of the area, this property had been the home of Goostree's gentleman's club from 1773 to 1787."

:*"Dance's Shakespeare Gallery building had a monumental, neoclassical stone front, and a full-length exhibition hall on the ground floor. Three interconnecting exhibition rooms occupied the upper floor, with a total of more than 4,000 square feet (370 m²) of wall space for displaying pictures. "

:*"The lower story of the façade was dominated by a large, rounded-arched doorway in the centre. The unmoulded arch rested on wide piers, each of which was broken by a narrow window, above which ran a simple cornice. Dance placed a transom across the doorway at the level of the cornice bearing the inscription "Shakespeare Gallery". Below the transom were the main entry doors, with glazed panels and side lights matching the flanking windows. "

:*"The capitals topping the pilasters sported volutes in the shape of ammonite fossils—a neo-classical architectural feature invented by Dance specifically for the gallery that became known as the Ammonite Order. In a recess between the pilasters, Dance placed Thomas Banks's sculpture Shakespeare attended by Painting and Poetry, for which the artist was paid 500 guineas. The sculpture depicted Shakespeare, reclining against a rock, between the Dramatic Muse and the Genius of Painting"

:*"Boydell decided to appeal to Parliament for a private bill to authorise him to organise a lottery to dispose of everything in his business. Boydell died before the lottery was held, but he was alive to see each of the 22,000 tickets purchased, which cost three guineas a piece. The lottery was drawn on 28 January 1805: there were 64 winning tickets, with the highest prize being the Gallery itself with its collection of paintings. This went to William Tassie, a modeller, of Leicester Fields (now Leicester Square). "

:*"From its beginning, Boydell's project inspired imitators. In April 1788, after the announcement of the Shakespeare Gallery, but a year before its opening, Thomas Macklin opened a Gallery of the Poets in the former Royal Academy building on the south side of Pall Mall, opposite Market Lane, which had been previously leased to the auctioneer James Christie. The first exhibition featured one work from each of 19 artists, including Fuseli, Reynolds, and Thomas Gainsborough. The gallery added new paintings of subjects from poetry each year, and from 1790 supplemented these with scenes from the Bible"

:*"the paintings and engravings that were part of the Boydell Gallery affected the way Shakespeare's plays were staged and acted in the 19th century; they influenced Shakespearean illustration for the rest of the century; and they became the topic of criticism in important works such as Romantic poet and essayist Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Lectures on Shakespeare" and William Hazlitt's dramatic criticism"

The above should be most of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not every sentence is required to have a footnote. I will find a citation for the one problem sentence you have identified when I get home and have access to all of my notes and books. Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a footnote covers multiple lines, then you should use the ref name= template so that you can link them all under the same ref. Otherwise, it is impossible to identify which ref is actually citing which information and which information is not cited at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not impossible to determine what information is being covered. The footnotes cover the same topic. This is a common convention. It is not necessary to pepper the article with footnotes after every sentence. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But unless you are there to tell people, how will someone know this same thing years from now? I think it would be important to "pepper" an 18th century article because most of us didn't grow up in the 18th century, soooo, it would be hard to verify from our actual experience. :) (and no, I'm not accusing you of being really old, I don't need a ANI complaint over that). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every piece of information in this article is cited, above and beyond the demands of WP:V. There is no need to replicate the footnotes. Awadewit (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. Many of the sentences tied to one footnote appear at opposite ends of the paragraph, and without easy access to the reference, there would be no way to establish that. If you are unwilling to correct this by sourcing more of the information, then I will have to oppose this on "2" grounds. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict:)There is no policy that states that every single sentence in the article has to have a footnote after it. The footnotes are placed appropriately. Every topic, whether controversial or not, has a note placed after it. The sourcing in this article meets and exceeds the standards of WP:V. You are, of course, still welcome to oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have challenged sentence after sentence above. That is enough. Its an easy fix. Why so stubborn about it? If the footnotes say what you claim they say, then place them in the sentences that they say. If not, then don't. But right now, it looks like the sentences don't have any critical justification for those claims. According to guideline one: "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations" That doesn't say "claims are supported at the end of a paragraph". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the article is sufficiently referenced. (If anything, more than sufficiently so.) --jbmurray (talk contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Criteria one says references should be "complemented by inline citations where appropriate". That is what I have done. There is no need to distract readers with inline citations after every sentence. That is unnecessary and has no precedent in any policy or guideline. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the definition of appropriate, you would see that appropriate is anything that could be challenged. I am challenging it above. There is no way, from common knowledge, to know that information. Therefore, you will have to provide citations to show it, because it is definitely not obvious that one citation covers multiple lines of information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You challenged almost every sentence in the article that didn't have a footnote. That isn't reasonable. Reasonable readers can put together that footnotes cover more than one sentence - that they cover several sentences about the same topic. This is a common practice across Wikipedia and other publications. I can't see anything further to say on this matter. We are simply repeating ourselves. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I challenged every line that had a claim to a fact without evidence to support that claim. That is standard Wikipedia procedure, and such lines deserve to have "fact" templates put on them. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I explained to you how each of those sentences was already covered by a footnote. The sentences are supported by citations. Awadewit (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I made it clear to you that unless you explain it to everyone after for on and on and on, then they will not stand. You can apply the simple fix, or you can come up with the same problem. The citations need explaining, and are easily done by putting extra footnotes where appropriate. I don't really understand what the problem is here, or why you are refusing to do such a simple thing. But until that happens, you didn't meet FA requirement. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to address those. I added a paragraph or so about the engravings from the catalogue I obtained and more material on the artistic legacy of the Gallery's works. Unfortunately, the articles in the catalogue discuss many of the paintings individually. It is a good resource for the artists' individual articles, I think. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder if you could get Tony1 to give this the once-over. I felt that the prose was awkward at times, and though I tried to do some copy-editing I didn't have time or energy to do more. (Probably the same for Tony1, sadly). A couple of quick examples: — Jbmurray 10:19, April 25, 2008 — continues after insertion below
    "the theatre was rebounding" Strange word, and "rebounding" from what?
Explaining the decline of the theatre after the Restoration would be outside the scope of the article, I think. What do you think? Reworded: According to Shakespeare scholar Gary Taylor, although the theatre was undergoing a revival, it was not profitable for dramatists, and thus very few good tragedies were written during this time. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shakespeare's reputation profited from this dearth, for his were the only decent ones playing." "Dearth" and "decent" both seem odd choices.
Reworded: Shakespeare's reputation profited from this lack: his were the only good dramas playing. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB was Shakespeare really promoted as British rather than (more specifically) English?
  • Absolutely - Shakespeare helped bring the disparate parts of British culture together. Britons united around Shakespeare as a great national writer. Rising "British" nationalism specifically was tied to him. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Shakespeare would have considered himself an Englishman, and "Britain" wasn't yet formed in the sense that people would apply to the time. Furthermore, most English would not consider themselves "British" in the 18th century, nor in the 19th century. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about what Shakespeare considered himself. We are talking about his reputation in the eighteenth century. Those are very different concepts. There are many books about the rise of British nationalism in the eighteenth century. One is Linda Colley's Britons (this is one of the standard narratives of the period). This article is based on well-known Shakespearean scholarship that documents the rise of Shakespeare's reputation as part of British nationalism in the eighteenth century. See Gary Taylor's book (in the bib), for example. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with Awadewit's answer. Mine was a query from a non-expert. (And I don't think anything in the article needs to be changed on this point.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am dissatisfied with her answer. I have never, never, in my experience found anyone who deemed Shakespeare as British in the 18th century. He has always been called an Englishman. Most of those who lived in England called themselves English. British was a colonial term. It was a term despised by most of the people. Most of the 18th century writers, even in the colonies, titled themselves "Englishman". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only book I have that covers this is Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare, which is about the history of Shakespeare's reputation. Bate says: "conceived as the foundation of a British school of 'history painting', the Boydell paintings were intended to offer a more idealized and heroic repertoire of Shakespearean images than were available in the theatre"; Bate also suggests that "Shakespeare rose to pre-eminence in the period 1660–1830 on the back of the British Empire, the strength of the middle class and the reaction against the French Revolution". This is so close to what is in the article that I had to check that Bate wasn't the reference. qp10qp (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qp's quote speaks for itself. Its conclusions match the other scholarship I have read on this issue. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qp's quote only proves that scholars now use the term. Not that the term was used back then. There is a huge difference, and anachronism is another word for wrong. By calling him British, you would be appealing to a Scottish sentiment, which was not what those of the 18th century would have done, unless they were Scottish. That is a fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Qp's source is wrong. "Great Britain" was established by the Act of Union in 1707. That means that the source claims the name 47 years before it actually existed. Ottava Rima (talk)

(Outdent) If you look at the Shakespeare page, you see - "Joseph Addison ("Among the English, Shakespeare has incomparably excelled all others")", which is just one example of him being described in his nature setting. There is a tendency in the modern period to anachronistically deem things "Britain" when they are really English, and those in the 18th and 19th century were very aware, because the English did not want to be Scottish or Irish. They were English. Here is what Samuel Johnson stated in his preface to Shakespeare: "The English nation, int he time of Shakespeare, was yet struggling to emerge from barbarity." Not British. English. He identified him as English. I can go on. There are many other 18th century writers that identified Shakespeare as English. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are irrelevant pieces of evidence. We are not talking about Shakespeare in his natural setting or his own time. We are talking about how British nationalism emerged in the eighteenth century. Shakespeare's reputation, long after he was dead, is a part of that development. I have directed you to a book on British nationalism and Shakespeare's reputation. Qp has offered a quotation supporting this position. Shakespeare, in his own time, was undoubtedly English. That is not the point up for debate. The point is that in the eighteenth century Shakespeare began to represent a British identity. That is the scholarship that we have pointed you to states. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British nationalism? emerging? This article has nothing to do with British nationalism, nor is there anything to suggest that Shakespeare had anything to do with such. He was viewed by those of the 18th century as English, not British. Anachronism is not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's claims are based on the best scholarship. If you want to dispute it, you must also use scholarship to back up your claims. When you have listed the works by eighteenth-century historians and Shakespearean scholars you have consulted that verify your position, I will respond. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but thats not how verifiability works. I have already proven that the sources provided were wrong by a simple comparison of dates that show they are based on false premises. I have even cited contemporaries that used "English". You have provided nothing. Verifiability is against you. Also, when you say "British", you would then have to prove where Scottish people felt represented by Shakespeare, or that Scottish scholars have viewed Shakespeare as part of their country and not as an Englishman. That is, after all, the definition of "British", which requires Scottish and English combined, in the 18th century.Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* For those interested: "Shakespeare in the Periodicals, 1700-1740: A Study of the Growth of a Knowledge of the Dramatist in the Eighteenth Century" by George Winchester Stone, Jr. (Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1951), pp. 220-232) examines Shakespeare as viewed by the English (not British).
  • "Shakespeare and Radicalism: The Uses and Abuses of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century Popular Politics" by Antony Taylor (The Historical Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 357-379) says "Through this agitation a link into the memories of the national past, Shakespeare's England, and the politics and theatricality of the popular platform is identified" and continues to talk about Shakespeare and England, not Britain. For example: "illustrate the tensions between elite and plebian radical readings of the national past, and of the literary landscape of England", not Britain.
  • "The Making of the English Canon" by Jonathan Brody Kramnick ( PMLA, Vol. 112, No. 5 (Oct., 1997), pp. 1087-1101) as you can guess, it goes on to talk about how he was viewed as English. It also goes on to talk about how three people (Shakespeare, Milton, and Spencer) were viewed as the English canon between 1740-1760. This is not British, but English.
  • "The Genesis and Character of English Nationalism" by Hans Kohn (Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 69-94) can you guess what this one argues?
I could go on, I have at least 40 articles saying the same thing over and over.
There is no actual evidence from real, factual, sources that verify the claims by Awadewit. Shakespeare has been viewed as English, not British. He is an English bard, not a British. This was true in the 18th century, especially with its utter prevalent dislike of Englishmen to be termed anything but "English". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, these are articles. I read entire books that cover the seventeenth, eighteenth, and some of the nineteenth centuries when researching this topic. The books are not limited to small portions of time. Shakespeare himself was English: that is not in dispute. The point the article is making is that his reputation, beginning in the eighteenth century, was a British one. He was viewed as a national icon. Considering I have consulted the best works on this topic, not a random collection of articles, my level of certainty regarding this conclusion is still high. Thanks again.
"There is no actual evidence from real, factual, sources that verify the claims by Awadewit." - This is untrue: See the sources cited in the article and the source quoted above by Qp. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



  • "Britain was changing from an oral to a print culture." British culture was changing, rather than Britain itself?
    "Boydell's Shakespeare project contained three parts: an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's plays; a folio of prints from the gallery (originally intended to be a folio of prints from the edition of Shakespeare's plays); and a public gallery where the original paintings for the prints would hang." The second element of the list assumes the gallery, which is only in fact mentioned subsequently, as the third element.
    "Even the paper quality was extraordinarily high: Boydell chose to use Whatman paper." Given that Whatman paper's a redlink, it might be worth explaining what's so special about it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of my sources say. History of paper is not something I'm all that keen to investigate. Anyone up for that? Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. No. But perhaps this could be finessed; at present it looks as though the readers should be aware that "Whatman paper" is something special. In fact, I'd just be tempted to delete the second half of the sentence, in that none of us knows what it means really, and nobody's about to write the "Whatman paper" article. I'm happy enough to know that the paper quality was high. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a bit of a dabbler in inks, I can add that there's no mystery about Whatman paper, which is still available and often used for ink drawing and watercolour. The paper is thick, has a woven surface, and makes you want to stroke it. I daresay it would make a dull subject for a Wikipedia article, but I think the red link is justified. qp10qp (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's between me, Johnbod, and (never underestimate him) that punk Yomangani to get this done first! qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
consider yourself volunteered! Nb High Sheriff of Kent, East Malling Stream,Maidstone and The Weald (UK Parliament constituency) and others from a WP search. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rather jibed at "Britain was changing from an oral to a print culture" too, especially as the same remark was made in the Tale of a Tub, I seem to recall, relating to a century earlier. I'm not sure the Gallery came at an especially rapid phase of this change - before cheap paper, and long after the target market for the various manifestations of the Gallery were well used to print in many forms. Perhaps best cut. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire eighteenth century was part of the transformation from oral to print. That statement is sourced to a very well-respected scholar - do you want more examples of such statements? I can find them. That is an accurate statement. Tony1 doesn't do copy editing at FAC, as far as I know. I will try to find someone else and I will work on the issues you mention. Awadewit (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the 15th, 16th, 17th and 19th too; I can't really see much relevance to this subject. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find more specific descriptions of how the 18th century differed from the others. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to offer some more suggestions a little later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Mike Christie and Qp to help out with the copy editing. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit done. qp10qp (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Ottava Rima. I should say I find your interventions hard to read. I try to assume good faith, but your stubbornness in sticking to your position despite apparent consensus against you is notable. I have half-wondered if you were a sock of Awadewit's, cunningly designed to win her sympathy and to ensure that other editors do not ask pesky questions about, for instance, the difference between England and Britain. No, no, of course I do not seriously think that. But you might consider that your interventions could end up rather counter-productive? Please note that this is a comment and an observation only, and that I don't want to sidetrack the discussion about the article itself by initiating a long conversation. Feel free to agree or to disagree with my observation; I will not be arguing the point. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus against me? What consensus? Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Multiple voices voting on one side does not make a consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well written, nicely illustrated, and, in my opinion, this is both correctly cited and well referenced. I like the illustrations, but a few seemed to me close to sandwiching text (Gallery building section), which the MOS frowns on. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one other option here is to remove one of the images. I thought both were important enough to include - the actual gallery building itself and the sculpture of Shakespeare - that a little sandwiching was acceptable. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me, with maximum default pic size but a reasonable size screen. On a small screen it might not be so great. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I primarily use a laptop which has a relatively small screen, so that may be part of it. If no one else has a problem with, then this is what they make Ignore All Rules for. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well written as always; the one instance of text sandwiched between images is acceptable to me, as stacking would look worse in the section; overall compliant with WP:WIAFA and just lovely. Maralia (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An exceptionally thorough and comprehensive article, which I found fascinating. I'm leaning towards support, but I do have a few queries. — Qp10qp 22:59, April 26, 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • There is perhaps a detail missing in the bit about the theatre being unprofitable, leading to the lack of good tragedies. I changed it to "writing plays was not profitable", but this may not be right. The missing link for me arises somewhere between: a) it was unprofitable b) therefore few good tragedies were written. If theatre was unprofitable, why is tragedy singled out? The general point also seems to glide over the fact that Shakespeare was not just about tragedies. Macklin was famous as Shylock, for example.
That change is an error - I've fixed it. It is only that tragedy was unprofitable and therefore no good tragedies were being written. For some reason, audiences didn't like Shakespeare's comedies at the time. Other comedies were popular, though. Should I add information about the comedies? I wasn't sure how much detail to go into. This section has already been drastically cut down. :( Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just about passes now, if by "dramas" (in the Hollywood sense of a serious narrative) the reader assumes "tragedies". I still think there's a missing logic jump here, but now it's better disguised. qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "dramas" to "tragedies". This theatrical history is all bound up with specific personalities like Colley Cibber and the theater wars of the 1680s and 1690s. *sigh* I really don't know how to summarize it well. I want it make sense. I'm not a fan of illogic. Let's make this work. Can you spell out for me what is missing? I'm seeing the whole picture and it is really hard for me to step back and see only the redaction. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it makes exact sense now.
I think the reason Shakespeare's comedies weren't in vogue was to do with lingering classicism and the sense that his comedies were too earthy, native, and unruly. Certainly Macklin was a huge hit as Shylock, if we class The Merchant of Venice as a comedy (not exactly a barrel of laughs, Lancelot Gobbo being about the unfunniest clown in Shakespeare, though it's a close-run thing between him, Stephano, and Trinculo, IMO). qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 18th century, Shakespeare became associated with rising British nationalism, and Boydell tapped into the same rich market that many other entrepreneurs were exploiting. Again, here I seem to be missing the link between the first part of the sentence and the last. I'm assuming that British nationalism produced a certain type of market, but this is not explained.
What about substituting "mood" for "rich market"? ("Mood" implies commercial possibilites, but it would also bridge back to the first part of the sentence.) qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the long delay in publishing the prints and the illustrated edition prompted criticism. Because they were hurried, and many illustrations had to be done by lesser artists ... For me, "long" delay" and "hurried" are not reconciled here. This is in the lead, but as far as I can see the main article does not talk of either delays or hurrying.
  • Delay: This is mentioned in the second half of the "Reaction" section briefly - Gillray criticized the project for it. It is mentioned again at the beginning of the "Collapse" section with the mention of the drop of subscriptions. There are just very few details on this anywhere.
I didn't connect the drop in subscriptions with delay or hurry. The only hint on delay is Criticism increased as the project dragged on; James Gillray published a cartoon labelled "Boydell sacrificing the Works of Shakespeare to the Devil of Money-Bags", but even there, I didn't read Gillray's comment as about delay, and I assumed that "dragged on" was simply a form of words.
  • Hurry: The hurry happens after the delay. The rush to finish without financial disaster. I found only the vaguest references to this. I think the details would be in dusty records somewhere. I ran into a lot of trouble trying to tell the "story" of this enterprise. Where do you think I should add sentences about these issues? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything were to be added, I'd suggest the best place would be at the beginning of the "Collapse" section, in connection with the variety of engravers and poor quality of many engravings, etc. But if there is no real detail on this, the easiest thing might just be to tweak the wording in the lead so that the reader doesn't expect to hear about delays and hurrying.qp10qp (talk)
See diff. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's ideal. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gallery is called "Boydell gallery", "Boydell's gallery" and "the Boydells' gallery". On the nephew Josiah Boydell, the article says that he was John Boydell's partner, but he is kept in the background. Late in the article it says that Josiah Boydell was saved from bankruptcy by the lottery; but earlier, the article says that The project eventually bankrupted Boydell. Was John bankrupted but not his nephew?
  • It should be called either "the Boydell gallery" or "Boydell's gallery". Anything else is a mistake. Josiah is his nephew and a painter for the edition - also a junior partner. The project bankrupted John Boydell and saved Josiah from bankruptcy (John was dead at that point - he died right in the middle of the lottery). To be clear, "Boydell" is always John Boydell. It is clear from the scholarship that he was the one in charge. Josiah is barely mentioned. Please advise where this needs to be made clearer. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the two instances of "Boydells'" to "Boydell's", and this largely solves it (I had read from the distinction that Josiah had risen to an equal partnership—how much there is in an apostrophe!). I'd suggest that John's bankruptcy needs to be mentioned in the main body of the article, because as things stand, it is mentioned in the lead, but the only mention of bankruptcy in the article concerns Josiah. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried the clarify "John" versus "Josiah" in the "Collapse" section, but this whole story is complicated. Whether John actually went bankrupt is probably a matter to split legal hairs over. John Boydell was trying to save his business by having the lottery. But he died before the lottery was over. Josiah then inherited the business and was saved from bankruptcy because of the lottery. The most important point is that the Shakespeare enterprise helped push John Boydell's firm into financial insolvency. I think this is made clearly in the article. Let me know if you think it is not. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. What, then, about "the project eventually led Boydell to the verge of bankruptcy"? qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to The project caused the Boydell firm to become insolvent, and they were forced to sell the gallery at a lottery. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towards the end of the century, the theatre became associated with the masses and Shakespeare's status as a playwright was no longer enough to hold his former consideration as a "great writer". I couldn't work out the meaning of this sentence.
  • That seems to have been changed. Shakespeare's association with drama during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries assured him respect. However, because the theater became associated with popular culture in the mid- to late eighteenth century, being a playwright began to look slightly sketchy (even though Shakespeare wasn't a playwright during the eighteenth century - it was guilt by association). Thoughts on how to phrase this? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scratching my head here. As far as I know, there was no decline in Shakespeare's prestige at the end of the century, popular theatre or no. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is prestige rested on changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it to you, but it remains a poor sentence, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now: He had originally been respected as a playwright, but once the theatre became association with the masses, Shakespeare's status as a "great writer" shifted. - Then goes on to talk about Shakespeare in print. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the quote about the dinner, an Alderman is mentioned. I know that this is Boydell, but some readers may be confused here unless they are informed elsewhere in the article that Boydell was an Alderman. Was he also Lord Mayor?
I'm not a fan of links in quotes, but this does solve it. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edition was to be financed through a subscription campaign, during which the buyers would pay part of the price up front and the remainder on delivery. This unusual practice was necessitated by the fact that over £350,000—an enormous sum at the time—was eventually spent. What was unusual about this (what was different from other subscription schemes?).
I only asked because when I read Uglow's William Hogarth, I remember that subscription rackets of every sort were all the rage. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get the sense anywhere that this was a racket. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that. If your source says it was unusual, that's good enough for me. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the Boydells ended with 1,384 subscriptions, the rate of subscriptions dropped and remaining subscriptions were also increasingly in doubt. How did this work? Does "remaining" mean "existing" here? Were people paying a certain sum every so often? And what did they get in return? Were they resubscribing for subsequent material?
  • I have a feeling it was all very ad hoc. "Remaining" means "already subscribed". It is not at all clear to me what they got and when or whether everyone got the same thing. These details are not explained in the few sources that exist. Art historians don't deem them important, I guess. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a shame. My plodding mind just can't picture the relationship between the subscription and the product. One would assume that subscribers paid so much in advance and the rest on delivery, or perhaps that they paid so much a month. However, it is not clear to me why they would still be subscribing once they had the goods, unless, as in modern hire purchase, they went on paying until they were paid up. The latter strikes me as the likeliest explanation for Josiah's continued search for the subscription money: that people had taken delivery of the folios, editions, or whatever, and had then defaulted on their remaining payments. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't say. I can speculate, but we know what that leads to. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a matter of speculation as of trying make the language more exact. But there is a limit, I admit, if the sources aren't clear. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June 1788, Boydell and his nephew secured the lease on a site at 52 Pall Mall to rebuild the gallery. The article does not say that it was built before or had to be rebuilt.
OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shakespeare Gallery, when it opened on 4 May 1789, contained 34 paintings, and by the end of its run it had between 167 and 170. By "end of its run", does this mean by the time it closed?
An exhibition can have a run, perhaps, but not a gallery. This sounds more like a theatrical term to me. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of exhibitions having runs, but perhaps this is a modern art gallery term? (I worked at an art gallery in New York for a while.) Perhaps this is anachronistic? Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exhibitions have runs, but not galleries. (Is the Tate gallery having a run?) No big deal. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Shakespeare Gallery was considered both an exhibition and a gallery. The whole thing is so odd and complicated. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In mentioning Rowe's edition, is it worth saying that it was the first illustrated Shakespeare?
I have a ref and can add it; but please make it clear if you do not want this. It's very much on-topic, I think. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added to sourced to Taylor. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neat. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "modeller"?
Life's too short to investigate, so no matter. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite surprised to find that the lucky William Tassie, "modeller, of Leicester Fields" is also lucky enough to have his own wikipedia page. Turns out he and his uncle did minute things with gems and cameos. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the meticulous care with which this article was built. One can tell. qp10qp (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All queries answered to my satisfaction. qp10qp (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The lead states that the illustrated edition "was released between 1791 and 1803", but later, it's stated that the "first volumes of the Dramatic Works were published in 1791 and the last in 1805."
Fixed - should be 1803. Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BuddingJournalist 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Beautiful work and a pleasure to read! Some small things:
  • "However, according to Friedman" Might be good to introduce Friedman with the full name here and a short adjective (Shakespeare scholar?) for readers.
  • "This unusual practice..." It was unclear to me as a lay reader whether this referred to the unusualness of holding a subscription campaign or the buyers paying "part of the price up front and the remainder on delivery".
  • "When a subscription was circulated for a medal to be struck" I was confused as to what this meant.
  • "to develop and cut a new typeface" Would a description of the typeface be warranted here? Or would it be too much unnecessary detail?
  • "printed from the texts of Reed and Malone" Perhaps a bracketed editorial insert on who Reed was? Or maybe a link?

BuddingJournalist 23:56, 28 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

Age of Empires

edit

Article has gone through 2 GA reviews (first failed, second passed) and an extensive peer review. Lots of copyediting too. Seems ready to me, look forward to comments from others. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment don't have time for a good review, but this is so I watchlist the page and don't forget about you...
    • "The series commenced with the first game, Age of Empires, in 1997. Seven games have been released from the series, as well as three spin-offs." Commenced? Just seems to stick out from the text. Perhaps reword to be more straightfoward "The series began with 1997's AoE..." Secondly "seven games..." reword to "Ensemble has released seven titles in the series, as well as three spin-offs (could list what they are)
    • "The games in the series " remove "in the series, I think it's been established
    • "The popularity and quality of the games has earned Ensemble Studios a reputation which has lead to them working with developer Bungie Studios on Halo Wars." this doesn't exactly make sense to a reader: how does a reputation correlate to Halo Wars? Perhaps it should be "a reputation for real time strategy games; when Bungie Studios wanted to create a RTS based in the Halo universe, they chose Ensemble" or something like that.
    • "as well as its uncommon use of a game system which treats both player and non-players fairly" maybe you should elaborate more on that?
    • Image:AoE Helmets.jpg is in my opinion rather ugly with the borders. Could another image serve it better? (Or I might make some myself)...

More to come, but a good job so far, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHMO will have to speak for the others, but Music4Games is not a self-published source, has a staff, et al, and is a major partner for game music events. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bless your lucky stars I'm a gamer, so I've heard of a lot of the sites ya'll use. At least you're spared the questions on IGN/Gamespot/etc. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very grateful for that! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
struck the replaced ones, left the others up for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on additional changes that cited information and removal of excessive non-free content. The rest are stylistic issues and not important enough to warrant an oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some sections lack references. Non-free image used without corresponding section explaining absolute important to the article. I don't understand from the article why there is a "series" article that mostly rehashes the individual game articles, is this a a glorified list? References seem to be about individual games, not about the series as a series. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sections lack references? I'm not seeing them, sorry. Which non-free image is used without a decent explanation? Again, I'm sorry, but it's very difficult for me to fix the issues if I don't know what they are. If you're unsure as to the article's layout, you may wish to look at Mana (series), Kingdom Hearts (series), Halo (series), etc.—to describe the games is an essential element of the article. I've added as many references discussing the series as a whole as I could find, there weren't that many, surprisingly. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles lacking references 1,2,3,6, and yes, these paragraphs introduce some information that should be cited. I don't see why the icons are necessary to the article, nor do I see how icons could be absolutely important to it, so the fairuse rationale for FA (which is higher than standard article) doesn't match up in my eyes. I just looked at the Mana series, and the way series are discussed is far different than the way you put forward. Note, they have history and design, whereas, you have summaries of the plot. Maybe you should follow the chart format put forth by the Mana series and move the development section up in order to show that this is a page on the series instead of just a rehash of every other page. Now, there is a problem with the other "series" games, which can be seen on their FAs - they were passed with very few commentators. Two supports and twp possible oppose for Mana, for instance. The same goes for Kingdom Hearts. Hmm. I don't really know what to tell you to use as a guide here. It seems that our major problems is that there aren't enough people to really come up with a unified consensus on "series" formats. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm very confused...the FAC is for this article, yet you say other articles lack references? Or, if sections, then the external links section (among others) lacks references? Icons/images dealt with below (removing). Please see Halo_(series)#Games - the best example of what I was talking about in terms of game info. I'm not sure about that last point...there seems to be a consistent and well structured format that's appeared on numerous FAs. If you disagree with it, the best place to go is WT:VG. I think I've done everything actionable in your oppose. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs for this article. Sorry, that was left out, but in context, that should have been understood. Especially when I mentioned in the preceding statement. Its not hard to look at your own article and determine which paragraphs lack citations. And the Halo series doesn't offer anything to justify many of the problems with your article, especially with the constant duplication of other information. You haven't provided why the series is notable. You have only provided why parts of the series are notable. This, if anything, is easily accomplished by a category. Furthermore, the Halo series is not an FA, so you can't use it to even form a basis for what an FA should look like. You lack effective notability, there are paragraphs missing citations, and there are images that are inappropriate for FAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misreading you. I wasn't taking this as well as I could have (I suppose I blame school and stuff here, right?...), and I really should have read your comments again. Sorry for the confusion, especially on my part. To address, briefly, the other points - yes, the Halo one isn't an FA, but it's close, and the other ones pointed to are FAs...I suppose some series get different coverage to others, and in the case of this one, most mention of the series is generally in the context of talking about an individual game (in a review of it, etc.), so that's all I have to work with, I guess. Also, the images have been changed around a bit...how are they now? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following are lines that need citations:
  • How "Age of Mythology" can be considered as part of the "Age of Empires" "series", because it is not a sequel.
  • "The Age of Empires series has been highly successful commercially, with sales in excess of 15 million copies."
  • "The popularity and quality of the games has earned Ensemble Studios a reputation in real-time strategy gaming"
  • "leading to fellow developer Bungie choosing Ensemble to create Halo Wars"
  • "as well as its uncommon use of a game system which treats both player and non-players fairly, as opposed to the use of "cheating" artificial intelligence (AI)."
  • "However, Age of Mythology had only one campaign; it was also longer and had a more distinct story than the other games in the series.[2] Age of Empires III split its campaign into three "Act"s; each “Act” covers the story of a generation of the fictional "Black" family.[3]" How do either of these sentences fit in with "common gameplay elements"?
  • "The missions in a campaign mostly follow a historical setting and focus;" Apparently not if you include "Age of Mythology" as you have.
  • "For example, while Germany at the time of Age of Empires III was largely Protestant, the design of the German church building is Catholic rather than Protestant."
  • "The series' sporadic faithfulness to history has earned them criticism for the games. "
  • "The series’ spinoff, Age of Mythology, and its expansion pack, The Titans, are set during the Classical period, but focus on mythology rather than history as their themes." The page of Age of Mythology doesn't call it a spin-off, so you need evidence to justify the inclusion.
  • "was the first game in the series as well as the first major release from Ensemble Studios." -major- is a term that needs a citation.
  • "Due to the games taking place around historical events, the team often had to do large amounts of research to depict the events."
  • "The artificial intelligence (AI) used in the Age of Empires series has received praises many times." Also, the use of "praises many times" is awkward.
  • "He created the original music in Age of Empires with sounds of instruments from the periods in the games."
  • "Age of Empires has often been credited for influencing numerous real-time strategy games and series, including Empire Earth, Cossacks (and its sequel), and Rome: Total War."

Finally, you have sections without "main article" links to their appropriate articles, which isn't following standard format. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I Hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most issues have been resolved now; nice work on making the amendments. I'm afraid that I'm unwilling to support though. I'm just not confident that the prose is "engaging, even brilliant"; I just think it needs that extra bit of polish, sorry. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the stuff below will sort that out. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since it has improved a lot since it passed the GA (where there wasn't even a "Gameplay" section, this part was covered only in each game). And let's hope the rest of the games reach GA/FA class (only AOE III, one of its expansion packs, and AOM have it so far).igordebraga ≠ 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues Revolved Karanacs (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "has earned Ensemble Studios a reputation in real-time strategy gaming" - this could be interpreted as a good reputation or a bad reputation
    • What does "DS version" mean?
    • I think the concept of a campaign should be explained a bit more here for those who are unfamiliar
    • "The Germans also noticed that the German church design in Age of Empires III was Catholic rather than Protestant" - maybe reword to "Among the historical innacuracies was the Catholic, rather than Protestant, design of the German church"
      • Currently reads "For example, while Germany at the time of Age of Empires III was largely Protestant, the design of the German church building is Catholic rather than Protestant." (someone else's copyediting...not sure who! :)...is that OK? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure what this sentence is trying to say "The missions in a campaign mostly follow a historical setting and focus; faithfulness to history was an afterthought to the team"
    • In the historical elements section there are several sentences with quotations which are not followed by a citation. Even if the next citation listed covers this quotation, the citation should be duplicated in the sentence with the quote in case someone else comes in and rearranges the order or inserts other text.
    • "Age of Empires had sold over three million copies in 2000," - should this be "As of 2000" instad of "Age of Empires had sold over three million copies in 2000"? I assume not all 3 mil copies were sold in 2000.
    • "although it was often argued none could equal it in the "historically based war games" genre" - can we get some examples of who argued this?
    • I think the article ought to touch briefly on what a home city is.

    Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments Article still needs a bit of a copyedit. I copyedited most of the games and development sections but the rest of the article needs to be finessed. There is a lot of clunky text. Here are other suggestions: Karanacs (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. My concerns have been addressed. The article is comprehensive, well-organized and reasonably well-wrriten. Karanacs (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
      • These were followed by a trio of games centering around Europe in the Middle Ages, as well as the Spanish colonization of Mexico.

    Change around to on.

    Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Age of Empires III split its campaign into three "Act"s; each “Act” covers the story of a generation of the fictional "Black" family

    Change "Act"s to "Acts"

    Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The missions in a campaign mostly follow a historical setting and focus; faithfulness to history was an less important to the team

    Change an less to a less.

    Reworded. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A spin off game have been loosely set in the historical time period of the original Age of Empires, but have focused on fictional elements of Greek, Egyptian, and Norse mythology.

    Change A spin off game have been...but have focused.... to A spin off game has been...but has focused on...

    Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Death match" starts players off with large amounts of resources and have them fight until only one side remains.

    Has is singular and have is plural. So here change have to has at it refers to Death Match..

    Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The review scores from Metacritic as well as Game Rankings show that they were retrieved in January, 2008 according to the URL access date. These review scores will undoubtedly change with upgrades or new game releases over the next few years. For this article to be timeless, it would be good to place the date of the rankings, if not in the prose, then as an extension of the reference citation... such as The following games have the highest average score of main sites as of April 15, 2008:
    Hmm...I doubt any new reviews will come out, since none of the games are very recent. I'll add that note in anyway, in case new games come out... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kind Regards and good luck SriMesh | talk 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks heaps for taking a look. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SupportThank you for replying above, I have changed my comments to support. I feel the latter half of the article has a smoother flow than the top of the article, but overall presented well. Good Luck!! Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, I appreciate it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BuddingJournalist 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All these are done, I'll try and get a full copyedit done, and also ask someone external. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking out for now, but I have yet to revisit the article in-depth. BuddingJournalist 20:27, 29 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

    Yao Ming

    edit

    (here goes) I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's recently passed GA (actually, very recently, hehe), and I think it is good enough in terms of comprehensiveness, verability, etc. to fulfill the criteria. Noble Story (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (copied at article talk page) this is the diff for my copyediting on your FAC (and there are a few other edits mixed in there). I could be wrong about anything. Feel free to revert. Feel free to ask. I am happy to look things up and provide support for my edits, or try to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Initial comments
    • The lead doesn't really emphasize Yao's status as a major cultural figure in China. His importance goes beyond basketball, with all of his sponsorships and the like.
    • Some of the language is repetitive. For example, the phrase "at the same age" appears twice in the first paragraph of "Early life and CBA career".
    • The description of the Charles Barkley-Kenny Smith bet is misleading. Barkley actually kissed a donkey ("Kenny's ass", in a different sense) [3].
    • Would it be possible to say something about Yao's transition to American culture? I remember it being a big deal when he received his driver's license.
    • I'll try to pitch in with some general copyediting over the weekend.

    Zagalejo^^^ 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've reworded the "at the same age" part, and I've expanded the lead. I've also clarified the part about Barkley's bet (hopefully without going to off-topic). However, as for talking about his transition...I would think that it would obvious that he had to make adjustments. And I don't really know if all of the details would be notable ("Yao missed Chinese food", "Yao looked happier getting his driver's license than he did beating the Lakers", etc.). Noble Story (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead looks better. I still think the Smith/Barkley bet could be clarified further; I'll try fiddling around with that part later. Regarding the transition to American culture, I think we should at least say a little more about Colin Pine, since he played a pretty significant role during Yao's rookie year. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article would be clearer (and more fun to read) if we just quote Barkley's initial promise. Everything hinges on the fact that Barkley explicitly said "ass", and not "behind", "butt", etc. I'll try to dig up a good source for that quote. Zagalejo^^^ 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Chensiyuan

    1. "Yao finished with 10 points and 10 rebounds; O'Neal scored 31 points and 13 rebounds." - won't hurt with a boxscore ref; since we're dealing with statistics, we should ensure verifiability.
      Added ref.
    2. "In the summer of 2004, the Rockets acquired Tracy McGrady from the Orlando Magic in a seven-player trade that also sent Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley to Orlando." - perhaps (and strictly perhaps) Yao's reception to the trade is worth mentioning. Did he for example think that the Rockets would become serious contenders? I'm not referring of course to the general sentiments of feeling excited whenever there's a trade lol.
      Added trade response.
    • The full paragraph containing the two quotes (from Yao: A Life in Two Worlds) is as follows: "I will miss them," Yao said later. "All three helped me in every way my first two seasons. Stevie, as team leader, looked out for me like a brother and I will always think of them all as friends. But I also know now this is a business and anyone can be traded. Maybe I will be traded one day, too. For now, all I can say is I'm excited about playing with Tracy McGrady. He can do some amazing things and I'm looking forward to seeing him do them every day with me, instead of a couple of times a year against me."
    1. I'm all for using images, but since this article doesn't suffer from a lack of quality (and legal) images, I think the image with the caption "Yao answers questions from reporters" doesn't really add anything to the article. It's just a closeup of his face, but his face is already quite clearly seen in some of the other pics. Just a view. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I wanted to capture the sense of his being surrounded by reporters (note the mics arounds him). But if you feel it is extraneous, please remove it. Noble Story (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Nice article. Here are a few suggestions:

    • Would like to see a section on how he plays basketball, with some views on his strengths (size, shooting touch, rebounding) and weaknesses (slow, some call him "soft"). See Tim Duncan for an example. If you decide to make this section, make sure it's sourced well, like the rest of the article.
    • I've thought long and hard about it, but I think in the end it is too hard to keep it NOPV. Even if you link to different articles, 99% of the time it will only be someone's so-called "expert" opinion.
    • Why is there a fan club in External links? This should be removed.
    • In this case, the fan club is not an independent operation, it is actually connected to Yao, asin he posts messages there (occasionally), and so on.
    • Sentence suggestion: "The Rockets made the playoffs for the first time in Yao's career, as they claimed the seventh seed in the Western Conference. Although, eventually, the NBA finalist Los Angeles Lakers eliminated Houston in the first round, with the Rockets winning only one game." Try "The Rockets made the playoffs for the first time in Yao's career, claiming the seventh seed in the Western Conference. In the first round, however, the Los Angeles Lakers eliminated Houston in five games".
    • I've reworded it accordingly.
    • If the Rockets' winning streak before Yao's injury this year is mentioned, it should also be stated that they won the next 10 games without him. It comes off like he was the primary reason for the streak, when in reality the whole team was playing well. Something about the statement just rubs me the wrong way. Giants2008 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - a very good and well-sourced article, I think that an improvement could be to cite the statements in the lead paragraph as well as within all the rest of the article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any specific statements. Most of the statements in the lead are pretty general, and are already referenced in the main body. Noble Story (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In a lot of the FA's I've seen there are footnotes everywhere in the article - including the lead. I think I'll try adding refs to the lead myself - it's good for more casual readers who don't have much time to dig into the main sections. Plus, verification is easier. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't think there are problems with verifiability -- all statements are referenced in the main body, as I said, except for the one about his height, which I referenced. And again, the statements are mostly general, and don't make any specific, could-be-controversial claims. Noble Story (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - as good as Tim Duncan, even with less background info. igordebraga ≠ 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Overall a fine article. Just do me a quick favor. In the lead: "However, the Rockets have not advanced past the first round of the playoffs since he has joined the team,". Remove "has". Other than that, very good work. Giants2008 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • object - why is there no section on his playing style, attributes and technique. #2, IIRC, his parents were advised by the communist govt to get together to increase the % of giving birth to child that was inclined towards basketball. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stats also need consistency. All the averages should be given to the same decimal place. If it is 22.0 then put 22.0 not 22. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed the parts about his profile above. The allegations about "his parents were advised by the communist govt to get together to increase the % of giving birth to child that was inclined towards basketball" was speculation, nothing more. And exactly where are you referring to when you talk about stat consistency? Noble Story (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In his 2008 season, where points and blocks are not given as averages. There is another occurance in his first playoff series versus the Lakers. In 2006 World Championships, nine is spelled out, unlike the rest of the article. Giants2008 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. The article seems to be pretty comprehensive. I think the prose is okay but could be improved. Here are some suggestions of what to look for in the prose:

    • Watch for repetitive word choice "Yao was initially pressured...Li also pressured Yao...."; "contract entitled Evergreen to 33% of Yao's earnings,[4] but the contract", etc
      • Done.
    • There aren't good transitions between thoughts in some paragraphs. For example the 2005-2008 section spends several sentences discussing an injury that led to him missing 21 games and then, without saying anything about his performance or when he came back, it starts talking about him making the All-Star game again.
      • Done.
    • Check to make sure that all of your clauses make sense together. This sentence, for example, implies that the Rockets didn't win many games because Yao and McGrady did not play together "Yao and McGrady played only 31 games together,[55] and the Rockets did not make the playoffs, winning only 34 games" (if that is someone's speculation it should be reworded better)
      • Is it speculation? If a team loses its two best players for an extended period of time (two thirds of the season), then it pretty obvious they will do worse.
    • Watch for wordiness. Cleaner, tighter prose generally sounds better)
      • Done (I think).
    • Shouldn't refer to him as "Yao Ming" in the body of the article after the first reference (unless its in a quote). Some places in the article are mixed between "Yao" and "Yao Ming"

    Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 25 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

    Oil shale

    edit

    Self-nominator. Beagel (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    These are materials of the international oil shale conference held on 7—9 November 2006 in Amman. Only top-level oil shale experts were invited to the conference as speakers. So, the fact of delivering speech in this conference makes it reliable. Also, this is probably among the best information, which is possible to get about Chinese oil shale industry as there really lack of other reliable sources (except articles of some Chinese oil shale researchers published in the Oil Shale journal).Beagel (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although website itself probably can't to be considered as reliable source, the author of this article, Jean Laherrere, is a reputable oil shale specialist and his works are cited in other reliable sources, e.g. report by the European Academies Science Advisory Council.Beagel (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that these results from Google Scholar will prove Jean Laherrere's as reliable source.Beagel (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Scholar search This one helps buttress that. Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    link fixed.Beagel (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    link fixed.Beagel (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed. Hope it is ok now.Beagel (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • same for the next ref (52) also by Tikma... Fixation of chlorine...
    It seems to be an temporary error with the EASAC server and probably it will come online again. Alternatively, the link to this report may be replaced with the link to the previous draft of this report, which is available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/ip_a_itre_st_2006_/ip_a_itre_st_2006_10.pdf Any advice what to do? Beagel (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Up to you. Is it a journal article? If it doesn't come up in a few days, I'd replace it, especially if it's an only online source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a study ordered by the European Commission and presented to the European Parliament. I agree with replacing it with the above-mentioned link after few days if EASAC's server remains dead.Beagel (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is back online.Beagel (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck the resolved issues, and left the others for others to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Three links are dead per link checker. --Efe (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dead links are fixed.Beagel (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, Renata (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some nitpicks:
      • General comment: the article is on the short side (under 15KB of readable text) and sometimes it feels that the text is too short & general. But otherwise it's good.
        • At the one stage of developing this article, it grew too long. It was decided to split article into sub-articles and re-write using summary style. More detailed info is provided by specific articles, marked as main articles under each section. However, try to expand per your comments.Beagel (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I figured that something like that happened, but my point is don't be afraid to elaborate a bit on certain points - you have space. Renata (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Speaking for myself, I feel conflicted about moving stuff - the subarticles often use the same refs, and then Beagel cleans up afterwards. About readable text count - the readability link crashed my PC earlier today, but it looked as tho the Flescher index had reached 40, "better" than the Gettysburg Address. Are there general guidelines for K of prose, or for the other items in the readability link? Novickas (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2.8–3.3 trillion (2.8–3.3 x 1012) U.S. barrels of recoverable oil. - please give some sort of comparison to oil usage today or estimated remaining oil.
      • Geology section just talks about classification - but does not really say how oil shale is different from oil, coal, how it forms, or its composition. It just says "it's all different and all depends" - which is not exactly helpful.
      • In Reserves section I would like to see a few words about smaller deposits. For example, I see two photos from Estonia and a graph that shows large production there, but no word about it in reserve section.
      • I believe that there should be no gap between number and % sign (i.e. 70% and not 70 %)
      • The industry was abandoned in most countries after World War II due to high processing costs and the availability of cheaper petroleum. - the graph that you have shows steady climbing production up to 1976
      • As of 2008, only five technologies were in commercial use: Kiviter, Galoter, Fushun, Petrosix, and Alberta Taciuk. please provide a citation.
      • Image:Stuart oil shale processing plant.jpg - it is not licensed under GFDL as it does not allow commercial use. It can only be used as fair use image.
      • You should provide short explanations why links are included (why someone should bother looking at those articles) in the ==See also==.
      • Don't quite understand why you have ==References== section.
        • Resolved myself. Renata (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I followed this example. Although these books (partly) available online, they are at the same time printed books with ISBN code etc. Also, if you have book with several hundreds of pages, you need to cite also page numbers for every citation. However, if the merge of footnote and reference sections is generally accepted, I don't mind. Probably Sandy would like to comment.Beagel (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renata (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, issues resolved. The only small optional request remains: 2.8–3.3 trillion (2.8–3.3 x 1012) U.S. barrels of recoverable oil. - please give some sort of comparison to oil usage today or estimated remaining oil. Renata (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Renata, this comparison is made in the Reserves section of the article where it says there is 1.317 trillion barrels of convention oil reserves as of 01-01-2007. Hope that helps. Cheers Dexcel (talk) 10:01, 23 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

    Easy Jet

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because after extensive copyediting I feel it meets the FAC criteria. It's about one of the most influential Quarter Horse racehorses and stallions of the last half of the 20th century, not about the airline. And it's short too! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. Obviously I should write more horse articles, rather than bishops. Horses get folks to review quicker... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions answered - thanks GrahamColmTalk 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What does this mean? and was struggling to oriented himself when the gates opened

    --GrahamColmTalk 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed to "struggling to stand up again" . It should have read "struggling to orient himself", but I figured that what I changed it to made more sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a few more comments
    • I had to stop and think about the meaning of oil bust.
    • Does dead last mean last?
    • After retiring to stud full time, - is the full time needed? It sounds like too much fun.
    • What does a full book of mares mean?
    Sorry about all this; I only ride motorbikes ;-) --GrahamColmTalk 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem at all, Im so deep into horse culture that it's hard to see the jargon. Do you think I need to clarify oil bust? Is there an article on it? Karanacs, you're the Texas history person here. Any idea? Dead last means "so far behind that they might as well have not started" basically. The only way it'd be worse is if they died on the track. Full time is needed because some horses race and stand at stud, so when they retire completely it's full time. I'll clarify full book of mares (It basically means he bred until he was exhausted. And his owners made money hand over fist). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if you want me to explain anything else in the article besides the book of mares stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an article for 1980s oil glut but it doesn't really talk about the impact this had on Oklahoma and Texas (states very heavily dependent on the petroleum industry at that time). That may be enough, though, to help people understand what is meant. Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to that. I really have no motivation to write an article on how the oil bust and the tax laws killed not just QH breeding but Arabian breeding also. I should, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for a lucid, informative and engaging insight into a culture alien to me. One can tell engaging prose when all the "illustrations" appear in the mind of the reader. (A good lesson for all FAC nominators). My heart was warmed by the good-natured and patient replies to my questions. (Another good lesson for FAC nominators). Easy Jet will shine out of the Main Page. --GrahamColmTalk 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well written and comprehensive. I also examined the sources (since that is usually Ealdgyth's job) and they all appear to be reliable. Full disclosure: Prior to the FAC nom I copyedited and reviewed this article at Ealdgyth's request. She already addressed all of the issues I had found in that review.[4] Karanacs (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - A well-written article overall. Here are several things to look at improving.
    • First sentence of Racing career: "and was placed below third only twice" remove was. It sounds like the horse was placed by someone else instead of him finishing the races there.
    • Same in last sentence of paragraph.
    • Third paragraph of section: "and only the fourth two year old to be named World Champion." At least one dash needed.
    • Third paragraph of Retirement and career at stud: "In March 2008 he still led the list of All-time leading sires of Quarter Horse racehorses by winners," Capitalization issue? Giants2008 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a problem. The AQHA puts out the lists every year, and they are titled lists, so I think they need a capital on the front. Quarter Horse is the breed name, and thus a proper noun and should be captialized also, I think. Grammar isn't my strong suit, so if I'm off on my theory, please let me know. Fixed the other issues, also. Thanks for finding them! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just confused by the setup. In the paragraph in question, the lists start with All Time, then they switch to All-time. Is this how they are supposed to be? If so, disregard my comment. Giants2008 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Okay, now I see the problem. I'll pick one and stick with it. Be a second (gotta fix dinner) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, see anything else wrong? Thanks for catching that one. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Thumbs up from my point of view. Giants2008 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • Very minor, but I would like to see the image in the infobox slightly larger.
    I'm not sure how big I can make a fair use image without running into too big. Elcobbola? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it's very minor and probably unnecessary, so it should be fine. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hit everything I could think of that might possibly need one. If there are others, I have no idea they need them. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like you got them all. As long as you put them between numbers and the text after them, you should be good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a sire, he was the first All American Futurity winner to sire a Futurity winner, and went on to sire no fewer than three winners of that race, and nine Champion Quarter Running Horses. "No fewer than" seems very unneeded and superfluous to me.
    Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot call myself an expert (or even a beginner for that matter) of horses, so I would like to see some explaination of the terms used.Waned, foaled, dam, damsire, sire, etc.
    Sire is just father. Should be reasonably self-explanatory. Weaned is the same as a baby being weaned from breast milk. I honestly didn't think I needed to explain that.Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard of most if not all of those terms. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the infobox to maternal grandsire. I explained sire, dam, foaled in the article. If I change the infobox from sire to father, that would create issues with other horse articles. I'll explain weaning also. I am afraid that I'm going to have to leave the terms in the infobox, they really aren't that out there, they are also used for humans. See Sire at Wiktionary Dam at Wiktionary Wean at Wiktionary. I'll explain them in the article, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy Jet raced for two years, starting 38 races; of these, he won 27, came in second seven times and third twice, and placed below third only twice, with race earnings totaling $445,721. Too long of a sentence, IMO.
    Broken into two sentences. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, looks good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In winning the All American, he led from the wire on a sloppy, muddy track. "Sloppy, muddy" doesn't sound very encyclopediac.
    That's what the description of the racing surface was though. If you go to the racetrack, they will announce the condition of the track, and sloppy muddy is the term for something closely resembling a mudpit. That is the correct racing term for the condition of the track, so it'll probalby have to stay sounding that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, very well then. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than that, it seems very good. Good work! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've addressed most of these. The infobox is not something I can change the terminology around that much, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I don't mind the terminology in the infobox. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question In order to answer a question, I have just ordered and received the full race record of Easy Jet. Should I add this information into the article in a table form? Or should I leave it out? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that might be overkill for this article since I was in so many races. It might be a good basis for Easy Jet race record (a future Featured List?), which could then be linked to in this article. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: most of the capped comments above did not constitute a valid oppose: categories do not need to be alphabetical, cite templates are not required (the citations are fine), and the external links were fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 27 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

    Gorgosaurus

    edit

    This is a belated nomination for featured article status of another collaborative effort from Wikiproject dinosaurs, which after conferring with (very busy) expert main contributor of content Sheep81 is felt to be comprehensive. The images are free and the article has been copyedited by me and other WP:dino editors over time. It is another piece in the puzzle of a future Featured Topic and I feel it is the equal to several other featured dino articles. Please tell us how we can improve it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first case, There's the fact that the author is a respected paleontologist we have an article on engaged in conversation another one? The second checks out just fine for me, so it must have been a minor connection burp. Circeus (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Circeus summed it up well on first one, on second, it worked ok for me...pdf issue? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be some weirdness related to the hotel I'm at while on the road. figured better to tell that someone is having issues than stay quiet. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely - some links do seem a bit temperamental. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Another quality FA from WP:DINO. Except for some choppiness in life history section, everything looks great. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Read through, made some copyediting (mostly in paleoecology. I missed the bit about ALberta being annexed by the U.S., shame on me). My only small concern is that I'm not too sure whether "These are the only two described albertosaurine genera, although other undescribed species may exist." (under "Classification and systematics") is really necessary (new species would have fairly little impact. New genera, however...) Circeus (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. I'd put in taxa for species as that can mean both species and genera, question is whether taxa is as easy to understand. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, seems on par with the other featured dinosaur articles. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This was quite a good read. I just had two questions/comments before I support. Not being a dinosaur expert, hopefully I can ask these without sounding like a fool. :-p

    Absolutely - ask away, the point is to make it readable and remove ambiguity :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. This sentence seems a bit off to me, though I could just be reading it wrong. "Typically for members of its family, dozens of large, sharp teeth lined its jaws, while its two-fingered forelimbs were comparatively small." Is there a word or two missing?
    Both this sentence and the preceding have introductory clauses that qulaify Gorgy's attributes as typical of tyrannosaurids. Hence I pulled out the clause and replaced with a semicolon to connect the two sentences thus:
    Like most known tyrannosaurids, Gorgosaurus was a bipedal predator weighing more than a metric ton]]; dozens of large, sharp teeth lined its jaws, while its two-fingered forelimbs were comparatively small.
    Hopefully this highlights the second bit is also 'like most tyrannosaurids'. I could also replace the first 3 words with "Typically for members of its family" as well. Does that clarify it?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The "Description" section seems to focus a great deal on the skull, while the rest of the body is briefly summarized in the last paragraph. I realize such features are often used to differentiate between animals, and not all the facts are available for dinosaurs. But it seems to unbalance the section in my opinion. Is there any extra info to include or a way to balance the section?
    I'll have a think on this one, the big toothy skull is clearly a discussion point but appreciate the issue. later. Had a look, it is not too different in makeup from some of the other related dino FAs like Tyrannosaurus or Albertosaurus, but I think I'll be able to add some more material on other bits of the body. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The skull is mainly how we tell tyrannosaurids apart from each other and is usually considered their "signature" adaptation (ie, how we tell them apart from other dinosaur groups). Their postcrania are pretty standard between genera and other than the proportions aren't even that different from other theropods really. So the reason why it seems to focus on the skull is because the author is biased towards things that are more interesting for him to write about. :) Sheep81 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Guyinblack25 talk 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    One more thing of note, with the first image in "Descriptions" left aligned, should the rest of the images be staggered to maintain consistency? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Depending on the resolution of the screens of individual readers, the infobox might collide with the image and create a lot of white space if it is right aligned. So well, I guess it's left aligned just in case. On a related note, it's best not to fix the size of individual images to a specific value unless the image contains letters, but just let them remain unspecified thumbs, otherwise the page won't adjust to individual user preferences. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured that might have been the reason. Should every other image also be left aligned to create a consistent appearance/staggered pattern? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere where the taxobox "touches" the text, but maybe it should be left, right, left right, or similar. It probably just comes down to aesthetics and seems very random on other articles. Here are the guidelines[5] Seems that it is preferred that subjects "face" the text. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I often alternate left/right unless there are issues with headings. I just realised the 'facing' issues and guess it applies to dinosaurs as well as humans :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral Support as member of WP:DINO; I have gone through it and tweaked a few things that struck me, but otherwise I think the information and formatting is up to par. I will also be available for fixes. J. Spencer (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I am a member of WP:DINO. The article looks quite nice. I have checked the text for clarity and grammar, and have only found a few things that struck me as off (fewer/less than confusion, etc). I am less familiar with tyrannosaurids than some other dinosaur clades, but this article seems to be good to go, based on comparisons with articles Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Albertosaurus. I have, however, replaced the tiny cladogram in this article with one that is more robust: if the text is going to discuss Gorgosaurus and its relationships with other tyrannosaurid genera (Daspleto-, Tarbo-, Alberto- and T. rex), then those other genera really should be included in the diagram (more than just a line indicating "to tyrannosaurines"). The old cladogram wasn't really illustrating the text next to which it was placed. On the issue of readability: I have no idea how to use the readability tool thing, though that might well be useful here. No other observations at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:30, 27 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

    1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt

    edit

    Article about a failed coup. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This is a solid article on a very specific event. It looks to be well-sourced to reliable sources. It is well-written and illustrated with helpful images that are all in the public domain. The article is written clearly and concisely. Although not as familiar with this period of history as I should be, I was able to follow the article easily. Very nicely done. Small questions and suggestions:
    • I am not convinced that the infobox is necessary. It is huge and I am not convinced of its helpfulness in this instance.
    Yeah I know, but with WP:MILHIST this stuff is almost compulsory in any major battle article which is seeking accreditation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see - that's the way the cookie crumbles over there. I know the Coordinator. I'll see what I can do. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diem promoted officers on loyalty rather than skill, and played senior officers against one another in order to weaken and prevent them from challenging his rule. - in order to weaken what? the government?
    Fixed. The military command. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the underlying reasons was that many ARVN officers were members of other anti-communist nationalist groups that were opposed to Diem - explain what the ARVN is in the text of the article
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for so promptly fixing everything! I will now promptly sign! (oops!) Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 23 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

    Confirmed Dead

    edit

    Self-nomination This article from WP:LOST on the second fourth season episode of the television show Lost was passed as a good article seven minutes ago by Bláthnaid (is that a new record?), who wrote that, "This is an excellent article. It is well written, the plot section is succinct, and there is lots of interesting real world information." Thanks to Sceptre, who wrote the plot section's prose. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just have a look at the section I wrote to see if I can improve the prose. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See changes. BuddyTV has an article and VFXWorld has an interview with a Lost editor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't that BuddyTV has an article that led me to strike the concern, it was that the article listed their webpage that told about them. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well-written, fully referenced, yada yada yada. What Lost S4 episode isn't?
      • Some reviewers praised the episode for doing a fine job of introducing the new characters, while others criticized this by saying that it caused the pace to slow.
        • Saying "the new characters" is assuming readers already know who the new characters are, which hasn't been mentioned by this point. Maybe reword.
        • After reading over the Reception section, I'm not fully convinced that reviewers (generally) criticised the episode's pace at all, let alone blaming this on the introduction of the new characters.
      • The narrative takes place in late December 2004 over ninety days after the crash - is it possible to reword so it doesn't sound as if the episode takes place over a period of ninety days?
      • Miles is a medium, who is hired... - no need for a comma unless we say "Miles, a medium, is hired..."
      • Charlotte is an anthropologist, who finds... - as above unless we have "Charlotte, an anthropologist, finds..."
      • Locke's group finds Charlotte, takes her prisoner, and dispose of her tracking device - "group" is a singular noun (although referring to multiple people) so grammatically "disposes" would be correct as with "takes".
      • several people become discontent with Locke's revelation that he is following the instructions of Walt Lloyd (Malcolm David Kelley), who had left the island a month previously[7] and they also question - being a bit picky with grammar but IMO the commas act a little like brackets and thus there should be another comma before the ref. Just the way I'd write it, though - commas are personal things. ;)
      • specifically, Charlotte's identity - no need for comma.
      • In the first instance of ref8 although ref tags generally should be placed after punctuation I'd go with the tag before the em dash, just because the dashes bracket off what is almost its own statement (if that makes sense; I'm not the best at explaining things... see Dash#Em dash) so it just makes sense to keep the tag inside the dashes.
      • the writer-producers that "it would be cool - they "believed that..."? They "thought that..."?
      • As I've said before, "much different" doesn't sound grammatically correct but leave it in if you think it's just because I'm Australian.
      • Mader's character's name... - no need to re-state "Mader".
      • A typical Lost episode contains fifty visual effects shots. Citation?
      • No need to use separate refs for 31 & 32 for different pages of an article. Put 'em both under page 1.
    • We'll have to check up with Guinness on the GAN to FAC record, but I reckon seven minutes is worth a few FA brownie points. —97198 talk 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Couple of small things need fixing:

    • "rumoured BE spelling > "rumored" AE
    • kilometres > "kilometers"
    • 130 kilometres offshore needs conversion into miles
    • introductions of new characters > "introduction of new characters"
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take responsibility for the British English: I wrote that section and I'm British, so... yeah. Sceptre (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also take responsibility for the British English because I am Canadian. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is to not mix and match styles so either it's all AE or all BE. The obvious choice seems AE as this series has strong national links to the US, per WP:ENGVAR. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oppose: Why are two screenshots used? Given that the infobox image’s purpose is merely “to identify the subject [Confirmed Dead]”, why couldn’t Image:Tunisian polar bear.png be used for this? It would “kill two birds with one stone”, as it would continue to show the “female Indiana Jones”. WP:NFCC#3A requires “Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary”. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first section is for the plot section and the second is for the production section. There are a lot of things in the production section that could be illustrated (Miles's clothing, Franks's beard, a visual effects shot, etc.) so one picture seems to qualify as "minimal use" to me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Could be" illustrated is not "need to be" illustrated. Fair use images can only be used when they both, among other things, contribute significantly to our understanding and are used only when necessary. Frankly, I'd argue that both images fail the former, but I'm only going to press the issue of the current use of two images when one would accomplish the same purpose, as described by the FURs. The current usage is not minimal. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-done, especially the Reception section, which is excellent. A couple minor points:
    • Most or all of the episode was shot from September 11[28] to 23, 2007[29] and filming overlapped with the following episode.[30] -- In this sentence, it seems odd to have citations in the middle like that, when they are not directly after a comma. Best IMO to move those cites all to the end of the sentence, in that particular case. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References section -- pushed over to the left by the Wikiquote box - I'd suggest moving the Wikiquote box to a "External links" section, and add one or two helpful links to that section. Perhaps IMDB and the show's website about the episode. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plot could use two or so brief background sentences, though this is not necessarily required because the reader can go to the other wiki articles for background - but still, it would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall, great work, these are just some other pointers which would make the article better. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

    USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

    edit

    Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article consideration because I believe it meets all the requirements. It underwent a WP:MILHIST peer review here and successfully passed a A-Class review here — Bellhalla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    lengthy misunderstanding hidden
    • Comment could the unnecessary repeated links to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal be removed formthe references? Circeus (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that two WSJ article have the same title/headline but were published on different days and I'm not sure which NYT links you're talking about. Can you please clarify? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm referring to the wikilinks to the article The New York Times (refs #27-32) and the WSJ one (refs #21-26). Certainly one link to each article is sufficient, especially where you have six of seven of them in a row? Circeus (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's wrong with having multiple references to the same newspapers if they reference different articles? - Jmsloderbeck (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd be happy to address the concern, but I'm still stumped...? — Bellhalla (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I got a few of them. I simply changed New York Times in the refs to New York Times. C asked for the same thing at Black Moshannon State Park. Will do the rest if you want me to. Dincher (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't link an article every single time it appears (e.g.,you don't link all the instances of "United States" in the article), so why does it suddenly becomes useful just because it's in the references? First it "dissolves" the usefulness of the links (WP:CONTEXT: "A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following." In this case, it becomes--amongst other issues--less obvious that there are external links that can be followed) and makes the space cluttered with them.
              Second, they are identical links right next to each others, which further makes it obvious how redundant they are (also from CONTEXT: "there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section",as all these links are clumped under "references", it clearly applies here even though they are slightly separate in the wikitext, and even then...). Circeus (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now I understand what you were saying. You were talking about Wikipedia articles, not the news articles featured in the newspapers. I understand about overlinking and linking within context, it was your choice of a word that was ambiguous in this context that lead to the confusion. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The first reference to each newspaper (as of now, at least) has a wikilink to the newspaper's Wikipedia article. I also restored the correct newspaper name for The Atlanta Constitution that had been changed to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/22/22024.htm a reliable source?
      • I've always assumed by its wide use that navsource.com was considered a reliable source (through a de facto consensus, if through no other means). A google search of the text shows that "navsource.com" is found on over 3,800 wikipedia articles. While many of those are links to image galleries that navsource has for individual ships, a good many of them are to cite information.
        • Do other sources cite it or refer to the site as a reliable source of information? It it referred to in the media as such? Does it cite it's own sources? Is the author widely considered an expert in his field? Any of these can be used to show that a site is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The following appear to cite Navsource Naval History:
            • Gryniewicz, Paul (April 2005). "A tale of 2 tankers". Sea Classics. OCLC 60621086.</ref>
            • Sewell, Kenneth (2006). Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780743261135. OCLC 173165080.
            • Sturma, Michael (2008). The USS Flier: Death and Survival on a World War Ii Submarine. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813124810. OCLC 181335855.
            • Patton, Charles D. (2005). Colt Terry, Green Beret (1st ed.). College Station: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 9781585443734. OCLC 57452804.
            • Tunander, Ola (2003). The Secret War Against Sweden: US and British Submarine Deception and Political Control in the 1980s. London: Frank Cass. ISBN 9780714682754. OCLC 52696134.
          • There are a good many other books that cite Navsource Naval History in some way, but the list above omits citations that were obvious photo credits and those where the nature of the reference was ambiguous. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise http://www.wardline.com/page/page/4557567.htm?
      • As a website, it may not meet WP:RS standards, but information I've found there has proven to be accurate, as verified by other sources. Nevertheless, I have eliminated the few bits that were cited to that website rather than fight it.
    • Granted the information isn't exactly controversial, but what makes http://www.timetableimages.com/maritime/index.htm a reliable source?
      • I recast the references to show I was citing material from the Ward Line itself rather than that of the website.
    All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • Image:Hcrane.jpg has a depreciated tag. Additionally, a verifiable source is required per WP:IUP; what evidence do we have that this is in the public domain? Being available on "literally hundreds of website [sic]" is not a PD determinant.
      • Why are flags needed in the infobox, especially when the country/line is stated immediately to the left? See Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The consensus practice with the ship infobox, {{Infobox Ship Begin}} (and related templates), is to show the flag of the operator, whether navy or commercial operator. In some cases—like the US and Brazil, as in this article—the naval ensign is the same as the national flag. In other cases—like the Royal Navy, for example—the naval ensign does not match the national flag, which makes it helpful to have the country listed. Furthermore, I believe that this would be an Appropriate use under the first bullet point that it's useful in a long table. And, yes, I know this is not a table of countries, but I believe it still applies here. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Fulgencio Batista, president of Cuba.jpg, the replacement for Crane, has problems as well. With a date of "8.III.28", it was published after 1923. Additionally, the author is anonymous, yet the PD claim is being based on life of author plus 70 years; how do we know it's been 70 years after death when we don't know the author? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Before giving up on Batista, what about a cropped version of either Image:1952Batista.jpg ot Image:Fulgencio Batista, president of Cuba, 1952.jpg instead? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, those may be even more problematic. The PD criterion used by the images appears unsupported by Decreto Ley No. 156 (and it's cute that both still have copyright watermarks). The context in the sources is that they are being used to illustrate events from 1952, not that the images themselves are from 1952. Although Cuban copyright durations are at the Berne Convention minimums of 50 years after publication for anonymous authors (Artículo 45 of No. 156) and 50 years after death for known authors (Artículo 43 of No. 156), without knowing either the author or the date of first publication, I'm not comfortable having a FA represent an image as PD when that status is uncertain. That's also ignoring that, as images hosted on U.S. servers subject to U.S. copyright law, the U.S. copyright duration for works with unknown publication and authorship is 120 years from creation. Long story short, I'd need more concrete origination information for the Batista images before being ok with their use. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Juliancolton (talk)
    • Comments
    • One of the biggest things I noticed is, because I have no knowledge of ships, the writing seems too technical. I think the shipping terms and words need to be explained better.
      • If you could list any terms that need better explanation, it would help in remedying it.
    • She was the sister ship of Siboney but neither was part of a ship class I had to read this sentence 4 times to understand what it is trying to say. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thinkit could be worded better.
    • Orizaba, originally laid down as Vendado, made 15 transatlantic voyages for the Navy carrying troops to and from Europe in World War I, and had the second shortest average in-port turnaround time of all Navy transports. Same thing.
      • Reworded.
    • The whole article needs non-breaking spaces.
    • I know the MoS says it's ok to refer to the ship as "She", but I still don't think it sounds very encyclopediac. Is it possible to change around the wording, and cut down on the use of "She"?
      • I have no problem with the neuter pronouns for ships, but I stuck with the feminine pronouns because they were the style established by prior editors of the article. (To me, arbitrarily changing the style would be like just as arbitrary as switching from British English to American English.) What I've tried to do is vary references to the ship by using Orizaba, she, the ship (and variations like the liner, the transport ship, etc.), so as not to have too many of any. Using it and its would be out because of the MOS admonishment to not mix feminine and neuter pronouns. If you could you point out problematic areas that would benefit from rewording, I'll see what I can do.
    • Assigned to the Atlantic Transport Service, Orizaba carried over 15,000 troops, in six convoy trips, to France before the end of World War I. Too many commas, IMO.
      • Fixed.
    • Detached from that duty on 10 January 1919, she joined the Cruiser and Transport Force at Brest and in nine voyages returned over 31,700 troops to the United States. needs a comma to make it easier to read.
      • Done.
    • Crane had been drinking and had been humiliated after a clumsy pick-up attempt of a male member of the crew the night before ended with a severe beating. Same thing, took several times to understand what it's saying. Needs commas to break it up some.
      • Reworded.
    • In July 1934 Orizaba brought in 16 cases of Mexican gold, and in January 1935, 20 cases; in both instances for delivery to Chase National Bank. Again.
      • Done (I think).

    Overall, good work so far. I'll give you some more things to take care of when these things are fixed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Support. Alright, it looks like my issues have been addressed. I'm sure I could find other nit-picky things to complain about, but for the most part it looks great. You have my Support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I just made a few copyedit tweaks. A few remaining questions:

    • "The ship completed 15 round trips with an average turn-around time of just over 30 days per trip, almost 10 days shorter than the overall average of 39.8 days." - the 39.8 days figure is an average figure for the whole Navy, yes? how about "...shorter than the overall Navy average of 39.8 days"?
      • Excellent suggestion. Done.
    • "After the divorce was finalized she and her travel companion, Laura Harding, were planning on spending a week in Havana and returning to New York on Ward Line ship Morro Castle." - How is this relevant? I thought perhaps it was a 'she was supposed to be on the ship that sank' teaser, but that was April and Morro Castle didn't go down til September.
    • To what does Note #5 (Crowell and Wilson, p. 321.) refer?
      • A phrase had been eliminated from the first sentence of that paragraph and the proper note was accidentally removed. Note 5 now correctly refers to the two sentences beginning "In mid-1917…" and ending with "…troop-carrying duties."

    Maralia (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Replies interspersed. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Support No remaining issues. Well done. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Have watched this article matriculate and can see nothing that would lead me to have an issue with this article becoming an FA forthwith. -MBK004 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentI should have commented earlier, because at Jack Kemp I am debating about the repeated publisher and works links. I don't think they should have been delinked here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm not really getting what you mean, but I see negligible value in repeated links to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. Maralia (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- Good, well balanced article. Very rarely do I support on first reading. Just a suggestion: You could add the location where the ship was scrapped, and the callsign of the ship (is it ID 1536?). =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources I have don't say where the ship was scrapped. ID-1536 was its US Navy designation in World War I; its call sign in the US Navy (at some point in time) was "NUBY". If Navsource Naval History is deemed a reliable source (see discussion above), i'll be happy to add the call sign (plus its reference to Navsource) into the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:07, 22 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

    Black Moshannon State Park

    edit

    Co-Nominators Ruhrfisch and Dincher

    We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to The Rambling Man, VerruckteDan, Ben MacDui, Dtbohrer and María) which is archived on the talk page. Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Great article, very complete and well referenced. Definitely one of Wikipedia's finest. This is great work from all the editors, especially User:Dincher and User:Ruhrfisch. VerruckteDan (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the support and kinds words. Dincher (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto on the thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Juliancolton (talk)
    Comments I read the lead and flipped through the rest of the article, and the writing (at a glance) seems good and well-referenced (I will more closely read it later), but the infobox image doesn't show the state park, but rather a lili pad-filled pond. Is it possible to find a better image for the infobox? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00
    54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, thanks for pointing this out, but I must respectfully disagree. Per Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after (or just before) the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks". I also note that Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited.". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I must have misread that, then. I think that reference doesn't have to be there, but it doesn't hurt, I suppose. (And since it's your FAC, it's completely your choice). Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Moshannon State Park is open for year round recreation and features an extensive network of trails which allow hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area. should be "viewing of the big habitat"? I could be wrong, but I think it would sound better that way.
    • I peronally think it sounds more correct without "of", but am not 100% sure. Since Casliber has also raised questions about this sentence (below), I will ask his/her opinion too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Geology section, do you think it would be better to move the second large paragraph about the climate of the park into a sub-section of Geology? It just seems kind of weird going from geology to climate, and back to geology.
    • I moved the last paragraph to first there, so it now opens with rocks, moves to the Allegheny Plateau, and then discusses the climate. I am not overly fond of one paragraph sections, i.e. for the climate. I suppose this section could be renamed "Geology and climate" if desired. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Geology and climate" would be good, yes. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it has been renamed to "Geology and climate" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Moshannon Lake's waters are warmer than those of the creek, and so hold many different species of fish, including Largemouth Bass, Muskellunge, Yellow Perch, Chain Pickerel, Bullhead Catfish, Northern Pike, Bluegill, and crappie. Why are all of the fish species capitalized except for Crappie?
    • This was something we wrestled with in the Peer Review. The article consistently capitalizes the names of species, but not other plant and ann animal names. Crappies does not refer to a single species of fish, so it is not capitalized. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok. That makes sense. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per below, I agree that the IBA section should be a H4 under "Wildlife".

    Support language and style (I'm not qualified yet to support more). Editors were very attentive to my concerns, and everyone else's. Great article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved stuff from User:Dank55

    Native American name controversy uses the word "tribe" without any embarrassment, which is good to know. "Industrial" was a judgment call ... it depends on whether you're looking for a topic sentence or a narrative. For the third point, pick which one sounds right to you, "The fishing grounds is wet" or "The fishing grounds are wet". If you like the second one, then "it was a ... fishing grounds" doesn't work. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For a long time it read: Humans have long used the Black Moshannon area for recreational, industrial, and subsistence purposes. The Seneca tribe used the area as a hunting and fishing grounds. On April 15 in a copyedit to get ready for FAC I changed the second sentence to It was a hunting and fishing grounds for the Seneca tribe. to try and avoid two sentences in a row with "used" and "area". Just thought this might help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asking if you believe "fishing grounds" is singular or plural; which sounds better to you, "The fishing grounds is wet" or "The fishing grounds are wet"? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I hate hyphen rules, and I need to subscribe to a better reference, but I'm pretty sure most people write "English-speaking (something)"; the first 4 pages of Google and Alltheweb searches seemed to confirm that. 20th-century, I'm pretty sure, is wrong; you hyphenate when it's used as an adjective (and not 100% then), such as "20th-century novelist". I'll make the edits; revert if you disagree. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's my duty to inform you that circa is in violation of WP:MOSNUM, which recommends "ca." today (and "c." was also fine, two days ago ... tomorrow who knows). Also that I don't give a darn, feel free to keep "circa". - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand Tony's perspective, and I'm pretty sure I don't, he would have a problem with "Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression of the 1930s". I think "Great Depression" adds something for some readers, so I'm fine with it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for your careful eye and edits to the article. I happen to prefer circa, but am fine with c. I would have to say that grounds sounds plural to my ear. The reason I gave the previous sentence is that it avoids the question. I also note that the Wikipedia article refers to them as the Seneca nation (avoiding tribe). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning "features" and "available for use", we live in a sea of promotionalism, and there are two approaches to fighting the effects of it: either don't use those words, or apply the words to things that deserve to be promoted, such as Wikipedia itself (which uses words like this all the time in self-reference), or the results of conservation and preservation. I don't see why these things shouldn't be "featured" and considered "available for use". If it were up to me, I would say it's a matter of speaking in your own voice. But I'm not familiar with the preferences in FAs.
    I am not sure what this comment means. Dincher (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this refers to the sentence (since changed) on the park featuring cabins that are available for use. Thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice it still says "It was a hunting and fishing grounds", but you decided fishing grounds is plural. You wouldn't say "It was a trails" or "It was a lakes".
    Does this It was used as hunting and fishing grounds by the Seneca tribe. work? Dincher (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support language and style (not qualified to support anything else). Yes, that's fine, Dincher, although I took it out of the passive voice, which also helps the parallelism. And yes, my comment about "features" was regarding the edit that Casliber suggested; I just don't want us to establish some kind of precedent that we can't talk about "featuring" things that really do deserve to be featured (such as Wikipedia). - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the support and the fix(es). I really with there was a better way to navigate around these discussion pages. Thanks again! Dincher (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Thanks too for your support, comments and edits Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My pleasure. Btw, WP:MOSNUM says to abbreviate to "X ft" after the first occurrence of "X feet"; do you guys have any preference against this? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked and the actual quotation from WP:MOSNUM is The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence. I prefer spelling out the main units, so thanks for asking but I think we will keep it this way for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right, sorry for the mistake. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a suggestion, would you rather use "percolate" or "permeable" than "absorb" when talking about the sandstone? I'm aware that non-native readers may have a harder time with the first two words than with "absorb", but arguably, "percolate" (sometimes shortened to "perc" informally) is the right word. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "perc" sounds unencylcopedic and am afraid "percolate" sounds too much like coffee-making to me. The sentence would have to be rewritten if "permeable" were used instead of "absorb" and, since we already have to rewrite / expand the Geology section, I would prefer to not rewrite other sentences. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you don't link "1800s" (good idea); just curious, does anyone here know that the article called 1800s actually concerns 1800 to 1809? Not helpful. We discussed it in MOSNUM today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 04:08, April 19, 2008
    Yes, I belive "19th Century" links to the whole century. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::Black Moshannon State Park is open for year round recreation and features an extensive network of trails... - something about this sentence to me sounds like a advertising brochure. I thought all parks were open year round, and it makes it sound like recreation is the main aim of the park (rather than conservation). The word features is what makes the second bit sound advertorial. I am trying to think of a different way to phrase it but you guys know the park better....Actually, the first clause is redundant: try " There is an extensive network of trails which allow (year-round) hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area. " - is any meaning lost?

    There are several Pennsylvania state parks in remote areas or atop mountains that are for all intents and purposes closed in winter. I tried putting your sentence in without the paranthesis "There is an extensive network of trails which allow year-round hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area." and realized that in the winter when the snow is deep you can't hike or mountain bike on the trails. I have changed the word "features" to the more neutral "has" and tweaked slightly so it now reads: Black Moshannon State Park is open year round for recreation and has an extensive network of trails... Also, Juliancolton has asked (above) if there should be an "of" in viewing [of] the bog habitat. I tend to think not, but would appreciate your opinion on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) OK. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :Lenape (or Delaware) - I am Australian and got confused for a second here; an epithet after 'Delaware' - x- Indian, or x-tribe, may be helpful.

    :::I added tribe, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::Early on, the CCC constructed a dam at Black Moshannon Lake - actually, a year or date would be better here if available

    The most specific information is given in one the National Register of Historic Places nomination forms [6] and is just "One of the first jobs undertaken by the CCC at Black Moshannon was the construction of a new dam at Black Moshannon Lake." We also have the black and white CCC photo published in 1936 showing men working on the completed dam. My guess is that the dam was begun in 1933 and finished that year or by 1934, but I have no verifiable source for that. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The CCC-built dam forming Black Moshannon Lake was replaced in the 1950s by the current structure - again, why not exact date?
    Again, the most specific sources (NRHP nomination forms again) all just say the new dam was built in the 1950s. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since its establishment in 1937, Black Moshannon State Park has undergone several changes. - this is a little vague and could be more specific, i.e. it is about chunks of the park used for other purposes (?) This is not a deal-breaker really as I am a bit conflicted about it.
    It is meant to introduce the section and the fact that, although many of the CCC-built facilities still exist, the park is not a museum and there have been other developments since the CCC finished their work - i.e. the airport, ski area, new facilities, Bog Natural Area, etc. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be great to have a bit more detail in the Wildlife section - rare or unusual critters, or those which normally occur further north. It is a tad listy as it stands
    Sorry, didn't see the IBA, but then you have some bird stuff in wildlife. Id be inclined to make this a 4 lvl heading under wildlife
    Changed, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::Nineteen cabins are available for use at Black Moshannon State Park. - err, sounds like an ad, how about "Nineteen cabins are used by visitors at Black Moshannon State Park." or something similar.

    How about "Nineteen cabins can be used by visitors at Black Moshannon State Park."? I think that "are used" makes it sound like everyone uses them, which is not the case. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, better. I put it in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, gotta sleep now - I'll try to get onto more from Boating, fishing, and hunting down tomorrow. Very interesting reading and should pass this time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your helpful comments and rest well. I must admit I do not understand "should pass this time" as this has not been in FAC before. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I hadn't meant it like that. nevermind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some more: Edward Gertler... - erm, who? A couple of words on who he is would be good to clarify why what he says is notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Gertler is the author of the book used in reference 36. Dincher (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::Yeah, so if he's a notable local celebrity for some reason would be good to put that in eg. Longtime canoeist/kayaker and author Edward Gertler says....

    Already done. Didn't you check it? Dincher (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my bad. Great. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, very nearly there. It would be great if you could get any more wildlife info (eg on the bears or whatver) in hte wildlife section which looks a little short and listy compared with the bird bit. If there is nil then don't worry too much but essentially it is a natural area so a little more on the fauna would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments. The wildlife at the park isn't that unusual for Pennsylvania. The bear, deer, squirrel, etc., are pretty much plentiful. The IBA received special treatment since the birds are unusual for the rest of PA. Perhaps we could add a bit about how the common wildlife has come back since the lumber era. Dincher (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Oppose Support. Well done, both of you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the support and the suggestions. You've helped make this article better. Dincher (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, thanks for your suggestions, copyedit, and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues Resolved from --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The role of Native Americans has to be more extensive than naming the location. Did they live in the area surrounding the park? How did they live? How was society structured? What did they use the area for? It's an unfortunate indication of the diminshed legacy of the first inhabitants of the area that the section dedicated to them is so small. —This is part of a comment by Moni3 (of 18:22, 18 April 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:
      • Thank you for you comments. I will try to reply to your questions, although it seems to me that much of the material requested is already in the article. As the article says The Seneca, members of the Iroquois Confederacy, were inhabitants in the area of Black Moshannon Lake... so they lived in what is now the park itself, as well as the surrounding area. The article also notes that the Lenape lived in the area of the park and tells what they used the area for (other Native Americans, including the Lenape, hunted, fished, and traded in the region) and that they named the creek (The name Moshannon ... is derived from a Lenape (or Delaware) tribe name for Moshannon and Black Moshannon Creeks: Moss-hanne, which means "moose stream" or "elk stream".). Another major Native American use of the area, the Great Shamokin Path, is described: The Great Shamokin Path, the major east-west path connecting the Susquehanna and Allegheny River basins, crossed Black Moshannon Creek at a ford a few miles downstream from the park; however, no trails of the indigenous peoples are recorded as having passed through the park itself.. As the article says, prior to both of these tribes, the Susquehannocks lived in the general area, but not much is known about their specific areas of habitation and activity.
        We have had to dig to get this information - if you look at main page of the park's official website here, there is one sentence on the Native Americans: "According to local tradition, American Indians called this watershed "Moss-Hanne," meaning "moose stream," thus the origin of the park's name." Sadly, the official park history webpage here also has only one sentence on Native Americans: "The Seneca Indians hunted, traded and fished here when the present lake was a string of beaver ponds." The two print histories of the PA park system make no mention of the Native American inhabitants of the area.
        As for your questions on "How did they live? How was society structured?" we can certainly look up something on the Seneca and Lenape and add a sentence or two, but at what point does this become original research? The sad truth is that not much of the specifics of the Native Americans who lived where the park is now are known - what little is available and pertinent and in reliable sources has been included.
        My final question to you is an issue of WP:WEIGHT, specifically the part that says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." How much more should we add on Native Americans? I will note that this is an article about a park built by the CCC between 1933 and 1937 in an area formerly inhabited by Native Americans and lumberjacks. We currently have 1,462 characters in the section on the Native Americans, 1,893 characters in the section on the lumber era, and 1,222 characters in the section on the CCC workers who actually built most of the park (this includes spaces and refs, i.e. [4], but not photo captions or headers). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, believe me. To be asked to add information during an FAC - I imagine someone may have called me a name... But this should be a stellar example of the features and history of the park. I went back and re-read the section, and my point stands, for me at least. I wrote this section as a portion of the human history of Everglades National Park. I can't suggest you follow that since every article must be its own, but I know there's more to the pre-Columbian history of the region than what is presented. And it becomes Orignal Research when you begin making it up, or writing what you think you know without citing information from reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But this article is about the park and not about it's previous inhabitants. Sometimes I have wondered if the pre-history of the many park articles I have written is truly significant to the history of the park. I like to add it because it is interesting. I agree with Ruhrfisch, if much more is added to the history about Indian habitation of the area the article will moved away from a balanced history of human use of the area and move onto a history of Indian habitation of the area. Dincher (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your decision, as the principal authors of the article. I disagree with it, and my oppose may be overridden. But I ask you to sit on your approach. I resist criticisms of my articles at first suggestion (and I get really huffy about it, too). And it sometimes takes some effort to remember the goal is the absolute best information that can be presented about the topic. We are, in many ways, honoring the topics we spend so much time writing about. I think you've done an admirable job honoring the efforts of the lumber industry and the CCC in this article. I don't think you've done as good a job addressing people who lived in the area of the park for thousands of years prior to those addressed in other sections. So - wait on it, get mad at me a bit. Think. Then see if you can find some more information. You have a couple more weeks in this FAC, and I'm not the only editor commenting. --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some about the Indian's resistance in the area. the Big Runaway which took place during the Revolution in the West Branch Valley. I am not really sure if this fits in with the park, but it does show that the Indians resisted the settlement of the Europeans and that they simply didn't fade away. Hope this helps. If it doesn't I have no problem with removing it. Dincher (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (unindent) I did not mean to be huffy and appreciate your efforts to improve the article. I can certainly add more about Pennsylvania pre-Columbian history, but none of the eight books I checked today specifically mentioned Moshannon Creek or Black Moshannon Creek, so it will be general material for the northcentral part of the state. I can also add more material about the Seneca, and the Lenape, but most of the material on the Seneca focuses on their New York home territory. As for the Lenape, they were didvided into three phratries (clans), but I have been unable to find which of these were active in the park area.
      I appreciate Dincher adding the Big Runaway material - it is all true and all sourced, but the sources do not mention any connection with Moshannon Creek. In fact the settlement furthest west (closest to what is now the park) at the time was in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, which is today about an hour away. This is where I worry about getting into original research. Should this be included or not? Finally I note that Everglades National Park is about 1.5 million acres. Black Moshannon State Park is less than 4000 acres (less than 0.25% the size). I believe that it is realtively harder to find material about this small area, and fear that some of the information you are seeking from us simply does not exist in reliable sources. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. Resources on this topic, especially Indian inhabitation of the Black Mo area are limited. The addition of the Big Runaway is a stretch. It is plausible that some of the raiding Indians may have come from the Black Mo area, but with the resources available it cannot be proven. Dincher (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These changes are wonderful. Good for you. (And please note I said I get huffy. I wasn't implying you were huffy.) --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, I will be working on tweaking the Ecology section next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand the Geology section to describe how the geological elements of this area formed.
    • In Ecology, if the most significant ecological feature is the bog area (and that's what it seems like from the article), put Bog Natural Area at the top of this section. Instead of listing many forms of wildlife in two sentences, try peppering the Bog Area with forms of wildlife throughout the prose. The reader is overwhelmed with lists of animals. --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bog Natural Area has been moved. Dincher (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken several of the bird species lists out of the Important Bird Area section and moved them into the Bog Natural Area and Wildlife sections. I also removed six duplicate species (previously listed in two sections, now just once in one section each). Dincher has added two sentences on the recovery of animal species after the devastation of the lumber era, and I added a two sentence introduction to the Ecology section (before the Bog Natural Area subsection), so that some of the bird species list moves made more sense. Hopefully this satisifies your request, if not please offer further suggestions for improvement Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    • I think I've said that for all WP:PENNA state park articles I've reviewed: please reduce the dazzling of unnecessary wikilinks in the references. You don't need to link PADCNR in the references to begin with, much less every time it shows up. Most other city and department links are at the very least arguably unnecessary. Circeus (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments This is a thoroughly-researched, well-written, and carefully illustrated article. I have a few questions and comments before I support.

    • The 1892 local history - is this a seminal local history? is there nothing else? If not, the age of the source should be made clear in the prose.
    • After this, the lands of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were under the nominal control of the Iroquois - I tend to think that nineteenth-century works on Native Americans have been supplanted by more up-to-date history, perhaps more than two years after the Wounded Knee Massacre?
    • The forests near the three original counties, Philadelphia, Bucks, and Chester, were the first to be harvested, as the early settlers used the readily available timber to build homes, barns, and ships, and cleared the land for agriculture. The demand for lumber slowly increased and by the time of the American Revolution the lumber industry had reached the interior and mountainous regions of Pennsylvania
    • Meginnes (1892 history) is a seminal local history, but is now nowhere the only source cited for anything in the article. I added a few more citations to other, more modern references to the Native Americans and Lumber sections for this and the next question. The 1892 history is useful for a general reader in that it is available online (the other history references for the Native Americans are print only, as is Taber's work on the West Branch Susquehanna lumber industry centered in Williamsport). Is this OK? I suppose we could remove these if required to, but I just reread Meginness' chapter on "ABORIGINAL OCCUPATION" and it has the Susquehannocks (and all their names), the war with the Iroquois they lost, the Lenape (he even uses their own name, as well as Delaware) being subject to the Iroquois and being allowed to move into the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, and their all leaving the area. I would prefer to keep it. Perhaps it could be added to the reference for Wallace's "Indians of Pennsylvania" with some sort of note - "For a general overview of Native American History in the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, see ..." and the lumber chapter could be added to the Taber note? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there are no known archeological sites within Black Moshannon State Park, the name Moshannon (pronounced /Mō ˈsha-nən/) is derived from a Lenape (or Delaware) name for Moshannon and Black Moshannon Creeks: Moss-hanne, which means "moose stream" or "elk stream" - Are we sure about this fact, sourced to a 1928 work on Native American linguistic history?
      • No known archeological sites is now sourced to three references - just to be clear, I can find no mention of archeological sites within the park in any source on it or on Black Moshannon Creek I have read (and I read the 300 hits for "Black Moshannon" on Google Books, looked in libraries, etc.) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was asking whether we are sure about the name - I was assuming that was what the source was used for. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for my misunderstanding. Donehoo is incredibly thorough and goes back to original documents (maps, land deeds, traveler's journals, etc.) usually in the PA State Archives and cites these, plus he apparently knew or at least understood Iroquoian and Lenape and other Native languages and gives the probable original Native American language name or names (most have been corrupted more than "Moss hanne" -> Moshannon). The Susquehanna River Basin Commission still cites him on their official website. The park website and other sources (Gertler for one) agree on "Moss hanne" too - should I add one of them? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This source does not look reliable to me and I am not convinced by the rationale provided above. Note that the website says: "If you have any additional information about this ski area, please contact DCSki's Editor, or add your comments by scrolling below. To view historical information about other lost ski areas in the Mid-Atlantic region, click here. Note that DCSki's Lost Ski Areas section contains recollections pieced together by DCSki readers. We try to continually develop a clearer and more accurate picture of closed ski areas, but understand that some of the details reported on this page may be inaccurate." The comments included in Wikipedia's article appear to be from a random reader.
      • I was able to find some more data from the New York Times and some other sources removed the DC Ski ref and the sentence on it closing due to lack of snow making equipment. In the process of looking I also found more data for the airport, 50th anniversary of the park, and climate, so I added those too. I did not find anything on archeology. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ruhrfisch knows what I think of infoboxes. I will accept that these editors deem the infobox necessary. However, this one is out of control! Cut a map! The box is too busy!
    Disagree. A general map of the park and a specific map of the historical area are relevant and should stay. Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The infobox follows the model of Presque Isle State Park which is FA. I know you dislike boxes - where in the MOS is "too busy" listed, and is this an actionable criterion? If absolutley required to, I suppose the park map could go in place of the Antes sign. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that both maps are useful, however my eyes refuse to look at them because of all of business in the box. I would suggest removing the Antes sign (which the user has to click on to read anyway) and placing one of the maps there. (I consider this part of good article layout, which is part the WP:MOS, which is criteria 2, if you want to get picky about it.)Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the park map is out of the infobox and in the Native American History section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. It it gives an additional history of the area. Shows how the land has gone from a town to a "wilderness". Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It could go if it must. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sign doesn't really show that (it is a picture of text!) and the user has to click on it to read it. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I swapped it for another picture of where the tavern and village used to be. Long term the Antes school house is still standing and I will try to get a picture of it for this section (only have it in the background in a few cruddy / unusable pictures now). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At times, particularly in the "Ecology" section, I felt overwhelmed by links. Is there any way to fix this situation?
    gone, gone, gone. Dincher (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take a second look for more links tomorrow Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two sections of the article sound too much like an advertisement for the park to me:
    • The "Cabins" section gives so much detail about what is in the cabins and when they are available that I felt like I was reading a brochure.
    I believe this information is needed because it is an article about the park. I feel like there is too much info about the history, ecology and geology. I feel like cutting out details about the facilities at the park will even further diminish the details on what is actually available to the visitor. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked this section somewhat, removing some adjectives, etc.,
    I still think this is unnecessary information, but unless other reviewers mention it, I will let it go. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the "Trails" section need to list every trail? I think examples would be sufficient. Again, I had a brochure moment.
    Same thoughts as the cabins. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)What criteria would be used for examples? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed several repeated instances of "gentle slopes" and one "steep". This should read less like a brochure. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The brochure moments are still there for me. Examples:
    All cabin renters need to bring their own dinnerware, pots and pans, towels, dishes, and bed linens
    Shortened this a bit, but I still feel like readers will need to know if they need to bring household items. Dincher (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of these picnic tables and unreserved pavilions is first come, first served, and they are free of charge
    I don't understand the problem here. It clearly states the availability of the facilities.Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not exactly sure how to choose the trails, but something must be done. When I got to this list, I just groaned - readers are not interested in every detail about the park. We have to remember that we are not here to provide detailed hiking information about the park. We are not just replicating the parks website. We need to be selective. I noticed that one trail won an award - that is an obvious choice for inclusion. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I eliminated a few of them kept, Allegheny Front Trail it is a major trail that passes through the park and could be it's own article, kept Bog Trail it's the winner. Kept Hay Road Trail it is historical. Kept Moss-Hanne Trail it goes through the natural area. Kept Ski Slope Trail it is historical, as is Sleepy Hollow Trail. Kept Snowmobile Trail it is a connector trail to snowmobile trails in the state forest (I wish there was no such thing (snowmobile trails in state forests that is.)), kept Star Mill Trail it's also historical. Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked this a bit - all 13 trails are still in the article, but only 6 of 13 are in the "Trails" section - one is now in Native Americans, four are in the "Lumber" section (in a block of 3 and Tent Hill Trail after Tent Hill), Ski Slope Trail is in "Modern Era" (guess where?), and Sleepy Hollow Trail's story of gypsy moth recovery now follows the forests in the "Wildlife" section. I call it the getting small children to eat method - chop it up into little bits and mix it in with things they like. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I always like being compared to a small child. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do we need a list of nearby state parks?
    There are 120 Pennsylvania state park articles that have nearby state parks listed. I believe this information is relevant to the reader that is interested in visiting this particular park and any nearby parks. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)This also follows the model of FA Presque Isle State Park Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for an interesting read! As usual, Ruhr, your images are beautiful! Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Initial response: Thanks very much for your careful reading, comments, and questions, which I will work on responding to individually. However, I wanted to make clear that this is one of 120 Pennsylvania state parks. As such, we have tried to do certain things the same through all 120 articles, although there are naturally some variations. I will also note that some of the issues on Native American references are my fault - this section has been rewritten in PR and again here in FAC and I was not as careful as I should have been and apologize. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for your critical eye, helpful comments, and support. I apologize again for the small child remark - I was trying to make an analogy, not cast aspersions. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I meant to get to this sooner, but (insert charming excuse for lack of time here). I participated in the Peer Review and thought the article excellent then, but as is usually the case, the article has improved even more due to helpful comments from FAC reviewers able to get here before me. Wonderful work, guys; this is a highly interesting and well put together article that deserves its gold star. María (habla conmigo) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support and all the work at PR! Dincher (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - thanks very much for your careful reading, comments and support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:30, 24 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

    Flag of Canada

    edit
    previous FAC


    I am self-nominating this article because I believe it meets the relevant criteria, and recently helped to get the article promoted to Good Article status. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments As a Canadian I would like to see this as a FA. However:

    • The chart on my PC is squished and disturbed.
    • Is there no way to expand the alternative section?

    I will post my other comments later when I have the time. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The image gallery should look fine if you are using a resolution of 1024x768 or greater, which covers pretty much everybody. What screen size are you using?
    • The alternative section is a new addition. In reality, it would be more appropriate as a subsection of an existing section, but it is not really related to any of the other sections. Perhaps if some new heading suggestions could be given, then it could be merged into one of them. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Minor concern - This isn't an oppose, and it might be stylistic. However: There are two sources at the top and a lot of facts. That worries me. Some of it should be common, especially in Canada, but an South African (for example) reading the article might not know such things. Also, if this passes (and it most likely will unless something big comes up), will we all be singing "O Canada"? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • References generally do not need to be in the lead as long as the information is also presented later on in the article and properly referenced there. I also plan on making O Canada a WP:FA, so if you don't sing now, you will sing then ;) Gary King (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, thats why I said stylistic. Its a good article, from what I can tell. And that song was always fun. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out Ealdgyth - Talk 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've resolved your other concerns by removing About.com and fixing some references. The shaw.ca link works for me. Gary King (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SupportSorry about the time delay. I see nothing wrong so far... Look at these Flag FAs...

    Just to see if we can add anything that's in here. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The big difference between the Canadian flag and those flags is that Canada and its flag are both relatively new compared to, say, Germany, which has a 1,000+ year history :) So the history section is a lot shorter here. Gary King (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing wrong as far as I see. Good job Gary King. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Poorly written. Here are random examples from just the lead, showing why the whole text needs serious attention. I do wonder at reviews that say things like "nothing wrong". And "so far" apparently forecasts my review.

    Comments Wow, I missed a lot. Nice Tony.

    • I find this confusing: Before this, the Canadian Red Ensign charged with the shield of Canada in the fly, authorized for use on Canadian merchant ships from 1892...

    What's it supposed to mean? I mean I do sort of understand from the subsequent sentences, but it would seem rather confusing to most and would take some time to comprehend.

    • And many statements are still childish. It too forms a component of other Canadian flags, notably the flag of Manitoba and the flag of Ontario.. "It too"?
    • Ahem, mind mentioning the other two designs that were beaten out by the current one?

    --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues brought up by Sunset have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Structure needs work. The design section jumps right in to details about whether the point count on the maple leaf means anything. It could use some introduction then cover the dimensions, colors and maple leaf in a pattern of general to specific. The history section is a summary but likewise needs an introduction. I would expect a paragraph on the history of the previous flag. The first paragraph right now is mostly current protocol for the Union Jack, which could probably be moved to Protocol. It also says the Jack "was used as a de jure flag until the adoption of the current flag in 1965" - this is the first time the Jack is mentioned (after the lead) and a reader might wonder where the Red Ensign fits in. Should the Alternative flags section perhaps mention the Queen's flag and the Governor General's flag? Is there a reason for the commercial external link (EFlagsource)? Gimmetrow 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you take another look at the article now to see if your concerns have been addressed? Gary King (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a marked improvement in article structure. Would it be possible to merge some images into the text to avoid the gallery? Gimmetrow 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the gallery is very useful, especially to show the evolution of the flag. Here's what it used to look like, and the gallery helps organize it a lot. If you really feel strongly about it, though, then I can do something about it. Gary King (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't feel strongly about it, but galleries tend to be temporary measures while an article is developing. Galleries tend to make an article look incomplete, and so few FAs have them. I don't think a gallery is an obstacle to FA, though. Gimmetrow 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just reduce the images in the gallery. I think we can remove the former Union Flag, the first confederation flag, and the 1920's ensign. We have to keep the Red Ensign, Union Jack, Pearson Pennant, and maybe the chosen flag with the multiple point maple leaf. I personally think another section can be added to other official flags of Canada. I did this with the article Flag of Lithuania, which is a featured article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments Overall, I liked this article and thought it was pretty well-written. I did notice, however, that the lead mentions a national contest to create the flag, but this is not mentioned in the body of the article. If you can fix that mismatch I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I know of no government-sponsored contest to design the flag and have now removed that sentence from the lead. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracias! Gary King (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources concerns:
    • Accuracy: The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website. Even Wiki's article on them states that they have outdated information.
    • What makes this a reliable source (it looks like a personal website)?
    Please, reviewers Supporting a nomination should remember that WP:V is policy. An unlinked date at Fraser, Alistair B. (1998-01-30). "A Canadian Flag for Canada", The Flags of Canada. Retrieved on April 20, 2008 results in inconsistent date formatting; pls check all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. Gary King (talk) 00:12, 24 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

    Émile Lemoine

    edit

    previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008)


    I'm renominating this after a recently failed nomination with no supports or opposes. I've made the article longer in case there was any hesitation about that, and have fully addressed any partially addressed concerns in the previous FAC. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support No major problems that can be determined from right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you add a few sources to flesh out his relationship with "triangle geometry". This seems very important, and might need three or four more paragraphs at the bottom on that topic and one more at the top to gloss over his role as a mathematician for general reference. The page doesn't have any problems I see, but I think it would be nice if you added this for the unexperienced or non-knowledgeable. I would definitely approve if you fleshed it out in this way (although I am definitely not going to "oppose" either way). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job so far. However, the formating of the one diagram of "The Lemoine point" seems to cause a few problems. Perhaps shrink the picture down to 200, just say "diagram of the Lemoine point" and put a paragraph or two on what the point is specifically in the section the picture will be in. That will help add more weight to why Emile is important and will explain the point to outsiders without possibly confusing them as a picture caption may do. The lead may need a little reworking to have his math contributions as its own paragraph, so that there are two paragraphs of biography and one paragraph of notable contributions. There should be enough meat in the biography sections to summarize two paragraphs worth at the top (one more sentence added to the first paragraph, maybe 3 or four added with the first line of the second paragraph to talk about his action career). How does that sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For your first point, it is described in the adjoining text, and it originally was very small, but Randomblue below wanted a more descriptive image caption and a larger image, so I provided. I'll work on expanding the lead. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood
    I think randomblue is wrong here based on standard captioning principles. The concept is large enough to warrant a few paragraphs, or even its own page. Putting it into a caption only causes confusion. If you like Emile, you could probably write up a few other pages about his works and put "see also" or "main article" on this page. Read this for some ideas on how to work the information. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to put it at 300 px and remove the long caption except for the color legend (which doesn't belong in the main text) for a compromise. What do you think of that? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I rewrote the lead. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks much better. By the way, should you add "Lemoine's Conjecture" which is defined as "Every odd number which is at least 7 can be expressed in the form of 2p + q where p and q are prime" made in 1894(according to Dickson's History of the Theory of Numbers 4 vol. I, p. 424)? This was later transformed for use in the "Know/Don't Know Problem". It was is refined into (Refined Lemoine's Conjecture) "For any odd number m which is at least 9, there are odd prime numbers p, q, r and s and positive integers j and k such that m = 2p + q, 2 + pq = 2^j + r and 2q + p = 2^k + s" (p. 201 of John O. Kiltinen and Peter B. Young "Goldbach, Lemoine, and a Know/Don't Know Problem" Mathematics Magazine Vol. 58, No. 4 (Sep., 1985), pp. 195-203) They say "the study has directed our attention to more subtle aspects of the additive theory of prime numbers. Our conjecture (RLC) reflects this, dealing with interactions of sums involving primes whereas (GC) and (LC) deals with such sums only individually. This conjecture and the open questions about numbers at levels two and three are of interest in their own right because of the issues they raise within this fascinating and often baffling additive realm of the prime numbers."( p. 202-203) I think that might be a little important in showing another one of his theories and how it was being applied later in another way (reinforces notability of his work). What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the addition. It's probably is notable enough for the "contributions" section, since it was refined later; I'll add it. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't read much yet except the lead and the 'Lemoine point and circle' paragraph. The lead contains too many times the word 'he', especially close to the beginning of sentences, which breaks the flow a bit. In the 'Lemoine point and circle' paragraph, since the article isn't long, a one line explanation of the technical terms 'symmedian' and 'concyclic' would be greatly appreciated, since they aren't very common for the non-geometer. Finally, the picture in the 'Lemoine point and circle' paragraph is unexplained, so that it is currently useless. Randomblue (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the 'Construction system' paragraph, "The previous solution had simplicity 400" by who? when? and what is the current status of the problem? You got the reader interested, give him some flesh! Randomblue (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lemoine has been described as a founder of modern triangle geometry, a term used by several mathematical associations such as the Mathematical Association of America" This is redundant. The whole last paragraph should be merged to the previous.Randomblue (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually intend to expand that last bit very soon (within the next hour, probably) in accordance with Ottava Rima's request, describing his role as the founder, etc. The presenting of the same information again is useful in leading off the topic, and I must say, the coverage is already more thorough despite the fact that I haven't finished writing it yet. Several featured articles have a concept summarized in one section and then expanded on in another. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Good job in addressing my comments, but there are still concerns and copyediting to be dealt with
      • 1 "Simpler modern solutions now exist, such as the solution by Frederick Soddy in 1936 and the solution by David Eppstein in 2001." what simplicities?
      • 2 Maybe explain the colours of the picture and, possibly, make it bigger, since it's rather illegible.
      • 3 "Lemoine's system of constructions, called Geometrography" was it Geometrography or "géométrographie"?
      • 4 (two accents in fact) "Une regle d'analogies dans le triangle et la specification de certaines analogies à une transformation dite transformation continue(1893)" you forgot many accents and there is a spacing error (space after continue). Check out for these!
      • 5 When using references not in English, format the references as in German flag.
      • 6 "As a mathematician, Lemoine published a great number of papers" Everything is relative, maybe give a specific (approximate) number.
      • 7 In the references, avoid (in en) and (in english) without capitalization (see previous comment)
      • 8 "École D'Architecture and the École de Mines" -> École d'Architecture and the École des Mines. I'm a native French speaker, I'll try and correct mistakes.
      • 9 the Geometrography is presented quite a few times in this small article, making it a redundant read
      • 10 The capitalization of the nouns in the French titles seems inconsistent. I forgot the rules. If you don't know them either, then I can go check them up.
      • 11 Your page numbering in the references is inconsistent abbreviationwise. Sometimes you abbreviate as in 733-4, and sometimes you don't. I prefer you abbreviate everything.
      • 12 What is the Congrès de Pau?
      • 13 I don't like the Anglicization, maybe stick with the original to make the article more 'original' and 'French sounding'.
        • Well, they took fewer steps; the exact number is not mentioned in the source. I think I addressed your second point pretty well. As for your third, the former is a Anglicization of the latter term; should this be explained? The next point about the title I've addressed; I checked the source and I was in fact only missing one accent. For the multilingual references, the {{cite}} family of templates by default formats it a different way when language= is specified, so I've converted all the refs to that format. I quantified the papers. I'll do the rest tomorrow. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 14 "I quantified the papers." where?
      • 15 many links need to be disambiguated: analytic, collinearity, concurrency (twice), parallel, point, and vertex
      • 16 inconsistency remain for the languages in reference (different for ref 17 and ref 20)
      • 17 the angle bisector from the point A is too long; you can cut off a bit on the bottom of the picture (gain of space and nicer)
      • 18 all dates should be formatted like 'November 22, 1840' and not '22 November 1840'
      • 19 a 'List of selected works' paragraph at the very end would be appreciable, as in Mario Vargas Llosa
      • 20 the article Société Mathématique de France says it was founded in 1871, not 1872. Who's right?
      • 21 you put the French maths societies/clubs/associations in italics but not "Mathematical Association of America" and "American Mathematical Society"
      • 22 Lemoine played music, but what instrument?
      • 23 I may be mistaken, but it seems the set of operations doesn't include drawing an arbitrary point or line in the plane. If so, how would one start a construction with an empty plane?
      • 24 Emile's name is both on top of and below his picture. Delete bottom one.

    Good luck, I'll be very busy in the coming week, so might not respond before that time. For now, it's still a firm oppose for me, since typos are everywhere. Randomblue (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • I believe I've addressed all your points except a select few: for #9, which occurence(s) do you exactly suggest removing? They all are necessary in their respective contexts. For #10, I believe it's first word capitalized, all other words except proper nouns not. I can't find a French title that violates that in the article. For #14, see DHMO's second comment. For #20, I have a very reliable source (the Smith one) that says that, while only a self-published source in that article says otherwise, so I believe this article is right. For #23, I don't think that drawing a point is an operation per se - a point can't be "drawn," as it has no area and is simply a location in the plane. As for drawing a line, I believe that extending a line would include extending a line of zero length. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Generally, refs shouldn't be used in the infobox
    • "Most of these papers are included in Nathan Court's College Geometry, and occupy fourteen pages in it" --> needs some rewording...the stuff after the comma is awkward
    • "Instead, he took a brief vacation" - "instead" isn't really necessary
    • "Other results in the paper included that the symmedian from a vertex" - feels like you're missing a "the idea" before the "that" or something like that...
    • "In this context, "modern" is used to refer to geometry developed from the late 18th century onward." - needs a ref
    • "Geometrography" this is sometimes in italics, sometimes not. Be consistent.

    Yeah, a more mathsy-person might find more stuff. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Sorry about that, but I believe featured articles should be irreproachable, and there are still typos I can detect. Since the stuff I detect is quite superficial and only deals with a fraction of all the potential mistakes, this articles requires a thorough copyedit by a fresh eye.
    • 1) I can spot at least two mistakes in "Note sur les propriétés du center des médianes antiparalleles dans un triangle (1874)"
    • 2) "La Géométrographie ou l'art des constructions Géométriques (1892)" why is Géométriques with a capital?
    • 3) Inconsistent spacing between "2p+q" and "m = 2p + q, 2 + pq" -> I prefer LaTeX
    • 4) "Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques" why capitals everywhere?
    • 5) "called, respectively, the second and third Lemoine circles" should that be "circle"?
    • 6) "John Kiltinen and Peter Young|For any odd" what is the | ? why repeat they're names anyway?
    • 7) in the "Lemoine's conjecture" paragraph, there is a very long citation. Have you checked the MOS to see if you don't need a citation box?
    • 8) "His abstract "géométrographie"" but "Lemoine's system of constructions, the géométrograpie" with or without "?
    • 9) "Journal des mathématiques Élementaires" first, there is a typo at élémentaires, then, why a capital for élémentaire?
    • 10) In the "Early years" paragraph, many of the schools are not wikilinked
    • 11) "collinearity, concurrency and concyclity," but "placing it on a given line, drawing a circle with the compass, placing a straightedge on a given line, and extending a line with the straightedge." be consistent on use of the comma
    • 12) "To none of these [geometers] more than Émile-Michel-Hyacinthe Lemoine is due the honor of starting this movement [of modern triangle geometry]... <- You haven't closed the citation.
    • 13) Lemoine is best-known -> best known?
    • 14) "are included a fourteen-page section" did you miss out a word?
    • 15) "Additionally, he founded a mathematical journal. [6]" no need for space between "journal." and "[6]"
    • 16) "La Géométrographie ou l'art des constructions Géométriques (1892)" but ref 13 doesn't have "La", please please please watch out for this kind of things. I don't have the sources in front of me so I can only detect the inconsistencies...
    • 17) do we really need the (in English) for ref 18 (and others)?
    • 18) "the Association in Lyon" what is the Association?
    • 19) For titles you seem to use italics. Why not for "La Trompette"?
    • 20) "but was discouraged by he fact" typo
    • 21) "entitled L'intermédiaire des mathématiciens along with Charles Laisant" maybe give a word of this Laisant, e.g. his relationship with Lemoine
    • 22) " The American Mathematical Monthly, in which much of Lemoine's work is published" I would be nice if you put the journal and page number in "List of selected works", so as to facilitate finding the sources
    • 23) Watch out for overlinking, École Polytechnique is linked twice in the lead
    • 24) Does "music" really need to be linked?
    • 25) In the "Middle years" paragraph la géométrographie is discussed three times, and twice in just one subparagraph "(which he called "géométrographie")" and "entitled La Géométrographie"
    • 26) inconsistent use of parenthesis for dates for "in Pau in 1892, and again at Besançon (1893) and Caen (1894).[2]"
    • 27) "He also participated and founded several mathematical societies and journals, such as the Société Mathématique de France, the Journal de Physique, and the Société de Physique, all in 1871." Is the "Société de Physique" a "mathematical society" or "journal"?
    • 28) "Early years" could have dates in parenthesis, same for middle and later years
    • 29) In refs, "Eric W. Weisstein" linked and "Weisstein, Eric. W." not linked, be consistent
    • 30) sometimes "Mathematical Association of America" in italics, sometimes not
    • 31) ref 18, "1893-1-1" : use consistent dating
        • For #1, if there's a mistake, then it's in the source, because I checked it three times against the source and they're completely the same. For #3, I prefer LaTeX too, but I think that such simple expressions shouldn't merit it. For #5, that's a definite no. For #7, see Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone. For #10, the schools are not notable enough to have articles. For #13, actually, "best-known" is perfectly acceptable. For number 14, the article already says "are included in a fourteen page section," not the quote you gave. For #18, it is quite clear that the Association being referred to is the one described only about five words earlier in the same sentence. For #19, according to MOS, it shouldn't have italics or quotations, (i.e. like The Beatles), so I removed the quotations. For #22, Lemoine didn't write that about himself (obviously), so I'm unsure as to why it should be in the list of his most notable works. The page numbers are given in the footnote directly following that sentence. For #24, I believe it should be per WP:CONTEXT. I'm confused as to the nature of #27. Why is that even an issue? In addition to your points, I've given the article a thorough copyedit, and hope that it meets your standards now. Thank you for you thorough review. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The correct title is "Note sur les propriétés du centre des médianes antiparallèles dans un triangle". if your source is wrong, then the source maybe isn't that good
    • 3) Granted
    • 5) Ok, I'm not an English expect
    • 7) I trust you on that one
    • 10) I disagree, the École des Mines, at least, is very famous
    • 13) Are you sure? When I search "is best-known" in google, the first 50 results are exclusively "is best known"
    • 14) I changed it myself before you arrived
    • 19) Ok for the change
    • 22) You miss-understood what I was trying to say: could you please add the American Mathematical Monthly details for his articles in the list of works so that when I go to the library I can find his original work
    • 23) You haven't addressed this point
    • 24) WP:CONTEXT says "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding." Does the link to music aid navigation or understanding? I'm not convinced.
    • 27) It's a bit as if you said "I like vegetables, such as carrot, beans, and pork. Pork isn't a vegetable. In the same way, the "Société de Physique" is (referring to the title) a physical society, not a "mathematical society" or "journal" as claimed.
    • 30) This hasn't been addressed in the refs
    • 32) Ref 19 has a red link
    • 33) Ref 13 has a typo
    • 34) I'm still don't understand why placing a point, and drawing an arbitrary line aren't operations allowed in his "construction system". Maybe a word of explanation would be nice.
    • 35) ref 4 has two dots in a row
    • 36) geometer links to List of geometers. Is that what you want? or rather a link to geometry?
    • 37) géométrograpie, typo
    • 38) "2+pq=2j + r" inconsistent spacing
    • 39) "Francoeur prize" inconsistent use of capitals
      • Fo #1, it's an article written by an American who didn't know much French, so I suppose that's why the French is flawed. For #10, ah, my apologies, I only tried the first one and then assumed they were all alike. It seems that all but one of them have articles. For #13, I've seen the hyphened version used in some texts, and according to this it's correct English. For #22 sorry, but I think that none of the notable works listed in the "list of selected articles" section were published in the American Mathematical Monthly, or at least my source(s) specify that they were published elsewhere. If they were reprinted in the American Mathematical Monthly, I have no knowledge of it. For #24, I still think it adds some context, but if you insist, I'll remove it. For #27, I guess I didn't think about the "mathematical" part of the "mathematical society". I'll change it to "scientific societies," a broader term. For #36, yes, that is what I want. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 13) I think the hyphened version is correct when "best-know" is an adjective, as your reference says. However, here, "best" is an adverb and "know" is a verb, so maybe the correct form is indeed "best know".
    • 40) Please change all é to é, and maybe the corresponding to è (see source to understand)
    • 41) "Association Française pour l'Avancement des Sciences" is written in full length three times in one paragraph
    • 42) I count 14 times the word "he" in the small "Later years (1895–1912)" paragraph
    • 43) When reading Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone they say "For long quotes, you may wish to use Quotation templates." The quote in the "Lemoine's conjecture" paragraph takes up two thirds of the paragraph. I think for clarity it deserves a template.
    • 44) "University Northern Iowa", "of" missing
    • 45) "Other mathematical work includes a system he called géométrographie and a method which related algebraic expressions to geometric objects." maybe talk about his conjecture in lead as well
    • 46) There are virtually no article that links to Émile Lemoine. Maybe we ought to publicize him a bit in articles such as Symmedian, Société Mathématique de France, Problem of Apollonius, Brocard circle, Brocard points, Nagel point, Tarry point, and Charles Ange Laisant.
    • 47) Could we have a pronunciation for his name, since non-French speaking people may have problems pronouncing his name?
    • 48) Are you sure "Francoeur" shoudn't be written "Francœur"?

    Support :) I don't have much to say anymore, good job in addressing my comments.

    Randomblue (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reliable sources issues: A very large portion of this article is cited to mathworld.com, which appears to be a user-contributor site.[8][9][10] This is not the sort of scholarly source we should use in a bio. I am mystified that this article has gotten this far into two FACs, with Supports, without anyone questioning the sourcing. The final footnote has no publisher. The WP:LEAD is meager (should provide a compelling summary of the entire article, capable of standing alone while drawing the reader in). I easily spotted a MoS issue (WP:MOS#Ellipses), so it's unclear if reviewers engaged criterion 2 (if the sourcing is ironed out, you could ask User:Epbr123 to run through and check for MoS issues). Most urgently, please explain why MathWorld is used to source a biography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't review sourcing, because I don't much about them. However, Mathworld is a pretty reliable source, since every user who participates has his/her name attached to the article, and the articles are reviewed (I think) before publishing. Randomblue (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a biography that uses almost no print or scholarly or academic or peer reviewed or published sources; on Mathworld, see WP:V and WP:SELFPUB. What makes any author there a reliable source? Attaching a name isn't enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a few of the contributors are famous mathematicians, although some of the less knowm must be PhD students or something.
    The requisite per WP:SPS is: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Are they experts published in the field by independent reliable sources? Or is Wiki merely parroting bio info found on an internet website (one author whose date of death is given as 1961)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Mathworld websites, there is in fact a mathematics treatise (ref #18) to cite the same material to address Karanac's concerns. As for MacTutor, there are some of Robertson's mathematical works listed on the University of St. Andrew's website. Unfortunately, the same can't be said of O'Connor. All I can find by him is NY Times articles unrelated to mathematics by him: [12]. I'm unsure if this would qualify MacTutor as a reliable source. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like, then, that you could remove Mathworld without losing citation, since it's doubled? Regarding MacTutor, see WP:SPS quoted above; if he hasn't been independently published, can those sources be replaced? When dealing with biographies, even if not BLPs, we really shouldn't be parroting info found on a non-reliable internet website, and we should strive for better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathworld removed. I'll search for a source to replace MacTutor. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source issues. Ling asked me to comment on this FAC and the first thing I see are helpful sources being questioned and removed. I am particularly surprised to see the MacTutor archive being questioned. This resource is published by the University of St Andrews and is linked from the School of Mathematics and Statistics webpage. Both Dr John J. O'Connor and Professor Edmund F. Robertson are professional experts on the history of mathematics, and have published on the subject in reliable sources in addition to the MacTutor archive. See this list of publications and this professional home page.
    Mathworld has the editorial oversight of Dr. Eric W. Weisstein, a professional encylopedist, and is published by Wolfram Research. Additionally, much of the material on this website can be found in the CRC Concise encyclopedia of mathematics, edited by Dr. Weisstein and published by CRC press. If editors feel sensitive about quoting an online source with a name like "Mathworld", they could instead look in the encyclopedia, which is available online here and most of it can also be found at books.google.com. Geometry guy 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the kind of information that is needed to establish the source as acceptable per WP:V; what is surprising is that aspiring FA writers and nominators frequently do not know how to respond to these queries (usually from Ealdgyth, it's rare that Ealdgyth misses one) even when quoted WP:S or WP:SELFPUB, which explicitly state what kind of information we need to establish that a source meets WP:V. Thanks for the info, G guy; and please don't be surprised. It's our "job". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 24 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:25, 24 April 2008.

    The Third of May 1808

    edit

    Self-nominator Major painting by Goya, and 200th anniversary of the event depicted will be May 3, 2008. I may not be able to participate fully in the copyedit process, but others with significant knowledge who have already contributed (Johnbod, Ceoil, Ewulp, Modernist, and Outriggr) will, hopefully, be available. JNW (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Articlestats:

    Ceoil 205
    Johnbod 115
    Modernist 82
    JNW 55
    Noetica 44

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the instructions at WP:FAC, were the principle editors consulted prior to nomination? Ceoil indicates (below) that nomination wasn't expected so soon: should the nom be withdrawn? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one suggested the nomination yesterday (JNW talk) - mainly I admit in hopes getting the main page on the 200th anniversary. The stats are I think rather misleading due to different editing styles. The recent expansion was by JNW, after which we other 3 and others have been adding & polishing. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see (wondering why it isn't a co-nom, then?). Thanks, John. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I pinged Outrriggr for a ce last night. If he responds its all achedimic. [I caurnt spell, and dont want to be held to it!]. Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if the article was submitted for FA status too quickly, and without proper consultation. This was due, in part, and as Johnbod explained, to my eagerness to prepare the item for the main page by May 3, and to my inexperience in this process. As we say in academic circles, my bad. JNW (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any language or style issues. In fact, I can't write this well :) I enjoyed Simon Schama's program on this painting, and learned so much more from this article. Beautiful. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RESOLVED STUFF --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I'm not entirely happy with the prose. To be candid, it is clunky and inelegant in places. It has all the hallmarks of a piece which has been worked on fragment by fragment by many editors, with no one editor giving it a close copy-edit from top to bottom for coherence and style. This now needs doing (probably a day's work). Here are a few examples (and they serve only as examples):

    • The circumstances precipitating The Third of May constituted a personal crisis for Goya The point is lost here.
    • It is not known whether Goya was witness to either the rebellion or the reprisals,[15] although many attempts have been made to establish him as a witness to the events of both days. This could probably be reduced by a third and made clearer.
    • Civilian Spanish opposition continued for the following five years of the Peninsular War; in the original guerrilla war, from which the term derives,[7] irregular Spanish forces considerably aided the Spanish and British armies led by Wellington, who first landed in Portugal in August 1808. Too much information crammed into one rambling, repetitive sentence.
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rodger, copy edit is underway. Nomination was not expected quite so soon;) Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much improved. A couple of small points:
    • In "his memoirs of the Royal Academy", I presume by Royal Academy you mean the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando (Royal Academy of Fine Arts) in Madrid? By an odd coincidence, I created the stub for that :)
    • The 2006 exhibition was a joint Prado/Reina Sofia exhibition, with The Third of May, Guernica, and the Execution of the Emperor Maximilian in the same room at the Reina Sofia not the Prado. (Honest, I went.)
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a link re you first point. The second, I think does not need to be spelled out in full? Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of accuracy it might be best to get the venue right :) I've tweaked it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Roger and Ceoil for clarifying and linking to the Real Academia. The reference I used was not more specific, so I appreciate the elaboration. JNW (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And my apologies, Rodger; I misunderstood what you were saying. Ceoil (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - web links checked out okay, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phew! Thanks Ealdgyth. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O Ceoil, not fully! I have more to do, and will get on with it tomorrow (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Interesting article. I'll have my say here when I've copyedited more.[See below.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T–]
    –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats fine Noetica, we cant spell, but we can waite. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the third paragraph in the "Description" section and the following paragraphs in The Disasters of War section seem out of place. I think the flow would be better going from description to provenance, and then on to "Relationship to other works" or some such. Jfire (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—As usual from these editors, it's among our best work. (I think I tweaked a bit of it before nomination.) Tony (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Another excellent painting article that has my strong commendation. I would now urge editors not to overwork it, and simply to protect it from any new editing that is not up to standard. It should pass as it is right now, I say.
    –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm delighted by your enthusiasm but don't you think you should declare your interest as a copy-editor of this? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger, I made–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!'s involement fairly clear above. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. I only did some late polishing, at Ceoil's request. And that has recently been documented at the head, and in remarks above.
    –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the edits, Mm40. Ceoil (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any time, Ceoil. Or anyone else. I'll copy edit anything you ask me to. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to come back and read the article again, but I'm really tied up with style guidelines and other stuff, and seriously...some of our best writers, and passed by Tony and Noetica? And some of the language was really beautiful the first time I skimmed it. If it were possible to support it without reading it, I would :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:20, 23 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:25, 24 April 2008.

    Halo: Contact Harvest

    edit

    Rest easy guys... it's not about a video game, it's about a bestselling novel based on a video game. It's a shorter article again (I know, I know) but I feel that it exhausts all the good sources floating around out there. Hack it apart, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I see, trying to trick me with a book about a video game??? Anyway, sources look good. Links worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry... I've got some history articles in the works, but the next likely candidate is a straight shooter. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want citations for the plot? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really know. Page numbers would help, at least to verify the details. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll see about getting someone on that (I only have the audiobook.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha. :) Btw, I will move to "support" if you can provide a section of third party analysis of how the work is different or the same to the video games. I would think 5-7 sources, two paragraphs, would be enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is info like that. Contact Harvest takes place before the games, and unlike Halo: The Flood is entirely original story, not an adaptation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you left me without any more ground to complain. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Your FACs just keep getting shorter and shorter, eh, David? I thought the Spyro article was short, but this probably tops them. I don't see anything wrong with the article, images, citations, or anything else, it's written in your classic style. bibliomaniac15 02:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a style now? Actually, DotA is the shortest FA article I've written at only 1098 words. Spyro 3 had 1984 words, and this has about 1600, just slightly less than Populous: The Beginning. Admittedly, that's less than the 3091 of Master Chief (Halo) and 2249 of Cortana, but then there's always the 1196 of Iridion 3D. So it's right in the middle :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Not well written. Not comprehensive (and when you exclude the synopsis, it's very threadbare, including the lead). Here are a few random examples of prose glitches:

    • "Staten directed the cut scenes in the video games and is a major contributor to Halo's storyline"—"was"?
    • "Staten set out to pen a novel that not only appealed to gamers, but those who had never picked up a Halo novel previously." "To pen" in this context is a little precious nowadays, if not downright inaccurate. The not only ... but also is a tired, marked version of "and" that you'd use if a plus b was unusual or surprising. And the placement of "not only" is wrong. "Previously" is redundant.
    • "It is an "ensemble piece"—The quotes tell us that it's a particular usage of the item, but I still don't understand the meaning—gloss it briefly?
    • "and made multiple bestseller lists"—you make a list? Bit loose. "Multiple" is excessive and not one of the most sonorous words in English. "Many"? Or better still, be less vague ("more than eight"?).

    And down the bottom: "Several publications believed that the story was biased against gamers and insulting.[17][18][19]"—No, it's the critics/writers who do that. Tony (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed the above issues, just pointing out it made the NYT bestseller list since that's the one people would be most familiar with. As for "comprehensive" - it's frankly as comprehensive as it ever will be. I couldn't dig up any more reviews, and there's not enough reliable sourcing to discuss much of the content of the novel. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments.

    • "Staten directed the cut scenes" - use "he" instead of his name (repetition)
    • "as well as those who had never picked up a Halo novel." - is this a quote? Otherwise, slightly jargonish with "picked up" etc...I dunno, not a big deal
    • "of story in games." - you mean in video games? And you mean stories related to them, or in game plots, or huh...?
    • "about writing action, Staten replied that he felt that writing action" - repetition
    • "offending weapon in the book, but justified the inclusion" - should "but" be "and"?
    • "Upon release, Contact Harvest debuted at #3 on The New York Times Bestseller List, as well as appearing on the USA Today bestseller's list;[11] the novel remained on the NYT bestseller list for four more weeks." - I don't like the wording here. Just mention all the NYT still, then USA Today, IMO

    Mostly looks good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made the changes, thanks for the review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Prose looks good to me, and I don't consider the seemingly short length to be an issue. I would echo Ottava Rima's above statement about adding some references for the plot section though, verifing key points with the page they happen should be sufficient. -- Sabre (talk) 22:53, 19 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:49, 22 April 2008.

    Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)

    edit

    Self-nomination. This is a quirky little article about a highly important figure in the history of American wilderness activism. I randomly began editing it a year ago when it was only a couple months old and barely more than a stub. It is now a Good Article and has received an extensive copy-edit from User:Scartol as well as Peer Review help from User:The Rambling Man and User:Ruhrfisch. I believe that the article is comprehensive, well written and verifiable. All of the links and the images seem to check out. (On a side note, although I have attempted to obtain a better image of Marshall, so far all of my requests have been snubbed.) Although my school semester is hectically drawing to an end, I will endeavor to respond to questions and concerns as quickly as possible. Thank you! María (habla conmigo) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although Marshall had many titles during his life (forester, writer, explorer, etc.), he is best known and remembered for his wilderness activism work, which is why the disambiguation uses "wilderness activist". From what I understand, what is "normal" is subjective; there's also Bernard Frank (wilderness activist), but most other articles dealing with wilderness activists do not require disambiguation, which is probably why you have not seen it before. María (habla conmigo) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By providing one other use of it, you have established that it is acceptable, or at least, stylistically normal. I would hate for there to be different phrases for the same thing out there. I like uniformity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I copyedited this article some time ago, and it appears to have made steady progress from that already-polished state since. Kudos to Yllosubmarine for her fine work. Because there are several other Bob Marshalls, I'd prefer to see a general disambig link ("...for other uses, see...") at the top of the page, rather than mentioning two others specifically. Otherwise, nice job. – Scartol • Tok 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandy is right; infoboxes are optional, not mandatory, so this isn't an actionable oppose. Numerous articles have been recently promoted to FA status without infoboxes -- Emily Dickinson, for example. Personally, I believe that with an article as comprehensive as this, an infobox is unnecessary. María (habla conmigo) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually find infoboxes distracting, and they usually repeat info found in the lead. – Scartol • Tok 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement for an infobox, so it really isn't a suitable criterion to oppose the promotion of an article. Is there anything else objectionable? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From here: "Wilderness.net is a website formed in 1996 through a collaborative partnership between the College of Forestry and Conservation's Wilderness Institute at The University of Montana, the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute... Wilderness.net houses the only officially-recognized, national, comprehensive, inter-agency database of information about all Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and National Park Service wilderness areas. Not only does it serve as the definitive Internet source for wilderness acreages and area descriptory information, Wilderness.net works directly with agency wilderness management staff to provide other important information, such as regulations and contact information."
    • Yup; fixed.
    All other links checked out Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support an excellent article and very interesting read. Dincher (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support a nice little article (and just about the only current nomination that tells us anything about the subject. When did the noms get so boring?). I've left some inline queries for a couple of bits I found unclear. The only bit that really sticks is this:
      Marshall's last years were productive ones. By October 1937, he had taken 200 hikes that were 33 miles (53 km) long, 51 walks that were 40 miles (64 km) and a number of longer hikes, including at least one of 70 miles (113 km) Aside from the fact we don't know when this starts and it implies that he took 200 hikes of exactly 33 miles, he has been reduced from a wilderness activist to a hobby hiker.
      Good work on the whole though, well done. Yomanganitalk 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Yomangan, for the kind words and detailed read; your copy-editing helped greatly and I believe I've addressed your remaining hidden notes (another user helped before I was on the scene). I agree completely with the random hiking enthusiast stats and have removed it. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but seems a little too random now. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    • PhD, pullease, not Ph.D.—I fixed one, but there's at least one other.
    • Tony1, I de-abbgreviated your de-periodizing of "Ph.D." to make it consistent with the format of the two other degrees mentioned in the article. I put more weight on consistency than actual format.
      Jim Dunning | talk 15:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support This was an easy one to pass on to GA, and some excellent improvements have been made since PR. Nice work, Maria, and all other contributors. Very informative and enjoyable read. I wish more FAs were of this quality and easy to support.
    Jim Dunning | talk 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Aw, shucks. I'm really quite overwhelmed with all of the positive feedback, so thanks everyone! Maybe this will pass in honor of my birthday today? Hey, a girl can hope. ;) María (habla conmigo) 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions on sources I will be happy to support this well-written, well-organized, well-illustrated, and interesting article after my little questions on sources are answered. Aside from these sources, the rest of the research looks good.
    • This source has an author - Sarah Knobel. Investigation into this author makes me doubt the reliability of the article - it was written by a student at the University of Montana (enter name here). Perhaps she is reliable in this area for some reason?
    • This source indicates that it is "Adapted from Terry West's Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)" - wouldn't it be better to just use the West book so we know just how much it is "adapted"? If the book is not available, this information should at least be included in the footnote.
    • This source says that it is "Excerpted from Wilderness America, a 1990 publication of The Wilderness Society" - I would turn to the original, if possible. If it is not possible, at least the original publication details should be included in the footnote.

    Just trying to keep up my reputation for ungodly high standards. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have access to the last two original sources (and Interlibrary Loan has had it up to HERE with me), so how do you include such info in the footnote? As for the first source you noted, it says that she is a member of the University of Montana Wilderness Institute, which seems reliable enough. It also cites her sources, which helps, right? Obviously she's not a recognized authority on the subject, so if need be I can replace this source; it just puts more emphasis on Glover, the only biography on Marshall, which is something that Scartol warned me against. I'm trying to diversify! María (habla conmigo) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    West's book in WorldCat. There are several publications that look like possibilities for "Wilderness America" in WorldCat - you might look through the list.
    As for Knobel, she is not a published expert yet. Just being a student at the institute doesn't make her a reliable source. I could find no information about her that would lead me to believe that this article was anything other than a student essay. I would replace this source, even if it means less diversity of sources. There is no sense in diversifying if the diversity is not reliable. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've replaced the Knobel refs with a new book source I just stumbled upon. For adding the original sources to the footnote, should the websites I used should be replaced entirely or supplemented with the original book source even though I don't have exact page numbers? For example, would I just add "adapted from [source]"? María (habla conmigo) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you got the information from the website, the website needs to stay. Simply add the same information the website did "Excerpted from" or "Adapted from"...etc. You will probably have to dispense with the "cite web" template since it is not designed for this type of citation (as far as I know). Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you wish: done. María (habla conmigo) 16:42, 22 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:49, 22 April 2008.

    Mario Vargas Llosa

    edit

    I'm co-nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the criteria for Wikipedia's Featured Articles. It is a thorough, fluent, and well-researched account of one of the most important authors of contemporary Latin American and world literature. The article is the result of an immense amount of work, above all by my co-nominators, with the generous aid of the FA-Team. The editors actively seek your suggestions for further improvement. Thank you. Co-nom: User:Isabel-clase, User:lincolnchan98, User:tommaso88. jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article stats

    Lincolnchan98 401
    Jbmurray 193
    Tommaso88 167
    Acer 89
    Geometry guy 44
    Awadewit 42
    Karanacs 30
    Kaldari 26
    SandyGeorgia 25
    Isabel-clase 22

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Disclaimer: I have copy edited and reviewed this article recently. This is a well-written, well-organized, well-researched, and well-illustrated article. I am happy to support this fine biography of an important Latin American writer - another excellent article from the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project. I would like to thank the editors for all of their hard work and for their willingness to continually revise and to work towards the highest standards. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am concerned if other readers with JSTOR access cannot follow the links. But, and I recognize that this may not be the time and the place for this discussion, in general I'd like to argue fairly strongly for such links. It seems to me that these are, as it were, "bonus" links. It is not that they could be replaced with other, more accessible, links. So while it is true that only a minority of readers can follow them, for those users they are extraordinarily helpful, as they get them straight to the source in question. Whereas readers who are not so fortunate are no worse off than if the links were not there.
    • I do, however, agree that there should be some kind of warning. And if there's no field within the citation template, I can add such a warning in plain text after each link. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jbmurray, as I understand it, only the people logged in at your university can use those links. That is a real minority. If other people, like myself, with JSTOR and EBSCO access cannot use these links, they are next to useless. (Just to be absolutely clear - I'm clicked on them and they don't work for me - I get a message saying I'm not authorized to view the article.) Awadewit (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Obviously that would invalidate the inclusion of those links. My parochialism and my support for minority rights is not so very limited! I'd get rid of them immediately. But I'm a little puzzled. Anyone who is logged into a network that has such rights (even by proxy, as I am when I am at home as now) should be able to access those links; there's nothing about them that is unique to UBC or indeed any other university. Perhaps we could do a little testing (and report back on the talk page?) from other users who can otherwise generally gain access to such databases. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    JSTOR is widely used in academia, with many universities supporting it. I think it is entirely appropriate to link to JSTOR in articles with academic content. I'm surprised there are problems linking to these particular articles: I will see tomorrow if I can access them from my university. Geometry guy 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I am able to follow these links seamlessly and am not attending UBC. I !vote keep. Wrad (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to emphasize that only thousands of people are subscribed through universities (which hopefully work better than mine) while millions of people view the site subscriptionless. Let's not irritate the millions. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a purely hypothetical problem until one of those millions speaks up; and even then, they are not being hurt unless (as is most unlikely) there is a free link to Latin American Research Review which we are omitting. As one of the tens of thousands who can link, I am merely grateful not to be forced to search for the article again — this is the purpose of convenience links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (←) It is annoying when one can't access the article, sure, but removing the link would not solve that problem. "Not annoying some readers" is not part of Wikipedia's five pillars, nor is it a featured article criterion. Of course we should not have spamlinks, and if this were a link to an expensive publisher's online site to which very few can afford to subscribe (I won't mention any names: you know who I am talking about!) then I would support removing the links with enthusiasm. However, this isn't the case with JSTOR, which is widely supported by many universities, and probably other institutions such as some public libraries: it provides access to old material which has limited commercial value.
    I also find the rhetorical figures of thousands, tens of thousands and millions unhelpful. My university alone provides JSTOR access to over 10000 people (I checked the links) and so, given the number of universities in the UK, among 60 million citizens, approximately one percent (half a million or so) may well have access to JSTOR. Furthermore, those who are likely to be interested in this article are particularly likely to belong to this fraction. I expect the case in North America is similar.
    In an encyclopedia, providing readers with information is far more important than avoiding annoying them. The link could be removed for the purposes of this FAC, but it will just be readded later, and I doubt anyone would want to take an article to FAR over such a link. So I don't see any case for removing it now. Geometry guy 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I seem to be in the minority of my interpretation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID here. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were a bureacracy and I were a lawyer, then I would agree with your interpretation. However, WP:LINKSTOAVOID is a guideline (subject to common sense and the occasional exception): guidelines (and even policy) reflect consensus, they do not determine it. I would encourage more of Wikipedia's best editors, such as yourself, to stand up to those who believe that guidelines are there to tell editors how to make this a better encyclopedia. They are not: making this a better encyclopedia is something we can all judge for ourselves, and consensus is how we reconcile our differing views. Policy and guidelines provide a framework to acheive this consensus, but they don't determine it. Geometry guy 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And in pure Wikilawyering terms, WP:EL says two things about this subject. The short version says not to link to pay sites, but links to the long version (I just moved the link for clarity, but it existed before); the long version says A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference. These are inline references, and the full guidance should take precedence of the one-sentence summary.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, that was me conceding to the consensus - sorry it wasn't clearer. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two of us. I think GG and I are right, but we certainly aren't consensus if somebody agrees with Awadewit's expressed position. Until someone does, let's move on... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are four of you, by the way. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As co-nominator and a significant contributor, my support may seem obvious and/or superfluous. However I would like to take this opportunity to say that the vast bulk of the credit here has to go to my co-nominators, who have put in all the hard work, not only in searching for sources, but also most recently in undertaking an audacious (and in my view, very successful) wholesale revision of the article structure. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 59 is just a bald link to an external website, it's lacking formatting and publisher and last access date.
    All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Congratulations to the authors. Unless I'm mistaken, the article doesn't describe how Vargas Llosa contributed to "The New Novel (La Nueva Novela)", or tell me what the New Novel signified. The concept bookends the article, in the lead and in "Legacy", but ¿dónde está la carne? (apologies for that!). An answer to that may help with the other goal, to expand the section on his legacy. A smaller point: the sentence beginning "Vargas Llosa wrote of Arguedas's that it was..." seems to be missing a word, or else the implied thing being possessed is just not clear to me. –Outriggr § 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outrigger, thank you kindly for pointing that out. Perhaps the section on The New Novel could be expanded. I'll have a look around to see if I can find some more "carne" for it (I love Wendy's by the way). And thank you for pointing out the missing word, I have fixed that. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While searching about The New Novel I found out that MVLL didn't really contribute, but it was a literary criticism of his work. I've changed that in the article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue went to talk page Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Oppose because the main source of information is in Spanish, without any translation, and there is no way for me to verify their credibility, thus, there is no way for a large bulk of English Wikipedia users to verify the information. Blind faith is not acceptable for a FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support - Condition: direct quotes with translations provided for verification are provided so that at least 90% of the sources can be potential read/interpreted by all users. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Are these originally in Spanish - Armas, Boland, Campos, Fernández, Igartua, Lamb, Morote, Setti, Vargas Llosa, Williams? If so, I can't in good faith approve of this article. Wikipedia English relies on English sources so that others can verify them. Foreign language sources should be used only in rare cases. The sources I listed make up most of your references. I cannot check them, therefore, they don't meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. If you can find an English translation of your sources, please do. If not, then I will be forced to oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a valid oppose. While English language sources are preferred, they are not always the best (i.e., most comprehensive) sources nor are they always available. Vargas Llosa is a Latin American novelist, and it stands to reason that much of the literary criticism and biographies of him would be in Spanish, his native language and the language of his novels. The sources used can be verified, they will just need to be translated. Karanacs (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not an oppose, its a question. Furthermore, verifiability has always been a valid use. English Wikipedia requires English sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources You have to follow these guidelines: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Furthermore, primary editors are not allowed to say a "question" is not "a valid oppose". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering we have had expert in the field consulting on this article (Jbmurray) and every effort has been made to find sources in both English and Spanish, I think we can be assured that the research is exhaustive here. This issue was raised on the FA-Team talk page somewhere as an over-riding issue for all of the articles in the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project. It was decided that English sources would be preferred, but Spanish sources would be brought in when necessary. As Karanacs makes clear, much of the scholarship written on this Latin American writer is going to be in Spanish - we should not exclude it because it is in Spanish. If we are lucky enough to have editors who can read the scholarship and include information from it, we should do so. The article will better fulfill the comprehensiveness and reliable source criteria. Jbmurray provided translations for another article - perhaps he would be willing to do so again if we asked politely. Awadewit (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A self testified expert does not justify the use of a foreign language link that the mass of Wikipedians can verify. There are guidelines to foreign sources, and the page has not shown that it is attempting to meet those guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you ask politely, well, of course I would!  :)
    • As someone who is not a primary editor of the article (though Primary editors most certainly can bring up concerns that an oppose isn't valid), I agree with Awadewit. Spanish sources aren't a valid reason to oppose unless it can be shown that there are English sources out there that are equivalent or better. Given the subject matter, I find it highly likely that the best sources would be Spanish and take Awadewit's word that thorough work has been done. Wrad (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, foreign language sources need to have direct quotes with direct translation per the verifiability rules. Sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia for a reason. It will be perfectly acceptable on the Spanish Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jbmurray has just kindly offered above to do the translations you requested. Awadewit (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there will be no other objections from me after such is done. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. This seems a bit extreme. I would ask Rima to point out exactly what is likely to be challenged that needs translation so badly. Wrad (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrad, when a significant amount of sources are used that cannot be verified, then every single bit quoted by them the whole thing is automatically challenged. Wikipedia is not "take my word for it, this says ___ in that other language that you can't read". I don't really understand what is so difficult in providing English sources, and if there aren't any, then maybe it is not warranting such a large page on the English Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said, I will be happy to translate anything that anybody deems needs translating. As the stipulation is that the text be available (in a footnote) in the original Spanish as well as in the English translation, then other editors who speak Spanish (SandyGeorgia, for instance, but surely many more) will be able to make changes to my translation should they find it lacking in any way. --jbmurray (talk contribs) 08:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnotes needing to be translated -
    "3" is used for biographical information and needs to be translated. As with "13" to "21". Wikipedia's section would probably be the primarily English source of this information, so it needs to be verifiable. I say this, because I assume that there isn't an English biography on the topic. If there is one, it should be added.
    "29" deals with awards, and are only in Spanish. This should have a translation. The line "they have not spoken to each other in more than 30 years." needs a source, preferably with translation. Second use of "29" (i.e. "Vargas Llosa punched García Márquez in the face in Mexico City at the Palacio de Bellas Artes, ending the friendship") definitely needs a translation.
    This continues with (""That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona."[34]"), an English quote from a Spanish text. If this is a translation, please put the original Spanish somewhere. Perhaps this could be avoided if Cohen supports enough of the idea ("37"), and then he can be used as simultaneous evidence for the claims.
    For "43" ("From 1974 to 1987, Vargas Llosa focused primarily on his occupation as a writer; nevertheless, he still took time to pursue other endeavors.[43]") what is the Spanish ref quoting? What "other endeavors"? "44" Deals with more biography that should be reffed. You refer to some large institutions, so it would be good to have solid proof.
    The rest is acceptable as a minority problem and unnecessary if the above are addressed. They seem to be the ones that could cause the most contention. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that any of those other than 43 and 29 are likely to be challenged. Simple Biographical information (he was born here, he worked here) is not usually seen as controversial. Wrad (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference numbers are dynamic, and could change between the time one editor types them and another reads them; pls try to refer to the actual reference text along with the number to make it easier on everyone to follow. Example, Ref no. xx, Author, page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Sandy, but you are asking for something that demands far too much complication than necessary for the review process. The reviewing editor can easily place my time stamp with the history of the page to find it. Wikipedia demands that foreign language material needs to be verifiable, and to put such burden upon me does not reflect any of the spirit of these rules, especially when you, as a moderator of this forum, should have known better to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rima, this childish attitude has got to stop. Please don't address Sandy in that manner. After looking over the two refs I thought might be likely to be challenged a bit closer, I really don't see how either of them are controversial in any way. I thus don't think any translations are needed here, though it seems as though jbmurray is doing it anyway. It is apparent to me that you are trying to get back at murray for that dispute several days ago by making ridiculous demands. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt at first, but the closer I look at your objections, the more obvious it becomes to me that you are blinded by your desire to get revenge on murray. This article meets the FA criteria. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrad, "childish" is an incivil characterization. Furthermore, your comments from the beginning have been combative. If you wish to continue with such actions, I will be forced to report you for incivility. Furthermore, "revenge" on a user for a page? No. No one owns the page. Your opinion is one opinion. You have different standards than the rest of the community. Everyone does. This is for the community. You cannot bully and POV push to win an argument. If you are unwilling to stop, then say so, and that will be used as evidence to your uncivility. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is Wikipedia putting on its best face for the newbies, isn't it? Perhaps we could just put a moratorium on the comments until Jbmurray has added the translations. If Ottava Rima isn't satisfied, then we can continue the discussion. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I just noticed. According to his/her userpage, Ottava Rima can read Spanish. S/he also informed me that s/he has access to three university libraries. Any help on the translations would, of course, be appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Outdent), Ottava Rima, I asked that you please refer to something specific when you mention a ref in an Oppose because by the time other editors get to check the text to evaluate your oppose, the ref numbers may have changed. You said refs, "3" and "13" to "21" need translation; without a specific example of what text you are challenging, that's hard to evaluate. "29" deals with awards, and are only in Spanish. This should have a translation. I agree and have left an English source on the talk page. The line "they have not spoken to each other in more than 30 years." needs a source, preferably with translation. Second use of "29" (i.e. "Vargas Llosa punched García Márquez in the face in Mexico City at the Palacio de Bellas Artes, ending the friendship") definitely needs a translation. Because this is a WP:BLP and because the text deals with an interpersonal issue, yes, we should have the original text and translation on this in a footnote. I was unable to locate anything in English. "That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona."[34]"), an English quote from a Spanish text. Agree that policy says that direct quotes need to show original Spanish text in the footnote. Aside: the editors have had some confusion about how to add text such as (Fee required) to their citation system: you can add anything between ref tags, just put it after the Harvard stuff or the citation template, but inside the ref tag. For "43" ("From 1974 to 1987, Vargas Llosa focused primarily on his occupation as a writer; nevertheless, he still took time to pursue other endeavors.[43]") what is the Spanish ref quoting? What "other endeavors"? I'm not clear on what text is being challenged here or why. "44" Deals with more biography that should be reffed. You refer to some large institutions, so it would be good to have solid proof. I do not know what you're challenging here either. You don't have to respond to my polite request or put the information forward in a way that's easy for me and other editors to understand if you don't want to, but we do need to be able to evaluate and understand your Oppose and the ref numbers do change each time text is moved or added, so by the time other editors can check the ref numbers you mention, we may be checking the wrong thing. Perhaps you will spell all of this out on the article talk page, where I started a section with the English source for the Romulo Gallegos award. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC
    Sandy, this is most helpful. I'm about to go out, but will get to these later tonight. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk contribs) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope your students, who are probably involved in final exams, understand there is no urgency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and thanks again. --jbmurray (talk contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an issue: I was getting going on this list, and just about to add the English language source for the Rómulo Gallegos awards, but egads! I know it's an official site, from the Venezuelan government, specifically the Ministry of Culture, but it's in horrible English, obviously mistranslated from a Spanish original. A taster: "In this opportunity the prize consisted in one hundred thousand Bolívares (Bs. 100.000), in addition, a medal made in golden and one diploma. It was thirteen jurors, distributed between every Hispanic speech countries, whose referred their verdict to an international panel of judges..." Etc. etc. Is linking to poor translations (however official) really an improvement on linking to (and where necessary, translating from) Spanish sites? --jbmurray (talk contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    "You said refs, "3" and "13" to "21" need translation; without a specific example of what text you are challenging" Except that the text covers the majority of information at the top. Dates, times, meeting who, what, when, where. Those are all information that needs to be cited in a verifiable source. If you notice, most of the references cover multiple sections. If this was one or two things, I could see it as a reasonable request to copy and paste exact lines, but when there are blocks and blocks of biographical information from the same few sources, that becomes very messy. Most problematic would be the texts involving fights with Marquez. Some is in English, some is not.
    On individual points - "I'm not clear on what text is being challenged here or why." The text being challenged is "pursue other endeavors." So, the source said that he "pursued other endeavors" or did the source list those endeavors and the writers are summarizing the source? What does the source even say that leads to such a conclusion, because I am sure "endeavors" is not a Spanish word, so it probably does not appear in the text.
    On another - "I do not know what you're challenging here either." I was challenging the various academic institutions cited as places he visited. Obviously, if he visited them there would have to be some mention of it in another language besides Spanish, or at least for those outside of Spanish speaking countries.
    I will take the time and go through each and every Spanish link if you want and explain the danger of not having a translation. However, there will be over 50 objections, and I feel that such a thing is ultimately unnecessary when the biographical details could be easily translated or directly cited in some manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the issue regarding foreign language sources, this is much less of a barrier than it was in the past. Google Translation will translate for you. They should probably use that to beef up some of the foreign language Wikipedias. -maclean 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't read through the article yet, but unless there are direct quotes being taken from Spanish-language sources, footnote translations are not necessary. If the issue is about accessibility of sources, consider that most readers do not have access to even most English-language sources used. If the issue is about the translation itself (assuming the reader has the book in hand), there are plenty of Spanish-speaking Wikipedians that could verify the translation (indeed, how is this better than an involved Wikipedian translating it in advance?), plus Babelfish, plus wordreference.com and so many other online tools that make it a breeze to translate from Spanish to English. The policy language about quotations in footnotes is new. See the discussion at WP:V that led to its addition--even there, editors emphasized that this shouldn't mean those using non-English sources have to quote from sources they're using for basic facts and were concerned that any strict translation requirement would contribute to systemic bias. Mangostar (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In Wikipedia's defense, there is a Spanish Wikipedia for Spanish language pages. Verifiability means just that. A foreign language lacks verifiability unless there can be a direct translation. I don't see why you are unwilling to move in such a direction, and I ask that you refrain from acting in such a way, Sandy, because there is a conflict of interest as you spent quite a lot of time dealing with the page. This is for objective criticism, and your comments are, by definition, subjective based on your involvement. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit hypocritical of you to accuse her of conflict of interest when the only reason you are here is to make sure all of jbmurray's FACs are miserable because of some silly dispute a few days ago. Wrad (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are unable or unwilling to follow WP:AGF, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. Such comments are uncivil and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Very well written and intriguing article about an important literary figure. I'm so glad that Hispanic lit is getting its due here on the English Wikipedia! Wonderful work, everyone. As for the concerns about Spanish sources, I cannot say that it bothers me. It's guideline, not policy, that states a preference for English sources; if no English language sources are available, then other language sources suffice. A compromise of including several translations via footnotes may be the way to go, but I don't think even that is necessary. BTW, this very issue was brought up on the Spanish Wikipedia when the Knut (polar bear)'s Spanish counterpart (Knut (oso bear)), a translation of the FA English version that uses a majority of the original English sources, before it was put up for candidatos a artículos destacados. Sure, a polar bear cub is arguably less important than a world famous and highly respected writer, but if Spanish editors aren't complaining about a source's language, why should we? :) (Only partly kidding with that last bit...) María (habla conmigo) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This article has come a long way since it's Good Article nomination back in March. The reorganization makes it much more compelling to read all the way through (and less redundant). My only criticism is that the non-English references should indicate what language they are in. This can normally be accomplished by adding "language=Spanish" or whatever to the citation template. I would do it myself, but I'm not 100% sure all the non-English sources are Spanish (some could be Portuguese, although I imagine that's quite unlikely). I would be more comfortable if someone familiar with the sources would do it. Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I've come to the conclusion that none of the references fit the criteria for "likely to be challenged" in a way that makes me think they need translations. If murray wants to go above and beyond the call of duty to translate things that really don't need it, then I applaud him for it. It is apparent to me that Rima is applying the criteria in an extreme way in order to get revenge on Awadewit and jbmurray for a silly misunderstanding awhile ago. I had hoped that editors at FAC would be mature enough to set aside grudges. I'm really getting sick of the way he's treating people on here. It's no wonder people hate the FA process.

    Just a note: "likely to be challenged" does not mean "one person challenges it". It is determined by consensus whether or not something, for some special reason, is likely to be controversial. Just because something is in another language does not make it controversial. You must find another reason to ask for a translation besides "it's in Spanish." Otherwise, why would they have the line about it's being likely to be challenged. Wrad (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. As Wrad notes, Ottava Rima and I had some differences a few days ago, over an article that s/he had nominated to FAC, which subsequently failed that process. A number of other editors became caught up in the subsequent dispute. It's also worth commenting that Ottava Rima has had rather similar differences, on rather similar topics and for rather similar reasons, with Awadewit, as well as a couple of other editors. I would rather that such earlier disputes do not overwhelm this discussion, which should be focussed on the fine job done by a group of student editors in bringing this article, Mario Vargas Llosa, to the stage where it can even be considered for Featured Article Candidacy. I am perfectly happy to listen to Ottava Rima's suggestions for improvement, and if there is consensus from other commenters here, I am more than willing to do what I can to implement those suggestions. Personally, I feel that's all that needs saying about the matter. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jb - What other people don't realize is that I am one voice. Consensus has already supported your project. Therefore, my objections are in the minority, which means that anyone taking offense to them does not understand how the process works. I have already put forth a conditional support, so the accusations against me appear to be unnecessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a majority rules process. I checked to see if your concerns were legit. If they were, it wouldn't be an FA, even if you were only one voice. You seem to be attacking the people who are willing to give you some ground. Sandy and I were among the few who were willing to admit you might have something. I really don't see why you are so hostile and rude to Sandy, especially, when she really hasn't said anything against you here and seemed to agree with you more than most anyone. But, alas, whatever ground you might have gained seems to have been lost now. Wrad (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Attacking people? The person who is doing the attacking is yourself. You are being extremely uncivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Disclaimer: Significant contributor, see list above. First off I'd like to congratulate everybody who worked on this and especially Lincolnchan98 for all the work he put into it. Now about all the discussion that has been going on around here, I'd say that everybodys opinion has been stated and noted by everybody else, theres no need to continue with it. Lets refocus on the article shall we? Now Outrigger raised a very good point above about the lack of information concerning the new novel. I had managed to completely miss this shortcoming despite reading the article a few times to say the least (this just goes to show how usefull it is to have uninvolved eyes doing a review). This is certanly important and needs to be adressed. That said, I'm still supporting because I think the article is quite comprehensive even with this fault and also, because I don't think the issue is going to be too hard to solve. Acer (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment - aside from the glossing over of his contributions to the development of La Nueva Novela mentioned by Outriggr, it seems comprehensive. However, there are problems with some of the language and agreement between sections. Some of these might be remedied by a simple rephrasing to make the meaning clear or some formatting, but some need a little more work. I'd recommend another run though the copy if possible. There's nothing major though and I'll be happy to support if these examples are cleared up:
    • In "Later life and political involvement" we have Vargas Llosa has identified himself with right-wing political ideologies ever since. while in "Later life and political involvement" we have certain conservative views held by the former party are at odds with his liberal beliefs.
    Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He married Julia Urquidi, his uncle's sister-in-law - this is his aunt's sister, isn't it? Why add an extra level of relationship?
      • This should be clarified; but I expect the answer to Yomangani's question to be no: the text is compatible with (and so implies that) the uncle being already an uncle by marriage. The uncle's name would be the simplest way to fix this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His involvement in the Investigatory Commission is split over two sections. It was reintroduced in the second section before I cut that, but it is still awkward.
    Fixed I think Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was his next novel after the Investigatory Commission work? Who Killed Palomino Molero or Death in the Andes? The use of subsequent for Death in the Andes is confusing here, as is the split over two sections with the two sections claiming that both the books were inspired by the work on the Investigatory Commission.
    • This is a good question. I added (and sourced) the information about Death in the Andes. I have never read Who Killed Palomino Molero?, and wasn't aware of any Uchuraccay link. Lincolnchan98, can you double check this source? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what the Kristal book says: "His novel is by no means an attempt to reconstruct the Ucharaccay incidents. It can be read, as Roy Boland has shown, as a literary exorcism of his own experiences on the commission." Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • led to immediate negative reactions and slandering from the Peruvian press - were the negative reactions from the press as well or just the slandering? Was it defamation rather than slander?
    Fixed I think Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vargas Llosa continued to write significantly shorter pieces of work - continued? shorter than what? signifying what?
    Fixed I think Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "The Green House" in quotation marks and the Cathedral not? Why is Investigatory Commission italicised? Why is the Popular Action party rendered in English while the other parties retain their Spanish names? Why is National University of San Marcos in English and Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Spanish? Why is Premio de la Crítica italicised when all the other prizes are not?
    put cathedral in quotations. translated universidad to english. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Igartua states that after knocking García Márquez out, leaving him on the floor, Vargas Llosa said: "That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona." - this isn't clear. Was he knocked down and left unconscious by the punch in the face? The quote has no context, so doesn't add anything.
    Removed. It caused more problems that contributing to the article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Yomangan for bringing these issues to attention. I have tried to fix some but confess that I am neither a language expert nor very familiar with MoS issues. Any help would be appreciated. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get on to some more of these later today. (Apologies that I was somewhat AWOL yesterday.) Lincolnchan98, it might help if you indicated here which of these issues you've been able to address. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I rejigged the Investigatory Commission sections so all the details come in the first section. Yomanganitalk 08:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments.

    • Is his surname Vargas Llosa or Llosa? Should only be referred to by his surname, I think.
    Like most people from Hispanic countries, he has two surnames. He can correctly be referred to as either Vargas or Vargas Llosa. In his case, it is much more common to refer to him as Vargas Llosa. If there are any instances in which he's called simply Llosa, those are mistakes; but I have passed through the article on several occasions to eliminate them. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vargas Llosa is considered..." - this would need a direct citation (at the end of the sentence)
    Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an important diplomatic post" - you don't really need to say "important"...it's assumed since he moved his family, and just adds a bit of clutter
    Fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vargas Llosa's father sent him at 14 to the Leoncio Prado Military Academy in Lima." - would probably work better (IMO) as "At the age of 14, his father sent him to..."
    I've fixed this somewhat differently, to avoid even the momentary impression that it was the father (rather than MVLL) who was fourteen. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "however, after he arrived in Paris he learned that it would not materialize." - perhaps change to "upon arriving in Paris he learned that..."
    Done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any idea why Mario and Julia divorced?
    Neither Mario or Julia has really said anything about the reason for their divorce; everything else is speculation/hearsay. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In fact, Latin American literary critic Gerald Martin suggests that The Green House is "one of the greatest novels to have emerged from Latin America"." - rmv "in fact"
    Changed to "indeed." I think it helps flow between the two sentences to have something there. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vargas Llosa focused primarily on his occupation as a writer; nevertheless, he still took time to pursue other endeavors" - the nevertheless makes it sound a bit awkward...suggest you replace the semi colon with a comma and replace what's after that with "while still taking the time to pursue other endeavors"
    Changed to "Vargas Llosa focused on his writing, while still taking time to pursue other endeavors" --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Got halfway through—will try to do the other half tomorrow. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pending, the criollo-mestizo issue still needs to be sorted, and there's still this question mark to be resolved:

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I took care of the lineage issue. As for the Iguartua quote, I have no idea who added that. I've done a search at both the University and public library and neither of them carry that book. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Linconchan98, if you can spend some time digging back in to the history of the article, you can find who added it, and then perhaps you and Jbmurray can sort it out. You have an additional source for that text (the newspaper), so the article is cited, but the text currently refers to Igartua, so if you can't locate that page number, the text needs to be rewritten to reflect the newspaper source. Since Jbmurray is traveling, the thing you could do to advance this in his absence is go back in history and find who added the Igartua source. Also, the cite templates place quotes after the citation information, so you might want to follow that convention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the edit in question is this one, by Tommaso88. Mike Christie (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here I am again, for the second half (also noting a few of my comments up above haven't seen a response, I think).

    • "towards themes like messianism" - I'd prefer using "such as" or "including" instead of "like", which reminds me of teenager-speak. (But I'm a teenager...!!!)
    • Ref 111 - IMDB (internet movie database) is generally not considered a reliable source (is there an exception here? I might be behind...that wouldn't surprise me!)
    • "In 1986, Vargas Llosa" - overusing his name a lot, a bit of repetition. Perhaps "In 1986, he" every now and then, for variety?
    • "In 2006, Vargas Llosa's wrote" - rmv the 's, I think
    • "Death in the Andes (Lituma en los Andes) originally published in 1993 in Barcelona" - need a comma after the brackets
    • "in his native Peru." - by this stage of the article, you'd hope the reader is aware he's from Peru! Probably best to remove the "his native".
    • "A good example of this is" - "a good example" is a bit anti-NPOV...just "an example of this is" will do fine
    • "respected the basic facts, [. . .] I have not exaggerated" - maybe it's just me, but what I've seen generally is to just have "..." rather than "[. . .]", so that it doesn't stand out as much...this one is a bit hard to read, for me anyway. Thoughts?
      • I notice the format I prefer is used in the Legacy section. In any case, consistency is good.
    • "whereas the latter is ridiculously comic" - calling something ridiculous (as opposed to quoting a critic on that) is not the best idea (for NPOV reasons). Probably a good idea to put someone's name to it (ideally, whoever you're sourcing here), rather than have it look like "Wikipedia called that guy's work ridiculous..." (see, it's all about context!)
    Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Moreover, Vargas Llosa sometimes uses this" - the moreover isn't necessary
    • "The Time of the Hero,[87] However, he does not use" - should However have a lowercase h, since that's a comma?
    • Some infoboxes have a parameter for the guy's signature (I think the politician one does, for instance). Does this one?
    • Could the list of works be put into columns? If you don't know how to, I'll try and find the templates for it (if you want me to).
    • Is there a reason why some internet sources are in the references section as opposed to being cited inline? (For instance, the Katherine Harrison one) I thought that the refs. section was for books, where an inline citation would include a page reference--thus, an internet source (no page reference) could just be cited inline. Since some internet sources are cited inline, it looks odd.
      • I don't see any problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is important to be consistent with the formatting of references, so that the reader gets comfortable with the article style. I've had a lot to do with the way these references were formatted, partly because Jbmurray was very positive about the style I suggested. My rule of thumb is the following: if there is an identifiable author, put the link in the references; otherwise, leave it as a footnote only. I've fixed two inconsistencies as a result of this comment, so thanks for that, DHMO! Geometry guy 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Style choice: I wouldn't have done the Notes that way, because I find that method harder on the reader. I leave online sources in the Notes (for immediate clickability/verifiability, avoiding two clicks), while add book sources to the refs (since the reader can't click anywhere to verify, and the Note is only to provide the page no.), but certainly consistency within the article should be foremost. (Mostly, I didn't want Lincoln scratching his head over how to fix these things in jbmurray's absence, and using the citation method, instead of cite templates, added a whole 'nother layer of complication for new and learning editors. At any rate, it's fine now, and I just didn't want Lincoln to have to sort that out alone, so thanks for doing that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ya thanks guys! I don't even know what you're talking about but I'm glad you're thinking about me :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The way it is now looks OK...Sandy, what you suggested was (I think) what I was asking for. But I'm not always clear. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem. The distinction between print and online sources is becoming increasingly blurred (e.g., electronic journals, publishers allowing authors to make their books available online, online abstracts). There are many other rules of thumb one could devise to decide what goes in the references section (is there an online version? is there a print version? is there a page number in the reference?) but I find the existence of an identifiable author a more scholarly distinction, and I think it would be confusing to put only sources without an online version in the references. Geometry guy 12:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing a few extra line breaks around the navbox, though that could be a template issue...generally, it's space between categories, interwikis, and other stuff that just doesn't look nice. :(

    Overall though, the article is quite nice, and I look forward to being able to support it. Well done, MMM. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • "Vargas Llosa contributed to the creation of The New Novel (La Nueva Novela)..." Is this some sort of sub-genre? If so, could a link be provided? Or at least a short explanation. Also, are sub-genres italicized?
    After searching a little deeper I found that The New Novel is a literary criticism written by Carlos Fuentes about various Latin-American writers. I've clarified that in the article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...he learned that it would not materialize" Any particular reason why? "...would not materialize" seems somewhat humorously generic.
    Clearer I think Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...built around the stories of Santiago Zavala..." For some reason, on my first reading of this, I assumed Santiago Zavala was some legendary Peruvian figure. I think this is a result of the way it's phrased ("built around the stories of"), but maybe it's just me.
    Fixed. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When discussing general critical reception/public success of his works, does this mean in Peru, Latin America, or worldwide? Sometimes I don't get a good sense of the context of the reception from the text. Also, any info on sales?
    Unfortunately we haven't been able to find any information on sales. Any help here?
      • "recently agreed to allow part of his book to be used as the introduction to a new edition" This will become dated. Just state specific dates "...agreed in _YEAR_ to...the introduction to a _YEAR_ edition..."
    Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This shorter, humorous novel..." Perhaps "short"? Or is this an implied comparison to Conversation in the Cathedral?
    Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "From 1974 to 1987, Vargas Llosa focused on his writing, while still taking time to pursue other endeavors" "From 1974...focused on his writing..." -> how is this different from before 1974? And why such specific dates?
    During this time he focused mainly on his writing. Previously he was also occupied with other jobs. I think this is clear in the article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Vargas Llosa was asked by the Peruvian President..." Date? Date of the massacre would be nice too, as well as a link.
      • "...immediate negative reactions and slandering from the Peruvian press." The next sentence does not explain why this is so. Did they accuse the Investigatory Commission of somehow covering up or being complicit in the massacre/conspiracy?
      • Ah, I see that the Investigatory Commission and his role is more fully fleshed out in "Later life and political involvement". These details should be given earlier, when the incident is first mentioned.
    The reason I separated it was because I felt that the first part explains the event with regards to his writing career and the second part explains the result with regard to his political career. I've made some changes so the division is more clear. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Above all, as Latin American literature scholar Misha Kokotovic summarizes..." This seems to be a rather specific, nuanced argument rather than a summary of all of the complaints lodged against Vargas Llosa. Are you sure this is the case? Also, are you sure that this argument merits an "above all"? Was this criticism lodged more frequently than, say, the accusations of participation in a gov. conspiracy?
    Fixed I think Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...later die at the hands of Sendero" Further explication would be good here for those not knowledgeable in these matters.
    Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BuddingJournalist 09:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a crack at them now! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've been involved in editing and encouraging the development of this article (47 edits so far), but mostly at the fringes, fixing minor issues concerning references, and copyediting — so I'm not strongly attached to the article, claim absolutely no credit, and feel reasonably objective. I reread some of it today and have noticed how much sharper the prose is now than it was when I last looked closely at it, so I take my hat off to the editors such as Lincolnchan, Tommaso and Jbmurray, who've worked tirelessly on this. I've mostly been involved with formatting the notes and references: I think the notes would look better if they all ended with full stops/periods (what's the Canadian? :-) ), but if others agree with me, then that is something I am willing to fix when I'm in one of those "do a bunch of mundane edits to make things look nice" moods. There's also a page number missing in reference 32, but I bet someone can fix that in a blink of an eye, so it doesn't stop me recommending that this article be featured. Great work and a great biography! Geometry guy 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The missing page number is non-trivial because the text quoted specifically mentions the book author (see my note above); hopefully the page no will be located, or the text can be rewritten to reflect the alternate sources (the newspapers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi friends, thanks for bringing this to our attention. The wheels are in motion to track this source down. Hopefully we'll be able to get the page number within the next day or so. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now been fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The use of commas isn't consistent. For example, "novels such as The Time of the Hero, The Green House, and the monumental Conversation in the Cathedral" but "is a Peruvian writer, politician, journalist and essayist". Randomblue (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've caught all these. (Favouring the Oxford comma, as it happens.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:43, 22 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:52, 20 April 2008.

    Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's suitable enough for FA, even though the episode aired only 64 hours ago. There are several episode FAs that are less comprehensive than this (see many Simpsons episode articles, which I find to be a bit lacking.) I've attempted to check for 1a myself and I see nothing overtly wrong with the prose, my skills in checking made better by the "Voyage" nomination. As far as comprehensiveness goes, there's about 350 words on plot, six paragraphs of production, five of reception, which is admittedly quite a lot. The only thing I can think of to make the article larger, given the source material, is the final BARB ratings, which is one statistic that will be released at the end of this week. (but not reason enough to oppose for comprehensiveness) Sceptre (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • BARB ratings have been released, and included. Sceptre (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – I'd like to see the opening cited as I don't believe a reader should be forced to read the whole article to backup a claim. I'm also still unconvinced that the present image cannot be described with text, and further it should be placed in the location that it is providing critical commentary for rather than the top of the article.
    • There are also some other smaller issues that requite resolving before I can consider supporting this FAC. Firstly, the production code in the infobox looks false to me - it requires a source. Secondly, I've been able to identify at least one MoS issue (the quotation marks in the opening should not be bolded).
    • Lastly, and more importantly, there's an egregious violation of WP:NPOV in the external links. "The Tardis Index File" is given more presence than the other two ELs. Matthew (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You know full well all that the image and EL thing are inactionable. And WP:LEAD discourages citations in the lead section, because the lead section is supposed to be summary. Sceptre (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      No I don't.
      Having just looked at WP:LEAD, I'm curious, which part discourages citing content? "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.", none of that says to me "WP:LEAD discourages citations in the lead section". Matthew (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Drop the stick, and back away from the horse. Regarding the EL thing, Template:FreeContentMeta was kept at TFD two months ago. You seem to be carrying on this vendetta from nine months ago when the template didn't get deleted. And seriously, if people who are well known for being critical at any fair use (ie FutPerf) say "okay, it's fine", there's a hint that maybe you're on the wrong side.
      Regarding citations, there is really no right answer. It's editor preference whether to cite leads or not, and should not be basis for a FAC oppose. It'd be like opposing for the use of American English on, say, Hydrogen. Sceptre (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm oblivious to the horse and stick you speak of. Regarding the DW box, that's irrelevant; it's still a violation of WP:NPOV, and a TfD result does not "unviolate" it. I remember a short while ago the lead-in was cited, and I still wouldn't accept "editor preference" as an excuse not to cite it. Matthew (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You're in the minority regarding the box. I'm saying this as someone who wanted it deleted in the first TFD. Four days ago, the lead was cited because a) it's easily challengable, and b) the lead wasn't summary yet (as it was a stub). Sceptre (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not convinced that I'm in a minority (a large percentage of Wikipedians would need to be quizzed to convince me). Even so, Wikipedia does not work on majorities and it still violates a policy. As the article violates this policy I'm unable to support this FAC.
      Why is it any less challengeable now? Apart from the episode airing I don't think any thing has changed. Matthew (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it's not badly written, the prose could do with a massage. Glitches like these were easy to find:
      • "Catherine Tate was offered to return to the role of Donna Noble"
      • "but died before his scenes for the remainder of the season had been completed"—"were", don't you think?
      • "Based on", fine, so why the undesirable "focused UPon"?
      • "searching regretting declining" in quick succession.

    Do ask someone unfamiliar with the text to run through it carefully. TONY (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave it a minor comb, particularly to sort out WP:PUNC in the reception section. Where are your last two objections? Alientraveller (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the Plot section. Sceptre (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Considering you have produced this in just a couple of days, it does look great, but:
    • I found a few rather jarring sentences, such as: "The episode was filmed in October 2007.[8] It was in the fourth episode filmed of the series, in the fourth production block in the season; this allowed the producers to use props to "seed" later episodes.[5]"
    • And also I would take issue with the sentence: "Together, they attempt to stop alien businesswoman Miss Foster (Sarah Lancashire) from killing thousands of people in London during the birth of the Adipose, short white aliens made from body fat." I was watching Dr Who Confidential last night and I got the impression Miss Foster was not out to kill anyone, just exploit the fat they had. The only reason the first woman died was that Catherine Tate accidentally accelerated the process by stealing a necklace and turning it while in the woman's house.--seahamlass 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I wasn't a fan of the wording of that sentence, and I had a rewrite planned for when I got home (it's hard to edit using IE because I use Modern). With the plot thing, you're right, but at the same time, it's deliberately debatable. Less forceful wording. Sceptre (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian is still a reliable source, even if it's termed itself a "blog" to sound hip. And Outpost Gallifrey is a reliable news aggregate. Alientraveller (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec with Alientraveller) Easy enough, fixed.
      Yes, but I'd be inclined to say it's reliable as it's part of The Guardian's website.
      I might've said this exact quote before, but the Outpost Gallifrey article is interesting reading. Among other things, it's used as an example of a good fansite in general, the BBC have vouched for it, writers have applauded it. I've seen two of the reviewers cited in the article (Mzimba and Matthewson) post on the forums. As far as their editing and fact checking goes, they're mostly aggregates. They do a lot of fact-checking, and their news page and canon keeper guide has a team of several people (at least a dozen) there for accuracy. Personally, I only (conciously) cite OG for the ratings (as they format it better than BARB) or if I can't get access to a copy of the source material or fill out the citation templates (see Ariel cites, I'm nowhere near the White City) Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading was it was a blog hosted on the Guardian site, i.e. a Guardian or Guardian employee blog. I hate this current trend by newspapers to blur the lines, you know? As for OG, I think you've convinced me. I'm glad you set it out though, so I can refer to this later if someone questions it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a couple of prose issues (which I might just sort out myself later if I have the time, rather than listing here), but I do have a question with regard to the Outpost. I'm happy with it as reliable source; as you say, it's largely an aggregate (heck, I even cited it myself when I cobbled the AI article together), but where does it get its ratings information (and, for that matter, the AI figures)? It seems to me to not just be pulled together from other news sources, and often seems to be the first on the scene, before the information even appears on the BBC site. I don't really have much of an issue with it (I assume it's straight from BARB), but I'd just like that clarification. Steve T • C 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually don't know myself. They probably get them from the Beeb or BARB. As an aside, Keith Topping is a member of the OG forums and wrote an unofficial guide about ratings that he posts in every thread. The two might be (and probably are) related. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've got to question the use of BBC employee Lizo Mzimba in the critical reception section. The reviewer has a clear conflict of interest with his reviews for the CBBC Newsround website, even if he did genuinely like every episode. From the dozen or so I've checked at random in this list, I haven't come across even one which is truly critical. About the closest was the 3.5 stars for "The Lazarus Experiment". I should also point out that, while likely true, the statement that the episode received "generally positive" reviews is uncited and is based upon editor interpretation. I wouldn't normally complain about that, and feel a tool for doing it, but I've seen similar statements in film articles challenged in the past. Steve T • C 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Mzimba's given what's equivalent to a "2" to Fear Her. His normal rating is 3 (taking into account the old, unrated reviews), I think. Sceptre (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still unsure. The text of the "Fear Her" review is hardly scathing, seemingly going out of its way to find the good in the episode. And I don't think there's been one since then (even reviews of the episodes widely considered to be poor) which has been truly critical. Still, in the morning I'll read Mzimba's reviews of every episode so far to get a better appreciation of his style, see if that makes me feel any better about it. All the best, Steve T • C 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Newsround is for kids. Sceptre (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I know that. :) I also like that a kids' reviewer is used in the article for a show partially/mostly aimed at them. I was using "style" as an all-encompassing term for the different aspects of the content of Mzimba's reviews. Essentially, what I mean is that once he's "known" to me, I'll better be able to determine his reliability as a source in the criticism section. Steve T • C 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify on this, my concern arises over the fact that Lizo Mzimba is a BBC employee, reviewing a BBC programme, for a BBC publication. And here's my main objection: can you honestly say to me that you think that were Mzimba to genuinely hate a bunch of episodes, he'd be allowed to say so? Remember, this is the BBC which routinely, blatantly features on its adult-targeted news programmes advertisements for stories about Who and other BBC shows in the guise of serious news reportage. Add to that the toothless nature of the criticism thus far from Mzimba and I have a serious problem with the use of his review, especially with it cited so prominently. Steve T • C 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, I don't order reviews except for "big POV, small POV". Otherwise, it's the order I click on them in Google News and/or the OG review thread. Sceptre (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      By "prominently", I meant partly its placement, but also with how much was culled from it. But no matter, you've removed it now. Ta, Steve T • C 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still looking into that above, but in the meantime, the lead could do with updating to be a more accurate reflection of the content of the article, most especially with regard to the Broadcast and reception section. Steve T • C 09:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Sceptre (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck. Steve T • C 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead Comments Quotations should always be cited. Please take care to avoid excessive repetition; all in a row: "The episode's alien creatures...The episode is stylistically different...the episode is based on moral ambiguity...The episode features the return of..." What exactly does this "based on moral ambiguity" mean? BuddingJournalist 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I was trying to find a wording that doesn't make the character Miss Foster out to be a villain: there's a two page spread in this month's DWM which has several quotes from Sarah Lancashire (one of which is in the article) to the effect that she's Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral (which is a rarity if not non-existant in Doctor Who: since 2005, I can only think of three antagonists that weren't Evil (1 Chaotic Neutral, 2 True Neutral). Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Your change ("has no clear antagonist") is clearer to me. BuddingJournalist 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support All my suggestions are fairly trivial, otherwise it's a great article.
      • in the hope she would find him - "in the hope that"?
      • small white aliens which vs. an alien who - aliens can't be whiches and whos.
      • Tate's return was controversial to Doctor Who fans - "controversial amongst" might be better.
      • It's very, very picky but the infobox refers to a Russell T. Davies, while Casting refers to a Russell T Davies - does the actual episode credit him with a full stop?
      • The scene where Donna and the Doctor investigate Adipose was a "nightmare to film" - who's being quoted?
      • the singular fang each Adipose possessed - maybe a different word as it's a little weird to "possess" a fang.
    • Hope that was useful and again sorry I couldn't help with any in-universe issues. —97198 talk 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "That" would be a redundant word in the article, but I've got no opinion for or against.
        • I think Doctor Who makes the point that the aliens are more human than some humans themselves... the lead character is alien, so the use of "which/who" to "that" would be controversial without thinking about the already existent linguistic dispute. Personally, I'd extend "which" to sapient beings (Fostercertainly is), and "that" to non-sapient (Adipose may be). Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That reply leaves me a little baffled but basically I was saying that the aliens shouldn't be referred to as "which" and "who", they should just use one pronoun - either one. I think maybe you thought I was implying that "that" should be used instead of both. —97198 talk 06:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Was looking for that word.
        • Reworded.
        • Changed to "have". Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I can see, any remaining prose issues are minor can be sorted as this review progresses, so I've just one more issue to broach, and it's going to piss you off, because it's an issue I've been meaning to bring up at FACs for other television episodes, and you've drawn the short straw. It concerns the breadth of coverage of the critical reception section. This seems lengthy enough, and features opinion from a range of viewpoints, but, and I don't mean this to sound quite so harsh, it's tad superficial. By that, I mean it tends to focus more on the superlatives (or otherwise) thrown at the episode by each critic, rather than any deeper analysis. Now, I now this is a borderline kids' show, and the episode is never going to be subject to the kinds of academic papers and analysis I've seen for shows such as The Sopranos; that's certainly not what I'm asking for. But many of the critics which are already cited in the section do go a little deeper in their scrutiny than just saying what they liked or didn't. Most especially, as well as merely saying whether Tate was good or not, several make room for at least a few words on the dynamic between the Doctor and Donna, what this might represent for the show in general, and what changes it might have on the Doctor's character (and to be fair, you already touch on this a little, especially from the perspective of Davies in the Writing section). Other examples include something taken from the first cited review to produce the line that the reviewer "liked the mixture of emotions." It might be better to examine more closely what he actually says about this:

      For all the whizzy special effects, it's an intensely human show which manages to find space for big emotions. Davies doesn't stint on the major chords, but he always ensures a sprinkling of minor ones to lend it texture. So, along with the grand climactic moments and the sheer relish Dr Who takes in time-travel, you also find more subtle things like sadness and regret creeping in round the edges.

      While you might feel something like this would be better placed in the main Who article, or elsewhere, the fact that the reviewer felt the episode adhered closely to these familiar beats of New Who means it's worth lingering on just a little in the article. Now, I wouldn't necessarily like to see these sorts of things included in the same paragraphs as the "superficial" superlatives; if there's enough information, it may even warrant its own subsection, with a dryer tone and fewer direct quotes. But I'll leave that up to you. Again, I'm sorry you've got the brunt of this borderline rant on the subject, and feel free to tell me to bugger off. :) All the best, Steve T • C 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not annoyed at all. I actually try to include a quote or two from the reviewer, and this case can be shown mostly with Billen's review, with the behind-the-sofa quote. Sceptre (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Someone's gone through and sorted the dash issues and non-breaking space issues, so I haven't a lot to complain about now. :) I'd be happy to see this as a Featured Article. It's more comprehensive than a lot of TV episode articles, especially the last one I reviewed for FAC (which was promoted regardless). Nice work. Steve T • C 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm going to go through and give a copy edit, but it looks fine in terms of sources. I'll switch to support when I'm finished. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "a minor comb" enough to attain a professional standard of writing? I suppose it's OK, but why did I find things like:
    • Comments Generally support, just a few things that could be cleaned up
      • 2nd para of "Writing": "She provides a change in the lead companion's attitude to the Doctor;" this sentence seems a little weird, in that it's not the character, but the writing or characterization of Donna that provides the change. (out-of vs in-universe).
      • In the 3rd para of "Broadcast and ratings", is it necessary to go into details of Grand National and Causality ? It seems like these are added to justify a POV-ish point that Who was the top-watched show that evening.
      • Two points in the reception refer to key scenes in the plot that I believe were in the article before but appropriately trimmed (the two points being Foster's mid-air drop, and the Doctor/Donna window miming bit). It may be worthwhile either to expand on them here (not the best option), or to find a way to just expand the plot a bit more to make these points clearer as to provide the foundation for these statements. (better method)
      • As Freema did not appear in this episode, is it appropriate to include her name as the other cast members in the plot? --MASEM 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done most. Removed the Casualty bit, but not the Grand National bit. With the reception bit, the plot section says the Adipose kill Foster. Added something about it being their first meeting, though. Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - but as mentioned above, I would prefer the end of the plot section to be sourced. D.M.N. (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I liked the pace and flow of the article. There are no major problems with the prose but I would have prefered to see "family uses" rather than "family use". Getting an article about such a recent episode of Dr Who to this standard in such a short time is quite an achievement. GrahamColmTalk 18:01, 20 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:38, 19 April 2008.

    The General in His Labyrinth

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because our group has put a huge amount of work into this project. We have already received good article status and have gone through a critical review process since then. We are also still all actively involved and will respond to any comments or suggestions. Co-nom: User:Carlaty, User:Eshiu, User:Jbmurray. Paulleblanc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulleblanc (talk • contribs) 04:52, April 14, 2008

    Article stats

    Jbmurray 210
    Eshiu 170
    Carlaty 153
    Qp10qp 104
    SandyGeorgia 71
    Paulleblanc 56
    Yomangan 52
    Wassupwestcoast 44

    As usual, my edit count is inflated by frequent little MoS fixes and ref cleanup, and I added Wikilinks and other Spanish-language help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    * Oppose A good third of the citations are primary source and they are not in the plot summary area where they would be expected. These primary source citations are, however, in the character sections, which makes me weary. I also don't know if various language publication are really needed - such a trend would be awful when documenting works like Harry Potter. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Number four primarily, and maybe a little of two. Its not a book report, so some criticism and third party view is rather important. We aren't Cliffnotes, after all. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible that you actually meant to say "makes me wary": cautious rather than tired. Geometry guy 09:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, let's not start a discussion of the word choice. With regard to the citations, they are present in the character section to help differentiate the historical figures from the fictionalized versions. The analysis does not use any primary source citations as far as I'm aware. I also initially suggested removing the publication history, but it does illustrate the book's history outside South America, and it isn't intrusive. Think of it as an appendix if you will. Yomanganitalk 10:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my mind to Oppose for the following reason - if the sections differentiate between "fiction" and "real" people, and you have only primary sources, then your sections are WP:OR. Please, find third party citations that examine the text and point out how it is different or similar to the real life people. I assumed it was just plot summary, but your statement shows that it is not. Oh, and all of those "Garcias" are primary sources, Yomangani. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out, I missed all those littering the analysis. Yomanganitalk 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone through the "Characters" section adding cites and adjusting wording in order to meet Ottava Rima's objection, which I hope that he/she will now be willing to withdraw. I was able to find references that clearly indicate that Garcia Marquez based the portraits of Bolivar and Manuela Saenz on their historical counterparts. I was not able to find anything similar for Santander and Sucre (probably because it is not something critics are going to bother to say, specifically, since it rather follows from the novel being based on historical characters and events as a whole). What I did in those cases, therefore, was, as Jbmurray has done with Palacio, simply tweaked the wording so that the historical figures can be verified as such from pure history books, and I cited the sentences to Lynch or to Slatta and De Grummond. The readers are now left to deduce that those characters are based on the historical characters of the same name, without our making the synthesis for them. In connection with Awadewit's point below about the "Minor Characters" section, that has now gone (see article talk). Though done for a different reason (superfluity), this measure has had the effect of removing, I think, any other instances of what Ottava Rima objected to. qp10qp (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Find a source for the minor characters and their background, and you will have my support based on good faith on the rest of the additions. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, that was a new version of the section, added yesterday. I have combed through it and most seems to me a straight description of the characters as they appear in the book. I've changed the wording in the last part and added refs to Seymour Menton to add the backing of a secondary source. See also my comment on the talk page. I hope you will now feel able to support. qp10qp (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as co-nominator, and as a significant contributor to the article. But I'd like to point out that the credit goes to my fellow co-nominators: Carlaty, Eshiu, and Paulleblanc. This is a fine piece of work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you really "support" it if you are claiming yourself as co-nom? I think you would already be included at the top. Otherwise, it would be silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the explanation for nomination is what I wrote. Why can't he add an independent reason for nomination? Paulleblanc (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I don't believe supporting nomination is the same thing as supporting an article for FA status. I supported nomination, but I don't necessarily support FA status yet because I imagine some valid suggestions will be made during this process that will have to be addressed. So I don't believe it's trivial for Jbmurray to point out that he supports this page recieving FA status. Paulleblanc (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant contributors should declare their participation in their Support, as Jbmurray did; I look for support independent from significant contributors. I'll post the article stats above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Oppose Was at first a bit worried by the character sections, but they seem appropriate to me after looking closer. Primary sources seem only to be used when directly quoting the text, which seems to be done enough, but not too much. Character sections seem an appropriate place for primary sources in my mind. International listings can stay or go. I'm really indifferent either way and also think that, either way, the article is an FA. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Oppose. Rima is right. There are some citation problems in the characters sections. Whenever you say "this person is based on a real historical figure" you need a third-party source. Wrad (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure I understand this objection, and I've just re-read the section at issue. It would help if you could point to specific sentences that you think are of concern. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For my complaint, see here. Moved to talk page to avoid clutter on FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the old "likely to be challenged" chestnut. If we said that the characters were based on García Márquez's pets and neighbours and not the Liberator and his contemporaries then, yes, we'd need a third party source. Here, I don't think so. Yomanganitalk 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • José Palacios, Bolívar's closest aide-de-camp in the book, a character based on a real historical figure.

    *Comment The publication history would probably benefit by having all the various translations inscribed into a table. Further more, why does the Italian translation have two dates, while none of the others do? Kaiser matias (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I went ahead and added a table for the article, but alas, I'm not so crafty with using tables myself. I left in the second date for the Italian translation and will let the main contributers decide what they want to do with it. Nice article to read, very well-detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser matias (talk • contribs) 1:06, April 15, 2008
    Re. the Italian translation... the source (which is a García Márquez bibliography) gives two dates. Frankly, I have no idea why.
    I don't know how to do tables (whenever I try editing one I almost invariably break it), but personally am open to the idea of putting this info in a table if that is the consensus view. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, when I first put this information on the article, I had noticed the two dates for the Italian translation as well. I thought at first that it may have been the only language that has had two published version. But I don't suppose that would make sense given the number of English versions. Would it be better to simply delete the second date for the Italian translation? And I think a table would look good as well, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and do not know how to do these. Eshiu (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed this one. --jbmurray (talk
    • You've given links for a number of articles that are in JSTOR, etc. Keep in mind that a lot of folks won't be able to access those, and that they really should give a "fee required" note in the reference.
    We're aware of this. How best to do this with our citation templates? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote Sandy "I don't do Citation". I know how to do it with cite, but you can't mix cite and citation, and no need to switch to the different system now. Maybe someone who speaks "citation" will help. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Cite news offers a "format" parameter to do this, but I couldn't find anything for Citation. BuddingJournalist 19:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't mix up the Cite with the Citation templates, I guess they don't play well together, so... Did you take out the JSTOR links? If so, this becomes a moot point. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the educational wing of the OAS. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. What are you citing to them? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They republished an excerpt from an out-of-print book used to cite the "Numbers and religious symbols" section. If anyone can get hold of the book and cite the page numbers it can be replaced. Yomanganitalk 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't, I can probably live with it. I was more worried that someone might consider it some sort of political site, OAS doesn't always have the best rep for political stuff. Yes, the original would be better, of course. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some discussion of exactly this point on the talkpage. Yomanganitalk 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Pardon my ignorance. The section Reception says that the book was "relatively poorly received in the United States" but then goes on to say that the critics were fulsome in their praise and that it was in the NYT best sellers' list. Doesn't this constitute a contradiction ? I understand that the 'poverty' was "relative", but the impression that one gets from the section is that the reception was mixed all over the world, and it was relatively better in US of A. Cherian Nair (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tried to finesse this. I think that the point is that it was a critical success in the US, but generally the public didn't take to it; and the point about the Latin American response was that the book stirred up political controversy, because of its treatment of a revered historical figure. Do my changes help clarify this? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Makes more sense. Cherian Nair (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This article is comprehensive, well-written, and appears to be well-researched (I'm no expert in the field, good thing we have a class and their professor working on the article!). All of the images are either in the public domain, covered by a commons license, or have a sufficient fair use rationale. Here are some small suggestions for improvement:
    • Please remove the links to JSTOR, etc. from the bibliography - only people at your university can use them. They are useless to me, for example, even though I have access to JSTOR through my university. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID.
    Thanks for the suggestion, I have removed the JSTOR links. Eshiu (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it just me, or do I hear the faint sound of a kitten crying? Oh, well. Eshiu is in charge here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I just fully understood the above comments on adding a note that says "Fee required". I would actually rather keep the links and add that note, but is there a way to do it? Perhaps I should restore the links while searching for a way to add the note? Eshiu (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's leave things like that for now. We're also discussing the issue at the FAC for Mario Vargas Llosa. It'd be nice to get a consensual ruling, but I wouldn't want to hold this FAC up. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion at the FAC for MVL appears to have moved towards keeping JSTOR links as long as they correspond to cited references. Geometry guy 07:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay perfect, I will begin putting the links back. Thanks for the confirmation, I had also been watching the discussion on MVL. Eshiu (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to add a note, then "Subscription required" or "JSTOR subscription required" is better than "Fee required". However, such a note is entirely optional. Geometry guy 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest deleting the "Minor characters" paragraph. It doesn't add anything to the article and sounds listy. The reader doesn't remember all of these characters and the article doesn't rely on it.
    I agree that there are a lot of minor characters in the novel and we have already selected the ones that tend to reappear in the novel more than once. Though I do agree that some of the minor characters may not be adding much to the article, such as General José María Carreño, but I also feel like characters like Miranda Lyndsay and O'Leary are rather important. But if there is consensus that all the minor characters should be removed, then I will remove them. Eshiu (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't see your comment and provisionally removed the section while addressing Ottava Rima's queries about the "Characters" section above. The "Minor Characters" section is now on the talk page. Please put it back into the article if you disagree. Or you could re-add one or two to the remaining "Characters" list, if you think they are major. El Señor Presidente apart, though, it is unusual for an article on a novel to enumerate all the minor characters like this. I think the reason there seem so many in this book is that the General is flashing back through all the major events of his life, and that all these minor characters act as figments of his memory and consciousness—but they do not actually drive the plot, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to split the difference, I have just added back in a reduced version of this subsection. I've also tried to make sure it is less of a list, and more a contribution to the reader's understanding. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the new version a lot more. It is much more holistic. Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we find out who painted the portrait of Bolivar and give that person credit?

    I very much enjoyed reading this article - another MMM novel for my amazon.com wish list! Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh, beware with that wishlist! This is part of what one of the students said about the course: "I really learned a lot from this course, and was very impressed by the prof, by how he could make some boring texts interesting." Heh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if you want me track down the author of the painting; the website is in the internet archive, but the archive.org links are dead right now (we can check tomorrow). If necessary, I can send some e-mails or make some phone calls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Twould be magnificent! Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See article talk page: both Yomangani and I concluded it would be quicker and easier to upload a new image. Elcobbola (talk · contribs) could be very helpful, if you all are nice to him  :-) ... he did image work on Ima Hogg, and understands all the image requirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. I'm always nice! I'll go be nice in person...  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Excellent article. But I've just copy-edited the Plot summary section, and was disappointed in the prose in a few places, which isn't on the level of that in the opening (NB a few of my edits were inconsequential, but some were not). Let's be very fussy when we're writing about the work of a great, great writer. I've left inline queries here and there. I hope the rest of the article will be better when I get to it! Tony (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've addressed the specific notes you left inline, for which much thanks. I'll go through the text again tomorrow, in the light of the models you've provided in the section you copy-edited. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Im a bit of a noob, but what does MOS stand for? Carlaty (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get him started. (Only joking.) qp10qp (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, the title is fine. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization, "Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt from 'lowercase second and subsequent words'."
    Carlaty, MOS (or MoS) stands for Manual of Style, Wikipedia's copy-editing Bible of sorts. You should have a look; it is an important page for FACs (where we are now). Waltham, The Duke of 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PPS The second map appears to show current countries ("Columbia" (sic), and a border between it and Panama, whereas on the first, historical map, there is no boundary between the two). I'm surprised to see any boundaries at all on that close-up. Were the internal admin regions of Quito and Venezuela at issue during his journey, having been shown on the first map? Tony (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that during this time all the countries were united under "Gran Colombia". However, after Bolivar resigned, there was constant turmoil and civil wars which eventually caused these regions to separate from one another. So it may have been an issue? Perhaps jbmurray can shed some more light on this topic, he is more familiar with Latin American history then I am. Carlaty (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, it'd be more strictly accurate to say that the countries did not yet exist; they had not yet broken off from Gran Colombia. But we see that process start to take place and indeed gather steam in the novel itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. Yup, the second map shows Panamá, which is a no-no, given the country wasn't created until (off the top of my head) 1909. (Acer, can we get rid of that border?) The internal divisions in the first map are departmental divisions. As Carlaty says, however, what's at issue is the break-up of Gran Colombia, and so the dissolution of Bolívar's dream of unity. As such, these divisions gain importance. Returning to the first map: what I don't know is whether the contemporary border between Colombia and Venezuela still follows the departmental division. Sandy?! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed this, haven't been following the map issue, only saw this query now on my morning pass through FAC, and there's only one map in the article now. If there's still a concern, pls ping my talk page and I'll track it down. I don't know if that border changed, and will have to inquire, but there are several Wiki editors we can ping if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are still two, and I fixed the border problem (see below). Yomanganitalk 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can the first sentence be a simpler, more general, "The General in His Labyrinth (original Spanish title: El general en su laberinto) is a novel by Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez."? I couldn't make out right now if by "fictionalised account" you mean novel or short story. Also, the simpler sentence makes everything simpler for the lay reader. indopug (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I fixed this one. Hopefully thats easier to read Carlaty (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if I really understand your question, but his full name is mentioned in the Characters section because that is his full name and is what he is referred to as (but only once in the novel). The link to Simon Bolivar is because the character of the General is based on, and is Simon Bolivar. Does that answer the question? Eshiu (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I was the GA reviewer for this article. It has improved since then, most noticeably the prose is better. Few things:
    • There is two "nineteenth century" and one "19th-century" - it's a small thing but should probably go with one or the other
    Thanks again for all your help with GA! They are all "nineteenth century" now. Eshiu (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Historical context section, I think more background on the pre-46 year old Bolívar, rather than Columbus and Bonaparte would be useful.
    When we started working on this article, we were planning to put more background about Bolívar's life prior to the time period of the novel. However, we chose not to because we thought too much information may be redundant with the information in the character section (as discussed on the article talk page). Moreover, I think too much information will simply be redundant of the Simón Bolívar wiki page itself. Eshiu (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we add in how long he ruled as president before resigning? maclean 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea...Done!!! Carlaty (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the plot summary "...the General's life." - this is the first instance that "General" is used referring to a character. All previous "General"s are part of the book title, and Bolívar is not identified as a General until later. Maybe something in that sentence linking Bolívar with General would be useful. Actually, if Bolívar is only named once in the novel, it might be neat to do the same in the plot summary - name him once in the first sentence and go with General the rest of the way through.
    I really like this idea, I hope it is okay if I do change all the references to the character to the General instead. I've also changed the General in the first sentence to his full name. Eshiu (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I liked how the Minor characters were bolded in the GA-version. I don't think I've seen it done that way before, but I did like it. I guess it must have been forbidden by a rule somewhere. Like, debased."[44]
    I think the rules don't allow bolding of the Minor characters. I'm not positive, maybe someone with MOS knowledge can help? (I liked the bolding as well.) Eshiu (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wary the Publication history section is going to start a precedent and it will be demanded in other book articles. As a contributor to book articles, I know this info is (currently) incredibly difficult to get reliably and comprehensively. --maclean 05:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're at something of an advantage, because there's a very complete multi-volume bibliography for García Márquez, where there isn't for most contemporary writers. (Though even that is now no doubt somewhat out of date.) On the other hand, frankly the textual history for this book is not so very interesting. I'd be willing to delete this section if that seemed to be the consensus opinion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer taking these kinds of things on an article-by-article basis. However, WP's high turnover rate turns 'case-by-case' into precedents into expectations into rules as new people come in and assume everything that came before is the norm. No easy answers. maclean 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second map and the case in the title: Thanks for those responses. Yes, Your Grace, you're quite right about the exemption; however, what gags me is "His" (Jesus? God? The Lord?); "his", like "in", is a grammatical word, unlike the two lexical items that bookend the title. It would look much nicer with "his". But if it's a bore to change the title, don't worry. The second map: it's unfortunate that the Venezuelan and Quito departments are the same colour—along with the modern name for the Columbia department, it gives the impression that during B's journey, the split had already been made, and that the two surrounding departments were by then separate countries in their own right. I'd make them all the same shade of grey, even if the boundaries remain. Tony (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your hesitation about "His." And I recognize that you are happy to leave the title be. But just two points: 1) that this is the capitalization pattern of the English translation (Spanish is of course another matter); 2) I presume the justification is indeed that a semi-deified figure, or rather a man in the very process of deificatoin (even as he suffers and dies in fairly miserable and unbecoming circumstances). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably cached, as I just overwrote the original. I left the accent off the capitalised version intentionally as part of my campaign to undermine the RAE. Fixed that too. Yomanganitalk 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it all written in CanEng? J Murray certainly uses it in his Wiki interview, but here, I wonder out "honor" and other spellings. It would be good to know, since this process is being used for official college assessment, whether the individual contributions of the students will be isolated and marked separately, and whether the learning experience includes the writing of a critique of the reviews here and of the non-student editing contributions to the article, and statements of what the students learned from the others. Tony (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Canadian English, the article probably wants the best of both worlds when it comes to spelling. We'll look again for internal consistency. Your other points are interesting: that's not part of the assignment, but could be in the future, in another iteration. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have made a few tiny edits. The quality of the prose does vary, but as a whole this is a superbly written article. It is enligtening and engaging. There were a few lines I didn't understand:
      • Reportedly fond of women, Bolívar was said to have prematurely aged by the time of his death. - Does being fond of women make you age prematurely age?
        Yes. But I take the blame: poor copyediting. Adjusted. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The novel begins with the name of José Palacios, - does it literally? I haven't read the novel.
        It does. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though he is usually at the General's side, Palacios often repeats... - is the grammar clumsy here?
        Not the grammar, but clarity of transition. Adjusted. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done and congratulations on a exemplary contribution. This will look great on the Main Page. GrahamColmTalk 10:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. An outstanding article. I have one or two very minor questions about the text; but I have no hesitation in supporting.
      • "only Cuba and Puerto Rico remained under Spanish rule until the Spanish–American War of 1898"; perhaps this could be rephrased a little -- "only" and "until" don't work well together here. How about just cutting the "until" clause -- is it necessary to mention the future independence of two countries that don't figure in the narrative?
        I do see your point. I took out the "until" clause...Carlaty (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the last sentence of the historical context section, Bolivar is referred to as the president of Colombia, but in the first paragraph of the plot summary he is called the president of Gran Colombia. Shouldn't the former reference also be to Gran Colombia?
        I changed it to Gran Colombia as well :) Carlaty (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "His unidentified illness has led to his physical deterioration": is that second "his" intentional?
        I this it is. Does it sound awkward??? Carlaty (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A matter of taste, perhaps; I'd probably leave it out. I'm striking this out since it wasn't accidental; up to you if you keep it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The General rides a mule into the last towns on his journey towards death, similar to Christ's entry into Jerusalem": I think "similar" is not given a precise enough noun phrase on which to work. How about "recalling" instead of "similar to"?
      • I don't speak Spanish, but I suspect "autointertexualidad" is a typo for "autointertextualidad".
    -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the last two. Yomanganitalk 09:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything I spotted has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Disclaimer: Although not particularly involved in this article I've been involved with WP:MMM in general. Just finished reading through the article and I can't think of a single reason to oppose. It's a very good piece of work that definetly deserves FA status. Acer (talk) 22:17, 18 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:38, 19 April 2008.

    New York State Route 174

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is ready for the big time. The article went through a major expansion in March 2008, clearing up typos, missing information, and thoroughness of the article. Route 174, if passed, would be USRD's fifth FA. I am willing to clear up any complaints. Mitch32contribs 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://village.marcellusny.com/villagehistory/village_history.html is a marginal site to use. Yes, it's the village's site, but it doesn't give the sources that they used. The book that you use for the next reference (History of the TOwn of Marcellus) is probably a better choice.
    • Is http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nyononda/MARCELLU/BEAUMAR.HTM an extract from the book at the top? If it is, it is the wrong author, and needs to be formatted like a book with just an online link to the online version. Rootsweb is of varying reliablity, honestly. It's designed for genealogists and the first rule of genealogy is "Go to the original source" so you can't always depend on the reprints that are on Rootsweb sites. It's kind of like Wikipedia that way.
    • Pucker Street ref is missing publisher information. Format it like a book if you're using Google books for it.
    All the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - I fixed everything you listed.Mitch32contribs 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lead needs expansion to at least 2, maybe 3 parags. "long thoroughfare" is POV - just state the facts or cite other people's opinions, not your own (not important, but "thoroughfare" is an interesting choice of word) --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing that the lead has been expanded to two full paragraphs, I support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this article does pertain to the WP:LEAD guideline of 1-2 paragraphs for something <15,000 characters. The article is only 6200. Mitch32contribs 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Comments:[reply]
      • I checked your article organization against your WikiProject guideline and it looks good. Interestingly, Interstate 355 (another road FA) is backward. It seems to make more sense to have the History first and then the route description, doesn't it? So it's chronological?
    Done - The two sections are reordered.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See the comments below on this; the change might not be desirable. --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your image layout is bad; you don't want to "sandwich" text between two images. Try putting the one that actually shows the road in the text and nuking the other two. Photos of a lake and a barn don't add anything to the article.
    Done - I removed the lake picture.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lead, three sentences in a row begin with "Route 174".
    Done. Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The roads used by Route 174..." sounds funny. Route 174 is a road; it doesn't use roads.
    Done. Mitch32contribs 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "... the lake narrows into the Nine Mile Creek, which parallels Route 174 for the rest of its length." The rest of the creek's length or the rest of the road's length?
    Done. Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Route 175 turns to the right while Route 174 turns to the left..." Let's not use relative directions, please.
    Done. Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The terrain after Marcellus is more residential and developed, while everything south of it is flat, undeveloped land." As this sentence is drifting off by itself, its purpose is unclear. What significance is it to the road? And why does it need three citations?
    Done. It now has 2, this was added during the A-class review, which was to add some idea of the terrain about the article.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "... intersecting several county routes along the way." You've been pretty granular in your description up to this point. Is there a reason you gloss over this part? I'm not saying you have to change it, I'm just wondering the reason.
    Done - Removed.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prose is good in the History section, but there are too many footnotes and it makes the section ugly. Why do some statements have two or three citations? Do the sources provide different types of information? --Laser brain (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - That would be correct. It does look ugly, but much of the history was rewritten from me, so its not quite an issue I can solve.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved,Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Follow up Dweller's comment, there are only so many words that can be used. Highway, route, road get boring after a while, so we get creative and "thoroughfare" comes up once in a while.
    • Follow up on Laser_brain's comments as follows:
      • Forgot to mention this earlier, but I object to re-ordering the article organization. The main emphasis of any highway article has typically been where is the highway now. Some highways like I-355 and Kansas Turnpike are mostly about the planning and construction, which also serve the function in the History of explaining where and why. Some like M-28 are more about where it is, in this case a 290-mile highway that runs almost end-to-end of one of Michigan's two peninsulas. Yes there is history to that one, but like NY 174, most readers are going to check it out for where it is, not where it was. Readers looking at I-355 are also looking into the controversies and planning of the highway. This is compounded by how recent the construction is.
      • But Route 174 as a designation uses more than one road. Not all state highway designations are overlaid on a single road. Sometimes they are applied to multiple roads, turn off them to another road, etc. The sentence could possibly be worded better, but that's the point it was trying to make.
      • Because some of the USRD editors hold fast that all county roads are of questionable notability even to be mentioned in a route description that tells where the highway designation intersects other roads. This was an issue brought up in the A-Class review for NY 174 and only settled to some editors' satisfaction by removing information and glossing over it.
        • Your recollection is correct; however, for the record, I completely disagree with removing detail just because said detail doesn't warrant an article. I also disagree with the notion that every road that gets mentioned in the description needs a junction list entry (something else that was brought up in the ACR). In New York, the junction list is only for highways that are part of the state highway, U.S. Route, or Interstate Highway systems, or for short roadways that connect the article route to a highway that falls in the aforementioned categories. Not really relevant to this FAC, but I just wanted to clear the air. – TMF 18:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually, that's the case with references for highway histories. Outside of Wikipedia articles, there are few sources the devote space to the complete history of a single highway designation. Most of the few have been deemed unacceptable by WP. So we end up with multiple citations.
        • Correct. Also, some of those few sources (like Gribblenation's New York Routes) are often incomplete or incorrect, hence the deemed unacceptable. Since the primary sources (where primary = major, ≠ firsthand) we have for reroutings are maps, it is then necessary to use multiple maps to establish a range and thus necessary to use multiple footnotes. – TMF 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I supported this for promotion to A-Class and I'm willing to support it for Feature Article after I review it again with a fresh set of eyes.Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The new, reorganized version of the article with the History first has changed my comments into an Oppose for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After further review and other issues cleared up with the other reviews, I support promotion of NY 174 to feature article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The newest source on the Senate bill has its page title in ALL CAPS when it should be in Title Case. Also, it would be nice if you could find the bill number and a possible link to the legislature's website with the bill. I know the Michigan State Legislature is online with full bill texts and statuses, but I don't know if New York does the same or similar. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Pucker Street source needs to be replaced or verified. As listed at Trafford Publishing and their own website, TP is a self-publishing and print-on-demand company. This means it falls under WP:SPS. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment regarding History v. Route description first

    • Having history first may seem better from a chronological point of view, but in most instances, it is more difficult to write that way (as most roads' History sections talk about changes made to the road compared to the present-day routing). Some articles, like Kansas Turnpike, have their history sections first, but that makes more sense for that article because all the history information in that article is about the planning and construction phases. Most highways' history sections involve many reroutings, extensions, and truncations. Lacking the context of having read the route description first, the history can be confusing. So, while having history first may appear at first glance to be better due to keeping an article chronologically in-order, and may even work well for some articles, for the majority of road articles, this isn't the case. So on NY 174 in particular, I would prefer putting the route description first and the history second. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment - the placement of the description vs. the history is a controversial topic, as you can see here. In the end, there was no visible consensus. – TMF 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Imzadi and the layout of images on the article - on my setup (Firefox @ 1680 x 1050) the image layout looks horrible. The top half of the article in particular is heavily unbalanced with all of the boxes and images set off to the right. – TMF 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both issues have been fixed. I adjusted the locations by making 2 go the left and 1 to the right. Also, Route description is now back in front of the history.Mitch32contribs 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slight support Oppose for now. Changed to support, although it's very short, and because of that the prose isn't particularly "engaging", but it does suffice.

    • Lead, why is the length of the route in the lead, but not in the main body of the article? Main body also doesn't say that it goes through Onondaga county? I see that information in the infobox, but shouldn't information in the lead and infobox be in the article body?
    The lead is meant to be redundant to information in the article. It's the cheat sheet for the article. Some folks don't like infoboxes, and might not read it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I give in. Both are added to the first sentence for a better idea.Mitch32contribs 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Route description, the third paragraph is jarring, and is very short. May I suggest breaking it into two sentences, and putting those into the appropriate paragraphs earlier and later in the route description? Perhaps put "The land here is flat and undeveloped." right after the last sentence in the first paragraph, and then put "After Marcellus, the land around the route becomes more developed with residential areas becoming more common." right between the second and third sentence in the last pargraph. (That is between "... into the town of Camillus." and "In Bennets Corners..." Doing this would also help connect the last sentence of the current second paragraph with the first sentence of the current last paragraph, as right now the prose flow is interupted by the third paragraph.
    • One thing I noticed in the article is that while strange jargon terms are linked, it's not like the article is threatening to become too long. Might you be able to add small explanatory notes to the terms such as "jughandle", "reference route". Also, at-grade isn't wikilinked, but it is definitely jargon.
    So you want to force people to click through to other articles? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Mitch32contribs 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the point of wikilinks—instead of explaining a term on every article that includes it, you simply link the term where it is used. So, to answer your question, yes, I would force people to click the link if they want to know what it is. – TMF 22:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But WP:JARGON does suggest that technical terms be explained the in the articles. Yes, it says to wikilink to an article if it exists, but it doesn't say "don't bother explaining if there is an article".
    Even so, I still find it unnecessary at best and overkill at worst. – TMF 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I have to type some variation on "The archbishop went to Rome to recieve his pallium, the symbol of his authority as an archbishop." I agree, but we're here to write the articles for the readers, who don't always want to have to spend forever clicking to figure something out. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's not as bad when the description flows with the text around it as it does in your example above. The issue I'm having is that I can't figure out a way that the terms (reference route in particular) can be described in the same fashion without "interrupting" the prose around it. For example, the way it is in NY 174's history right now, it's a tack-on sentence to the end of the paragraph, whereas a concise definition that is part of the previous sentence would be preferable (to me anyway). – TMF 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps instead of "Route 321 has since been relocated to the west on a county road,[15] and Forward Road is now Route 931F, an unsigned reference route. A reference route is a minor state-maintained route." you could try something like "Since then, Route 321 was detached from 174 to a county road to the west. Forward Road became Route 93F, an unsigned reference route, or minor state-maintained road."? It's just a suggestion, of course. I've already changed to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the second sentence of the the last paragraph of History is very twisty and could stand to be broken down into two sentences. Perhaps "After Route 5 was realigned onto the expressway that runs from Camillus to Fairmont, Route 174 was extended at its north end to the new Route 5 bypass in Camillus. The new alignment makes a sharp hook west along the former Route 5."
    • I seem to ask this of every road GA I do, but I'll ask it again. Does the road pass any historical sites/parks/anything of interest? Does it go through any historic downtowns? I see the bits about the land being more developed past Marcellus, but is that undeveloped land farmland, or woods or just waste? What are the normal crops? Is it hilly? Lots of creeks? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - half of this is impossible to put in. MoS for roads doesn't ask for crops along a route. Also, there is not 1 park, historical site, or really anything of interest along the way.Mitch32contribs 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err.. MOS for roads? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly the structure laid on the project pages.Mitch32contribs 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also point out the article only has 1100 or so words according to the readablity tool above. The readable prose is hovering around 12KB with Dr PDA's tool, and less from the readability tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, it's a somewhat short route that passes through sparsely developed areas for the most part so there isn't much to say—much different than, say, NY 5 or NY 22. – TMF 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that descriptions of the land around the route belong in the article, but I did gather this was through relatively boring areas. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything south of Marcellus village is completely rural (as classified by the Census Bureau). Between Marcellus and Camillus there is some urbanization but that is restricted to the immediate vicinity of road only. Looking at a satellite and topographic map, it appears that the undeveloped land around the road is mainly farmland but I can't be sure without an actual land use map. I don't know what crops grow in these farms. In terms of terrain, it essentially runs along the valley of the Nine Mile Creek so the entire route is mostly on low land. --Polaron | Talk 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Crops? Land usage surrounding the highway? That's irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the road itself. That type of information would be better covered in the article for Onondaga County, New York. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heaven forbid that I suggest a way to make the article a bit more appealing and interesting. I'll try to remember that in the future. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I'm not familiar with NY roads, and I have a mental block when it comes to directions (maps/pictures help me a lot!). By the end of the article I got bogged down a bit in the number of roads that were mentioned and how they all connected. I pulled up the large version of the map that is in the infobox, but it doesn't list all of the main roads mentioned. Can the image be modified to include labels for NY41, NY5 and rt 175? Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, I can look into it. However, I doubt it'll be done before the FAC ends. Although its a good idea.Mitch32contribs 16:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional support—Shouldn't page numbers be provided for references that are put up as supporting specific claims in the main text? For example, refs 23 and 24. Please undot the captions—see MOS on that. TONY (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the periods for Mitchazenia since I peeked in and saw the comment. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed Refs 23 and 24 since they were simply referring to the Seneca Turnpike, which has its own article and is already linked. The page numbers were added to the references on the Seneca Turnpike article. All the other book references already have page numbers. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A well written and thoroughly referenced article and is a good example for other state route articles. My only objesction is the map could be better, a road sign for Route 174 would be very nice. The map isn't the easiest to read but I am colorblind, so. Any way. Full support. Dincher (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looks like a well written article. Good job! GaryKing (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support —Please don't hold back the FAC for this, but it would be good, (for this reader at least), to include some information on the local geology and flora. What's the route built on? What species of trees line the route and so forth. It might lead to more engaging prose, the article is a bit dry in this regard. GrahamColmTalk 19:01, 19 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

    edit
    previous FAC (23:41, 8 March 2008)

    Self-nomination: This article was nominated for FA too early last time, but hopefully this time it might be OK. It has been through a Peer Review and has just achieved GA status after a lot of work over the past few weeks. All concerns with copyright on photographs has been cleared up since last time too, with official permission for all, except the ones taken by me, now held by Wikipedia. I am happy to do whatever work needed to get it through to FA, just tell me what to do! --seahamlass 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have replaced with cached version.
    • Who is behind http://www.research-lincs.org.uk/? The County?
    • http://www.swallowsbarn.co.uk/viking_way.htm what makes this a reliable source, it's a bed and breakfast site.
    • The Knight, Charles "Penny Cyclopedia" ref is lacking a publisher (it says 13 right now but the googlebooks link says it was self published? or was he a publisher?)
    • http://www.lincolncottage.co.uk/ToSee.aspx isn't a very good source for The city of Lincoln was very important at this time, as it was likely the capital of the late Roman Province of Flavia Caesariensis. In fact, I can't even see on that page anything about the roman capital I suspect a footnote got switched around somehow.
    Okay, you replaced with http://www.roman-britain.org but who is behind this new site and what makes them a reliable source?
      • Have taken second ref out as well. The fact is actually referenced in the Navenby Archaeology ref after next sentence.
    • http://www.knightstemplar-uk.co.uk/Pentagram-Symbol,-Pentagram-Meaning,-Pentagram-Picture/114/Pentagram-Symbol.html what make this a reliable source for some (dubious) information that the Templars used the pentagram? I suggest running that past some of the editors of templar articles.That website's group, no matter what they claim, was not founded in 1118, and is probably just another group trading on the Templar myth. None of my historical books on the Templars mention the pentagram being used by them.
    I looked at your sites, but none of them list the sources where they are getting their information. Just because there are websites saying it doesn't mean they are reliable sites. You're wanting scholarly books on this one, trust me. There is enough cruft out there about the Templars that you need ironclad sourcing for anything about the Templars. May I suggest you just drop second paragraph in the Folklore:Pentagram section as it's really not necessary for an article about a town.
    done Have taken ref out and replaced with newspaper story confirming he was based at Cranwell etc plus book ref.
    Have removed ref and replaced with two book refs
    • Current ref 21 "2001 2001 census statistics" says "Government" for the publisher. Which government?:
    British - I've changed it
    -Removed and replaced
    Removed and replaced
    Removed and replaced
    Yes you are. However, despite going through the site, I couldn't find any reference to the building being Grade II listed (please feel free to correct me if I've overlooked it!) - hence my decision to cite another website as a reference - http://www.andersonandglenn.com/architecture2.htm .I have now added: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=192469&mode=quick as well, but again this is not ideal, as it doesn't immediately refer to the building as Mrs Smith's Cottage....
    The backed up ref works.
    • St Peter's In Debt gave me a server error.
    Still OK for me
    • Is http://www.genuki.org.uk/ like the US websites Rootsweb, i.e. is it mostly done by volunteers? If so, I'm not sure it is a reliable source. It doesn't give the sources of its information.
    Genuki is mentioned simply dozens of times by reputable sources, which are considered as reliable refs for Wikipedia. Hope this persuades you!
    The Wikipedia description of GENUKI is this: "GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland"." I've seen the site quoted in many, many Wikipedia articles.
    • First: The head page for the GENUKI page says "The information provided by GENUKI must not be used for commercial purposes, and all specific restrictions concerning usage, copyright notices, etc., that are to be found on individual information pages within GENUKI must be strictly adhered to. Violation of these rules could gravely harm the cooperation that GENUKI is obtaining from many information providers and hence threaten its whole future." which leads me to believe they are recieving their information from many sources and people, kinda like a wiki
    • Two: The page you are using as a citation doesn't give it's sources. There is no author listed, unless it's the bit at the bottom "Last updated Louis R. Mills" who is the author.
    • Three: The page isn't designed as a history page, it's designed to help folks researching their ancestry find records.
    Let's look at the specifics that you are using this page to source.
    a) is the fact that there was a Roman's had a base or garrison in the village, or is it that the village was on the Roman Ermine Street? To be honest, you have a better source for both statements in the second ref on the sentence.
    b) You then use it to reference that the town had charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus, and Richard II. But what the source says is not that it was MADE a market town by the charters, just that the market town HAD charters.
    c) Your third statement ref'd to the page is "Parish records exist for Navenby from 1681, although Bishop's transcripts go back to 1562. The documents show the village hosted two annual fairs while operating as a market town, one on 17 October for farm animals, and the other a feast on the Thursday before Easter. Another popular event was a Hiring Fair for servants, which was held each May Day. Servants gathered to seek employment and were taken on for a period of one year." This is there as the bare facts on the page, but I don't see anything about the hiring fair being popular. Nor does it give the period of time the servants were hired for.
    d) The next paragraph sourced to the webpage (and one subpage) is "The records also show that care of the poor was taken seriously in Navenby from at least 1772, when part of the parish was enclosed. Such was the significance of Navenby at this time that a workhouse for the parish poor was erected here, although this was later given over to other uses. A Sick Society was also founded in 1811, to provide for the frail and elderly, and a Parish School was built next to St Peter's Church by subscription in 1816. Following the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, however, Navenby parish became part of the Lincoln Poor Law Union." But the page only gives a bare recitation of the facts, not the "show that the care of the poor was taken seriously from at least 1772". I do believe the first Poor Law in England dates from Elizabeth the First's reign, but I may be wrong. ** This paragraph refers to the Amended Poor Law Act - and, just to be certain, I've checked it out very, very carefully just now! --seahamlass 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And so forth, I could go on, but the main objection is that there is no source given for where this information comes from. Probably, it is from a local history, but we don't know. It's not designed to be used as a historical reference, it's there to help genealogists find records. It says so right on the front page "Virtual reference library of genealogical information" not historical information. It would probably squeak by for information about what records are still available, since that is its purpose. I'm not opposing the article based on its sources, I"m just commenting. But there is nothing wrong with citing a published book for an article. There will be published local histories that are reliable and would be perfect for use in this article. Try using This source which IS a historical work and is reliable. It is an online database of published histories. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still lacking publisher information for the Lewis, Samuel ref. Either "British History Online" or the original publisher of the book will work. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done using original publisher

    ::** I can't really "prove" that www.raybeckham.co.uk is a reliable site, as Navenby is so small that it rarely attracts press attention and this website therefore hasn't been publicised. It is, however, cited on the official Navenby website, Navenby.net, as a place to go for extra information on the village. I really don't want to lose the information provided by these refs, but I can see the WP problem, so I have backed them up with book references - hopefully that is OK?--seahamlass 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    No, if you check the first page of his Navenby records site http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html, you will see that he doesn't sell the pics on the website, but will provide pics if you want them and just asks for donations to charity. He is a local historian, living in Navenby, and this history part of this website is his project. The links in the article link directly to the information cited - not to the more commercial index you have listed.
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. It is all based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Hope this helps some. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    the links all checked out using the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest you use the Ray Beckham site as an external ref, now that you have the information sourced to other references? That way you don't have any issues. *Done: Done as suggested.
    • And one more. You're still using the templarmechanics site for the bit about the hellfire club. The other usage of it is backed up by a book, but the site is not going to be reliable for information on the Hellfire club connections. Definite progress though! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This site Pastscape might help you with your Grade II building issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: OK, I've seen this article emmerge over the last few months from a troubled (but promising) stub to FAC, where we're at today. I really want this to pass FA this time round. Here's my comments/queries/challenges for now:
    1. Prose: The most striking need of this article is a good copy-edit by someone with fresh eyes; the content is all there in place, it just needs to be written slightly clearer in some cases. I'd recommend the aid of User:Malleus Fatuarum and/or User:Epbr123 (but can't guarantee they will help).
      Done: User:Malleus Fatuarum carried out a marathon session on it on April 13.
    2. Scope: I'm still concerned that the article discusses alot about nearby Lincoln, particularly in the "Sports and recreation" section. Of course it will have an impact upon Navenby, but the cultural/commericial link with the city isn't made clear enough in the article. Would it be accurate (and verifable) to say Navenby is a dormitory village for Lincoln perhaps?
      Done: The fact it is a dormitory village was already mentioned in the 'modern history' section, but I have explanded this slightly.
    3. Images: Not a barrier to FA by any means, but to my tastes and sensibilities, there are way too many images for the article. Less really can be more! For example, Manchester, a major metropolis has 5 images in History (compared with 6 for Navenby village), 1 vs 2 for Governance, 1 vs 4 for Geography, 3 vs 4 for Landmarks and so on.... Simillarly Neilston and Wormshill, both comparable village articles with FA status, each have just a few images distributed throughout, but retain sound presentation and context. I'd be inclined to reduce the number of images by at least a third, perhaps half.
      Done: I have removed 12 or 13 now - I think. Is that any better?
    4. There are a few gaps in knowledge under Governance. In this section we're missing stuff on how Navenby was governed between the Local Government Act 1888 and Local Government Act 1974; Was it part of a Rural District, Urban District or Municipal Borough during this time perhaps? Also, who was Navenby's first Member of Parliament, and when was he/she elected? These are important bites of information for readers.
      Done: Hope is OK?
    5. In Governance, we have images of houses that provide little context for the text they accompany. Perhaps this image could go there instead, with a caption that these are the parish boundary markers?
    • Done
    1. I'd remove the three sub-headings under Transport. They simply split up three paragraphs that could form a good single section.
      Done
    2. As above, I think it might be possible to rejig some the Geography section whereby some of the subheadings could go. Oldham tackles Geography well in my opinion, as does Wormshill.
    • Done: Got rid of three sub-headings

    That's it for now. Hope these help. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Image:Navenbywitch.jpg and Image:Navstation.jpg both need to provide verifiable sources per WP:IUP. The latter, also, does not have adequate reasoning or information to support the claim of public domain. Assertion of "This picture is over 70 years old and out of copyright" is false, as PD is determined by date of first publication (not coming into existence), or, alternatively, by the life time of the author. When was this first published? Who was the author? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image Image:Navenbywitch.jpg has full permission for use in the public domain. This was granted by the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the official headed email with their permission has been lodged with Wikipedia. This is confirmed on the image page with the phrase: "The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system (2008032410019077)." I don't need a 'verifiable source' to prove this to you - Wikipedia has all the official documentation.
      • The image Image:Navstation.jpg is an old postcard. No author given. It was posted in around 1920, dating the card to this time. Copyright expires on photos after 70 years in Britain. The author of this picture is quite obviously deceased, as even if they were 25 when this picture was taken, they would be 113 now. Also, as far as I can be sure, photos are considered in the public domain in America if published before 1923 - so this just sqeaks in. --seahamlass 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my comments critically. Indicating source has nothing to do with copyright status. Copyright status is not in question for Navenbywitch. You don't have to prove anything "to me"; you do, however, have to be civil and follow image policy.
    Regarding Navstation, that information needs to be articulated on the image page. You're using a US PD tag, so the British criterion is irrelevant. Publishing in 1920 indeed qualifies it for PD, but that information is absent from the image page. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, if I sounded a bit tetchy, then sorry. The pics on this page have already been scrutinised from here to kingdom come, and back again. (During a GA review, when an over-zealous editor speedily deleted half and they had to be put back by an admin after emailed agreements for use was provided by all in triplicate...well, virtually). It was your remark: "Assertion of "This picture is over 70 years old and out of copyright" is false," that annoyed me, as it sounded as if you were accusing me of lying. Which I'm not. I have just added what I wrote here to the image pages of the photos. I really hope that makes the WP:IUP thingy OK.--seahamlass 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seahamlass, Elcobbola is very knowledgeable about image policy, and as the author of a featured article, is also anxious to help you succeed at FAC. Whatever went on pre-FAC at GAC, peer review, or anywhere else is secondary here; we must examine all issues at FAC thoroughly. Please work with Elcobbola, as he is most knowledgeable in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seahamlass, apologies if remarks were misinterpreted. "Lying" involves deliberate intent to deceive or misinform, which I certainly did not believe to be the case. "False" only means incorrect; there is no connotation of intent. That notwithstanding,the source has been provided for "Witch" and a date of publication for "station"; that is all that was needed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Obviously a lot of love gone into this article, and I've done some copyediting on it myself today. But I do have a few concerns still:
    • I agree with Jza84's comment (above) that there are too many images. It would help the article a lot if you trimmed them down to those that really add value to the article. I'd say that about half of them ought to go.
    • Done: I've taken out 12 or 13 now
    • I'm unhappy especially about the images in Culture and community which seems largely to be an advert for the three public houses in the village. "It ... serves real ale and home-cooked food ... It has a garden and restaurant and the traditional pub game of Table Skittles can be played here.
    • Done: I have 'revamped' this section and removed the "serves real ale.... and table skittles" bits. Have to agree, did sound rather like an advert. Now the paragraph just concentrates on the history of the pubs instead, and the fact they are Grade II listed etc. Have also removed the pix of the pubs, as per your suggestion.
    • From the Folklore subsection: "The pentagram includes the nearby villages of Temple Bruer – which has strong connections with the Knights Templar of the 12th century – as well have nearby Wellingore and Harmston." I've got no idea what that means. As well have? What's the significance of the pentagram? If there isn't any, then why include it? If there is, then why not explain it?
    • Sorry, that should have read 'as well as' not 'as well have'. I've changed it.
    • There are too many short subsections in Culture and community. Does it need any at all?
    • Done: I have fiddled round with this, and removed all the subsections per your suggestion, so now just one section.
    • "Navenby, originally an agricultural village, became a market town on receiving charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus and Richard II of England, during the Middle Ages." I've been wondering what that means all afternoon. Did it become a market town several times, losing that status between kings, or what?
    • Done: Changed the sentence
    • "The wide main street, which now doubles as Navenby High Street, is lasting evidence of its market town status." Doubles as Navenby High Street? What does that mean? And why is a wide street evidence of anything other than, well, a wide street?
    • Done: Added reason for width - driving flocks of sheep to market requires wide roads, and took out "doubles as."

    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Comments. I'm tipping towards support now (well done for being brutal with the images btw;-)), just a few further points:[reply]

    • "The Saxon name for Navenby has not survived ...". Does that mean it's unknown?
    • Yes. Changed it to say that to say not known.
    • "The Vikings exerted considerable influence over Lincolnshire from the 9th century ...". From the 9th century until when?
    • Changed to say "in the 9th and 10th centuries"
    • "People aged between 25 and 44 represent the largest majority in Navenby ...". There can't be a largest majority, a majority is a majority.
    • Changed to: "People aged between 25 and 44 represent the majority of Navenby residents."
    • "... a purpose-built visitor centre, used for exhibitions about Navenby and of local interest." Doesn't read quite right. " ... Navenby and the local area"?
    • Changed to: "for exhibitions about Navenby and the local area."
    • From the lead: "Navenby became a market town on being granted its charters by Edward the Confessor, William Rufus and Richard II of England." Can you make this match what the body of the article now says?
    • Done Same words as main piece now.
    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I jiggled the pix around today - getting rid of 14 - so you probably came across this after my major crash and burn job. I think I've corrected this now, but please let me know if I haven't.--seahamlass 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm coming round to supporting this article. I'm still worried about this Lincoln link. Could something about this be put into the lead about it being a dorm village for Lincoln perhaps? It's not a condition for FA, I just happen to think this would help. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done

    Support. A well-written and well-researched article on a small English village. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Per Malleus. Hits the spot for me too. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Why are the culture and economy/media sections near the end, and the transport section earlier. It seems to me like 'transport' is more a minor, infrastructure-related topic, and should be de-emphasized in the order of sections. On the other hand, culture and economy are far more important when describing a city, town, or region, and should be placed far earlier in the order of sections. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It still needs fresh eyes to sift through carefully. Here are random examples:

    • "Navenby returned to being the rural village it had been before"—eeuw, "N returned to being a rural village."
    • Done: Changed as suggested
    • "Evidence suggests that Navenby was a significant staging point along Ermine Street; the Romans are reported to have maintained a small base or garrison in the village. A possible Romano-British temple and some burial sites have been unearthed in the village.[6][4]" Still don't like explicit mention of "evidence", generally. Here, it's repetitious; why not: "Navenby was probably a significant staging point along Ermine Street – the Romans are reported to have maintained a small base or garrison in the village,[2] and a possible Romano-British temple and some burial sites have been unearthed in the village.[6][4]" Are the burial sites possibly Romano-British too? If so, remove the fuzzy "some".
    • Done: I have removed the 'fuzzy' word 'some.' Agree it was unecessary. I have left in the word 'evidence,' however, as the finds unearthed by archaeologists at the site are classed as evidence, but I have chopped and changed these sentences a bit.
    • "Parish records exist for Navenby from 1681, although bishop's transcripts go back to 1562."—plural bishops'? Replace "although" with "and"? "hosted several annual fairs"—you mean several each year, or annual fairs in several years (1732, 1741 and 1750)?
    • Done: Swapped to plural bishops - bishops' Added 'each year' after "hosted several annual fairs"

    Tony (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The presentation of many of the citations still needs to be improved to meet 2c of the criteria for my support. In particular, many of the titles used in the citations are editorial descriptions, rather than the given title of the source; this is misleading. Some dates are still abitrarily given where none or a different one is given on the source itself. The references for radio stations are just websites and don't mention Navenby. Publisher/author names are a little arbitrary too. I'm not a fan of "Suchandsuch.com website"; you wouldn't cite "The Times newspaper", for example. This is a big article and doing very well, so don't be too surprised that there are a lot of details to fix to get it to a polished standard. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK - all book refs are now standardised - I hope. I have gone through them all, but getting tired and blurry now.. Will do net refs tomorrow.
    • Done: Standardised the source titles on the web references. Hopefully I haven't missed any out.
    • I'll try something. I am amazed at the referencing and the amount of info. I was just thinking of some minor points and one not so minor. Minor first, parish council and county council need not necessarily be capitalised. I'm not quite sure on the RoadGhosts.com part in the actual naming of a website but...
    • I have lower capped parish council, per your suggestion, as it didn't actually name the parish council involved, just referred to it as an organisation. However, I have kept North Kesteven District Council capped up, as that is the actual name of the council. Thanks for spotting that.

    A slightly more serious point is, do you have a source for the population (maybe link it to the right page on the ONS)...? Simply south (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done: I've added this one [[15]], as it is from the Government, so verifiable and reliable etc. Hope this is OK?
    • Comment: I would prefer to see a little more in the governance section about the civil parish and its antecedents, and more about its ecclesiastical history (with respect to its ecclesiastical parish.) My source is Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270.
      Civil parish: In addition to the information you have already included, Navenby civil parish boundaries were adjusted in 1931 to include the entire civil parish of Skinnand, and no other boundary changes in modern times have been recorded. (Youngs book, page 273) This could also be referenced in the Topography section, as it is the means by which the civil parish increased in size (Youngs book is an authoritative source for boundary changes around this time.) The GenUKI entries for Navenby and Skinnand also give some more information of unknown reliability and validity, but a better source should be found than it if any of this information were to be included.
      Poor Law Union and Rural Sanitary District: Both Navenby and Skinnand had been placed in the Lincoln Poor Law Union in 1834, and they were also part of the Lincoln Rural Sanitary Districts. I suggest these go in the Governance section, as they were connected with the parishes, and succeeded by the local government changes which brought in rural districts. (Youngs book, pages 247, 273, and 278.) The GenUKI entries with the same caveat as mentioned previously also give more information.
      Ecclesiastical parish: The article would be improved by adding material about its ecclesiastical status and history. The same Youngs book, same pages, states that Navenby ecclesiastical parish is in the Diocese of Lincoln, and that it was in Longoboby Rural Deanery until 1968 when it was transferred to Graffoe Rural Deanery.(Youngs book, pages 247, 273.) The Skinnand part of the current ecclesiastical parish had made the transfer from Longoboby Rural Deanery to Graffoe Rural Deanery in 1884. (Youngs book, page 278.) Again, the GenUKI entries with the same caveat as mentioned previously give more information.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just got back from 440-mile journey...so blurry eyed and shattered. Will look at this tomorrow. I really liked all the GENUKI stuff on Navenby and quoted quite a lot originally, but had to remove it as not a reliable source. I'll hit the books in the morning. --seahamlass 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still plenty you can add without going to the GENUKI site (which I agree is not really suitable to use as a source, but could be useful to use as a means to guide searches through reliable sources). I've given you a reasonable amount that could be added without searching further, as I've provided full references from a reliable source for much I what I suggested anyway. I think it would add to an article that is already good.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment – Either I have overdone it with the champagne or there is something seriously wrong with this sentence: "The road runs between the neighbouring villages of Boothby Graffoe and Wellingore and covers more than 2,100 acres (8.5 km²)." Waltham, The Duke of 06:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have forgotten to mention that the sentence in question is in the intro. I have also done some copy-editing in the history section; there were a couple of minor errors but nothing significant. I am now moving further down. Waltham, The Duke of 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just swapped that sentence around - it was rather confusing!

    Comment: The first paragraph after the block quote in the Governance section is not quite correct, and the cited reference doesn't actually verify what is written at that point, and neither does the Youngs book, which I used to make my previous comments. The text currently reads "Navenby was classed as an ancient and civil parish from the 11th century, until England’s break with Rome in the mid-16th century.[33]" The web-based reference (correctly) states that Navenby was an Ancient Parish, and that it is a civil parish, but the two periods of this don't coincide, and nothing is mentioned in the web reference or Youngs book about any break from Rome or the time at whicjh the terms "ancient parish" or "civil parish" came to an end. In fact, civil parishes only came into being after the reforms in Local Government in the nineteenth century. "Ancient parish" is the term generally used to describe the old parishes of England which combined together civil and ecclesiastical administrative duties. Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries (the split with Rome, that the passage mentioned), these parishes took on some of the duties (care for the poor, etc) that the monastaries and other religious institutions, then abolished, had had. Over time, more administrative duties were given to the parishes until in 1889, the Interpretation Act completely separated the two kinds of functions, bringing civil parishes into existence. [[Eccesiastical parish]es is the term used for the purely religious unit. I've taken this from a number of sources, some of which are specific to Cheshire, but a general-purpose reliable source which contains all the necessary information would be the book: Winchester, A. (2000). Discovering parish boundaries. Princes Riseborough: Shire Publications Ltd. ISBN 0747804702. pages 5–20. (including chapters with titles "What is a parish?" and "Ancient Parishes".) I suggest a change in wording along the lines of "Navenby was an ancient parish, which began to take on civil duties as well as ecclesiastical duties from the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Tudor Poor Law Acts onwards. It is now the centre of a civil parish and an ecclesiastical parish." (You can cite the Youngs book, page 245 and 273 for the last sentence. For the bit about the Tudor Poor Law Acts, you can cite the Winchester book, page 7.) I can make these changes for you, if you want, but I thought it was important to describe why they were needed here.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Support: The article is well-written and its coverage is comprehensive and factually accurate.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:30, 18 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

    1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing

    edit

    An assassination attempt on President Ngo Dinh Diem by two Vietnam Air Force pilots. Relatively short, since the plot involved only two people and was relatively straightforward: Instead of flying out to attack the Vietcong, they diverted towards Saigon and dropped a few bombs. I have included all information discussed by the books listed at the bottom. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment all the links worked and the sources look good. I like the readability tool link too! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Oppose—But can you remove the dot from the first two captions? See MOS. This is not well-written. Here are morsels from the top that suggest there are big problems throughout.

    (Points removed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
    • "The attack failed to kill Diem and his family, with only his sister-in-law Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu sustaining minor injuries."—What, the other members suffered serious injuries or none at all?
    • "Cu fled to Cambodia, while Quoc was imprisoned"—Rather than imply that these two events necessarily happened simultaneously, why not just "and"?
    • Grammar: "and responded with tightening media freedom and rules of political association" (a tightening of?)
    • "The bombing fueled media speculation that the United States would exploit the incident to place combat troops in South Vietnam and was reported to have prompted plotting against Diem on the part of his officers." Comma after "Vietnam"? "Prompted plotting" not an attractive duo. "By his officers"? Clumsy TONY (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copyedited the lead. As fate would have it, I copyedited from bottom up on the day of the nom, and the lead was the only part not copyedited. So hopefully the lower part is actually ok. But I will sweep again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rejoinder—I took another segment as a sample:

    At that time, US military personnel were theoretically present only in an advisory capacity. With the media questioning the ability of Diem to provide a stable government, US Secretary of State Dean Rusk denied that the US had plans to deploy combat forces. He also ruled out negotiations with the Vietcong, saying that "the root of the trouble" were communist violations of the Geneva Accords.[6] US official John Kenneth Galbraith lobbied Kennedy against deploying sending combat troops, believing that it would lead to endless South Vietnamese requests for further soldiers. Galbraith further believed that the Soviet Union would be happy if the United States wasted more of its resources in the jungles of Vietnam.

    • "Theoretically" means what? Better to use a less ambiguous word.
    Replaced with "officially" - some of them battled it out anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Not good at all. New collaborator needed. TONY (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment: I'm not sure if "Presidential Palace" is a widely-used term for the building in English. In Vietnamese it had been "Independence Palace" since Diem's occupation until 1975. It's still known as such on its official website (probably for touristic reasons). DHN (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, it would be right to move it to the Independence Palace, which I have done. I was simply using PP as a generic term and forgot about the official name. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments.

    • "on 27 February 1962" - no need to say the year again
    I know it's obvious from the title, but every article with the year in it also has the full date in the lead. Of course this is not in the main body. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The attack prompted Diem to become more hostile towards the American presence in South Vietnam" --> "The attack made Diem more hostile towards the American presence in South Vietnam", perhaps
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image in Attack section could do with a better caption...
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Quoc and Cu – flying American-built" - would em dashes be better here (and next sentence)?
    Yes. I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and guards were killed; about thirty others were injured" - change semicolon to comma and put an "and" before "about", I think
    Reworded. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "did not drop the full payload" - a bit uneasy on the jargon...also, do you know why they didn't?
    No we don't. which is why it's weird. Changed to munitions I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the purpose of the image in the Diem reaction section?
    To show us the mug of the person the section is about.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, should the section title be "Diem's reaction"?
    If it was in the man prose, yes, but I think these newspaper type headlines are ok in headings....I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    Hmm...I would disagree with that on a grammarish basis. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Diem regime's" - rmv "the"
    Tweaked. Simpy removing it wouldn't have worked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those copyedits have helped. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I came to this article as a result of copy-editing request. It's been worked on by several editors during FAC and is crisply written, well-sourced and informative. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I too was asked to copyedit the article. I have made some changes, and I think the article now meets the FA criteria. I just have one request: the Nolting quote in "Aftermath" says the bombing was an "anti-Communist assassination attempt". This gives the impression that the attack against Communists, but it was in fact an attack against an "anti-Communist". You should probably refactor the quote to clarify this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:35, 18 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

    Emery Molyneux

    edit

    Self-nominator. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Items struck by karanacs 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This sentence in the lead doesn't make sense to me: The globes were the first to be made so they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and came into very general use on ships. - what about them being the first to be made was relevant to humidity at seas?
        • Fixed: I've rephrased the sentence. According to one of the sources I consulted (Markham), Molyneux's globes were the first globes made in such a way that they were not affected by humidity at sea.
      • Is there any information about his life before 1557?
        • Comment: Unfortunately not, based on the sources I consulted. Don't forget we're talking about someone who lived during the 16th century.
      • Is there a different between being "the maker of the first terrestrial and celestial globes in England" and "the first English globe-maker"? To me, these seem to be the same thing
        • Comment: I believe what the sources mean is that Molyneux was the first person to make globes in England (i.e., no one else had done so; all previous globes in England were made elsewhere and imported into England), and was also the first Englishman to make globes (none of the previous globemakers who had made globes abroad were English).
      • Did he give Thomas Harriot a pilot, a ruttier, or a globe? Not clear from the sentence.
        • Fixed: According to Wallis (1951), it was a ruttier.
      • When did he start making globes, how did he learn to make globes, which did he started making first (terrest. or celest.)? How many globes did he make and how quickly did he work? Did he take orders and then create a globe for that person or did he create a bunch and sell them in a store or other method?
        • Comment: According to the available sources, none of this information is known.
      • Did Molyneux speak Spanish? It seems odd to me that an English globe-maker would put Spanish text on a globe, esp. during thie time period, when England was often at war (or feared war) with Spain.
        • Comment: None of the sources consulted state what languages Molyneux personally knew, but there are legends on the terrestrial globe in English, Spanish and Latin. I suppose it's possible that Molyneux had help from some of his friends who were explorers and mathematicians. We know, for instance, that mathematician Edward Wright helped Molyneux translate some of the legends into Latin, so perhaps Molyneux wasn't that familiar with the language.
      • If the dates of Thomas Blundeville's life are that uncertain it might be wise to exclude them from this article
        • Comment: Sure, I can do that if you think that would improve the article. Basically, what I did was to insert into the article (approximate) birth and death dates (obtained from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) of individuals that did not yet have Wikipedia articles about them.
      • Last paragraph of Terrest. globe section doesn't flow well either. I'd say the sentence that begins "thus, it appears" should be reworded and go before the description of the phrasing on the globe.
        • Comment: Could you please identify which paragraph(s) you are referring to when you speak of the "description of the phrasing of the globe"?
      • Legacy subheadings shouldn't be "on ..." but just the word ("Culture", etc)
        • Fixed.
      • What are "ruttiers and pilots"?
      • The first paragraph of Terrest. globes section does not flow well and is confusing.
        • Comment: Could you be more specific?
          • I think it is poor flow. It reads like this:
    a) He got information for his maps from writings and interviews with explorers (sentence 1)
    b) Quote in Spanish from one of his globes.
    c) English translation of quote
    d) two sentences talking about the expedition referenced in the quote
    e) one sentence that, at the very end, mentions how Molyneux would have known to write the quote.

    To me, the most important information here is a) and d). The original Spanish would likely do better as a footnote. Regardless, going straight from a description of his research to a quote from one of his final products is poor flow - the reader feels that something is missing. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed. — JackLee 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image captions shouldn't end with a period unless they are full sentences.
      • The further reading section needs work. This should be a list of works that is easily accessible to a reader wanting more information. Editions published in the 1500s don't really qualify for that. Please list only the newest editions of those books, with a note that it is a reprinting of a book originally published in 15xx. There really should never need to be notes for the Further reading section; it might instead be wise to create an article for the books that need more explanation and just wikilink to it.
        • Fixed: I think it's useful to have a section listing the 16th-century works that were written about Molyneux's globes. I've moved these books out of "Further reading" as you suggest into a separate section. This also solves the problem of the "Further reading" section having notes.
  • Neutral. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • *Oppose. I think this is an interesting topic, but the article needs work to reach the FA criteria. The organization and focus of the article needs work, and once that has been revamped a bit, it needs to be carefully reread for clarity.

      • I feel like the article is focused more on the globes than on the man, and since this is a biography that should not be the case. I think your information overall is useful and should remain in the article, but it might need to be organized or worded differently to make it more focused on Molyneux. For example, the first section title, "Making of the globes" is not person-focused ("Globe maker" is one alternative).
        • Fixed: I considered creating two articles, one about Molyneux, another about his globes, but the problem is that so little is known about the man himself that much of the information would end up being duplicated. For example, the only part of the current article that would probably not be in an article on the globes would be Molyneux's final years in Amsterdam where he turned to the making of ordnance.
          • The "Construction" subheading still doesn't fit. Why not pull the information under "Construction" into a "Background" section that is stand-alone? Then you can have the "Globe-maker section" focusing on the globes he made. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: I don't think this would work. Most of what we know about Molyneux relates to the making of his globes. There would be hardly anything left in the "Globe-maker" section — JackLee 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the "he" in Ubaldini's report Ubaldini, or Molyneux
        • Comment: From the first part of the sentence ("Molyneux accompanied Francis Drake on his 1577–1580 circumnavigation of the world; ..."), I believe it's clear that Ubaldini was referring to Molyneux.
      • "legend in Latin on the terrestrial globe" -> which terr. globe? The one he gave Harriot? A different one?
        • Comment: "[T]he terrestrial globe" is a general reference to all the terrestrial globes Molyneux produced from the printing plates.

    Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I had no problem with this. Although different editions of the globes survive, they were all either the basic terrestrial or basic celestial globe. They were a manufactured product, produced in numbers and updated from time to time. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I've made some changes to the article and responded to your comments above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several 16th century books (Hakluyt, Ramusio, Hood, etc, etc.) appear in the footnotes, although their only purpose is to list the full form of a book cited in the text by short form. This is redundant and misleading; a link to the list of sixteenth century sources would be better and clearer, and need no footnote.
      • Comment: Can you explain why is this redundant or misleading? Also, are you suggesting that I put these works in the "References" section?
        • Redundant because, AFAICS, you've already listed them as 16th century sources; you don't need to send the reader to the footnotes. Please don't list them as References, unless you used them; footnote listings are misleading to the extent they imply you consulted them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was what I understood the "References" section to be for as well. However, in the new "Early works on Molyneux's globes" section, I've only listed works that were directly about the globes, not works such as those by Hakluyt, Ramusio and others. I think they should stay in the footnotes as there isn't anywhere else appropriate to put them. — JackLee 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wm. Sanderson's MS from 1656 is in the list of sources, although as far as I can tell it is only cited (far more plausibly) at second hand. Please remove.
      • Fixed: I had initially referred to sources cited in earlier footnotes like this: "Sanderson, above, p. xxx". The GA reviewer advised me that if the works were placed in the "Reference" section, they could simply be referred to as "Sanderson, p. xxx". Anyway, I've removed the Sanderson work from the "Reference" section as suggested.
    • We should consider whether last name first (especially in notes) serves any purpose. The normal order would simplify linking and be clearer.
      • Comment: There doesn't seem to be anything in the Manual of Style on this (correct me if I'm wrong). I've simply been using, and following the format used in, citation templates such as {{citation}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. Is this a matter that needs to be raised on a Manual of Style talk page?
    Comment. It won't affect FA, but in future, I suggest using first name second name for notes and second name first name for booklists/bibliographies. Most manuals of style (I don't know about ours) recommend this, and it makes sense, because the only point of second name first name is for easy location in an alphabetical list. qp10qp (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Thanks, I'll do that in the future. Also, if I have time I'll try and fix the citations in this article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, have fixed the citations. — JackLee 15 November 2024 06:43 (UTC)

    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I've indicated my comments above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Minor quibble, it's nice to see the references given in alphabetical order. Not a big concern, but it is the usual form in publishing and scholarship.
        • Fixed.
      • http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mosmd/17cnav.htm would be nice if the site gave sources for the information given.
        • Comment: If this is a problem, perhaps this website doesn't have to be referred to. I cited it for the fact that Edward Wright had written in his book Certaine Errors in Navigation "about the use of the terrestrial and celestial globes that had been developed by Molyneux", but Wright's book is itself already cited in the Wikipedia article anyway.
  • One more - you've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.yeoldesussexpages.com/index.html doesn't list the source for the information given.
    • Comment: Unfortunately, you're right. I haven't been able to reference the fact that the Petworth House globe was restored between 1995 and 1997 to any other source.
    • All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've put my responses above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. An excellent piece of work. I recognise the painstaking and time-consuming effort it takes to compile this sort of article, which is all about particulars. I found it interesting, illuminating, and convincing.

    Three points:

    • In March 1593 Molyneux was issued with a royal warrant and the matter was considered by the Privy Council on 4 November 1596, when the Lord Admiral was urged "to speak to Molyneux, Bussy and the two Engelberts about their offensive engines"[45] as part of measures to defend the south coast of England from recusants. I am not sure what is meant by "recusants" here: which ones? I would have thought the security threat to the south coast was still from the Spanish, who launched a second armada in October 1596, in fact.
      • Comment: The information was from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The GA reviewer also raised a query about this: see my response to him at "Talk:Emery Molyneux#GA Review".
    Well, I rather agree with that reviewer: it is not enough that it comes from a source, it must be luminous to the reader, and this is not. You might get round it by removing the words "from recusants". Then the meaning would make sense to everyone, while at the same time not contradicting your source. qp10qp (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My catalogue of the Elizabeth I exhibition at Greenwich suggests that "the cartography for the celestial globe is based largely on the 52.5 centimetre celestial globe made by the Dutch globe maker, Jacob Floris van Langren. It shows the canonical forty-eight Ptolemaic constellations of the southern hemisphere, created by the Dutch cartographer Petrus Plancius". The present article only suggests influence on Langren/Langeren, not from him.
      • Comment: Hmmm, this is different from what Margaret Wallis said in her article on the subject. It's possible that new information has come to light since Wallis published her article in the 1950s. Does the Greenwich exhibition catalogue provide a reference for the information? What's the title of the catalogue? Will see if I can borrow a copy from a library.
    The reference is Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum, edited by Susan Doran, Chatto & Windus in association with The National Maritime Museum, 2003, p 134. That entry is by Emily Winterburn and Kristen Lippencot. Their references (for the whole six-paragraph entry), are to Clifton, Globe Making, pp 46–47; Crinò and Wallis, Molyneux Globes, pp 11–18; and Lippencot, Power and Politics, p 138. I've said some more on the talk page. Since only four pages in this book mention Molyneux, just ask me any details you need and I can save you the trouble of borrowing it (although it's a wonderful volume to look at). qp10qp (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed: I've added the information to a footnote. Where the article mentions Molyneux's globe having influenced van Langeren, this is a reference to the terrestrial globe. — JackLee 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The catalogue also points out and shows that the royal arms were emblazoned across North America on the Temple terrestrial globe. Is this worth mentioning, given that Sanderson had funded Davis's search for the Northwest Passage and Raleigh's Virginia adventures? It would place the globe in the context of the new mercantile imperialism.
      • Comment: I remember something about this in one of the sources I read when preparing the Wikipedia article. Let me dig it up.
    The reference for this is to an essay in the same catalogue by Sian Flynn and David Spence, "Imperial Ambition and Elizabeth's Adventurers", pp 121–131 (specific pages, 127–28). There is also a full-page illustration of the royal arms on North America (present-day Canada, in fact) on page 135. qp10qp (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. My responses are above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Provisional support—This is very good, but I suggest a run-through by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text. Here are examples of issues at random, towards the top.

    • "The globes were the first to be made in such a way that they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and they came into general use on ships." When? Even "during the century after his death they ..."?
    I would agree with that. Small ones were being made for £2, so probably all ships had them as the latest thing. This is referenced to Markham, and so will have to do, I should think. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't like this sentence: "Only six Molyneux globes are believed to exist in the world today, and of these, three are in England. One pair, consisting of a terrestrial and a celestial globe, is presently owned by Middle Temple and displayed in its library, while a terrestrial globe is at Petworth House in Petworth, West Sussex." Perhaps "Only six Molyneux globes are believed to be still in existence. Three are in England, of which one pair, consisting of a terrestrial and a celestial globe, is owned by Middle Temple and displayed in its library; a terrestrial globe is at Petworth House in Petworth, West Sussex." Is that better?
    • "he had a reputation for being a mathematician"—kind of pejorative, like "Tony1 has a reputation for rudeness at FAC". Needs recasting.
      • Comment. I don't think this is pejorative. Such a sentence construction is only pejorative if what the person has a reputation for is itself pejorative. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it to "enjoyed a reputation as a mathematician". qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long winding snake: "In making his terrestrial globes, Molyneux examined ruttiers (instructions for directions at sea)[10] and pilots (navigational handbooks),[11] such as the ruttier for Brazil and the West Indies he gave to Thomas Harriot in 1590,[12][7] and received advice and assistance from navigators and mathematicians.[13]"

    Tony (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I've taken your suggestions on board, and my replies are above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; but have you had someone go through the rest of it? I immediately happened upon:
      • "Molyneux emigrated to Amsterdam with his wife in 1596–97." What, it took them two years to do it?
        • Fixed: They emigrated to Amsterdam in 1596 or 1597. I've inserted the word "or". — JackLee 15 November 2024 06:43 (UTC)
      • "Emery Molyneux is regarded as being both the maker of"—Can you remove "being" without changing the meaning?
        • Fixed.
      • "the only way to caste [anything] whatsoever in perfecte forme... and yt is the perfectest and trewest waie of all wayes... and this was the wai that Mullenax did use to cast flowere [flour] in the verie forme".—Are the ellipsis dots in the original, or did you insert them? If the latter, please read MOS on the spacing. Perhaps you need to insert in square brackets if WP's dots, or if in the original, put a note after the quote saying [our ellipsis dots].
        • Fixed: The ellipses were in the source quoted. I've added a space before the ellipses as required by the MoS. I don't think it's necessary to add "[our ellipsis dots]" or anything similar, since MoS doesn't require this. — JackLee 15 November 2024 06:43 (UTC)
      • "greatly-expanded"—No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS.
        • Fixed, although I'm doubtful about this rule. I would have thought that all compound adjectives should be hyphenated, whether they incorporate an adverb ending in "–ly" or not. — JackLee 15 November 2024 06:43 (UTC)
    Tony is correct. "Greatly" is an adverb, so no hyphen required. qp10qp (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a very good article; let's polish it, yes? I'm sure Sandy would like it out of the road as soon as possible. Tony (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked the GA reviewer if he will cast a pair of fresh eyes over the article for readability. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now given the article the thorough copyedit requested by Tony. But I would argue that this material requires the sort of close, careful detailing that precludes bounding prose. A certain pedantic accuracy is essential for topics like this, and there's no way round that. I have made one or two more comments about the wording, etc. on the talk page.
    Tony, I would very much appreciate it if you could have another look, since not only have your points above been addressed, but the thorough copyedit you requested has been done (I have never worked on this article except to copyedit). A glance at my contributions will show how long it has taken. Others have been copyediting too.qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is still quite a bit of unstruck concern; has Karanacs been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a message on his talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a shame this article hasn't been much reviewed. I have no doubt about its quality. qp10qp (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Well-written, well-referenced and engaging. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
      • "The globes were the first to be made in such a way that they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and they came into general use on ships." Would the meaning of the sentence change if this was reworded to "The globes were the first to be unaffected by the humidity at sea..."?
      • I'm not sure the first two paragraphs should fall under the "Construction" sub-heading. I'd suggest pulling those two paragraphs out of the "Globe-maker" section and placing them before under a separate heading, such as "Background" or something similar.
      • "Thomas Cavendish also appears to have helped Molyneux with his globes, or it is possible that Molyneux..." Are the two mutually exclusive? Also the reference you give does not explicitly state either of these claims; it just says that he recorded Cavendish's tracks. Do other sources shed any light on this? Ah, I did some more reading, and it looks as if this came from Markham xxx. I was about to put this in myself, but noticed that your formatting of the abbreviated "Introduction", Tractatus de Globis does not give the author's name. Is there a particular reason for this?
    I found this a little awkward too and have said something about it on the talk page. I changed "or" to "and" because I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. My guess is that this sentence is trying to say that Cavendish's voyage has informed the map but that it is not clear whether that is because Molyneux was on the voyage or not. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "were published after some delay in the late months of 1592 or some time between January and March 1593" Ambiguous position of "after some delay"; sentence should be recast. On first reading, I thought the dates referred to the delay instead of the publication.
    I've simplified this to: "were published in late 1592 or early 1593, after some delay". qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "When she was presented the celestial globe at a second entertainment, she said," Maybe it's just me being paranoid, but I'd prefer it if this would mention again that this quote is according to William.
    I've copyedited this part heavily. That particular bit is now: His son William later reported the Queen's words on accepting the terrestrial globe: "The whole earth, a present for a Prince..."; and on accepting the celestial globe: "Thou hast presented me with the Heavens also: God guide me, to Govern my part of the one, that I may enjoy but a mansion place in this other." qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In 1595 the merchant Robert Parkes purchased..." Should this be sourced to the DNB?
      • Try to be consistent in comma use after introductory clauses. For example, I spotted "In the 1590s, Molyneux..." and "In March 1593 Molyneux..."
    I've gone through and made this consistent, I think. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What style is used in the citation format? I don't think I've encountered the square bracket notation for abbreviated author names before. This is just out of curiosity more than anything.
      • Since you give the full citations for some of the sources in the "References" section, I don't see a particular need to repeat them in the "Notes" section. Giving the abbreviated form would be just fine, in my opinion.
      • Please provide page numbers for paper references where possible.
      • At times, the prose skirts a bit too close to the original sources for my tastes. I'd be more comfortable if either those sentences are further rephrased or they are edited to employ quotations for phrases that are lifted directly from the original sources. BuddingJournalist 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: "Recusants" I think this may be just a case of the ODNB exhibiting confusing phrasing. From the notes of the Privy Council, they were indeed worried about recusants collaborating with the Spanish, but it's clear that the mention of Molyneux is in reference to a possible invasion from Spain. I have pasted the relevant text below:
    Advice [by Lord Burghley] upon the best mode of defending the realm, on advertisement of the preparation of a Spanish navy ; viz. : [...] All recusants to be committed, even women if they are house-holders, and their houses and arms seized ; the parents of children fled out of the realm to be bound not to correspond with or relieve them ; the former forces of the clergy to be renewed ; all cattle and food removed from the sea coasts where the enemy offers to land, and the grindstones taken away from the mills ; field pieces to be drawn with horses, on first view of the enemy, to hinder their landing ; the roads blocked up, fresh water disturbed, fire-works prepared to burn their ships in the haven, and other means considered by the Lord General and council of war; the Lord Admiral to speak to Molyneux, Bussy, and the two Engelberts about their offensive engines. BuddingJournalist 06:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagined it was something like that. The recusants were recused from the article a couple of weeks ago, I think. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

    David Suzuki: The Autobiography

    edit
    previous FAC (02:21, 12 February 2008)

    I think this article meets all the FA criteria. It was created in late-January, became a GA on Jan 29, a DYK on Jan 31, but failed a FAC in Feb. It is worthy of another chance at FA-status. --maclean 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Oppose — It is missing citations. Fails criteria 1 (c).
      • There is no reference for "The publishers, Greystone Books and Douglas & McIntyre, won the CBA Libris Award for Marketing Achievement of the Year." (in the 2nd paragraph of the lead).
      • There is no reference for "The book won the 2007 Canadian Booksellers Association's Libris Award for Non-Fiction Book of the Year and the 2007 British Columbia Booksellers' Choice Award." in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section.
      • There is no reference for "This is Suzuki's forty-third book and, he says, his last." in the 2nd paragraph of the lead.
      • I don't like the red link in the first paragraph - you might just want to remove the link and leave it as that.
      • The article itself is very short - I am not citing this as a reason for opposing this FAC, but I am sure more could be said about this book - it would help to actually engage the reader.
      • Was there no criticism for this book?
      • I think an External Links section would be of some value (you could provide a link to the author's official website).

    — Wackymacs (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I added the citation for the awards, citations to the lead, an external links section, and removed the red link. [16] I placed all the opinionated criticism in the second paragraph of the Reception section. --maclean 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other citations are not appropriate. For example Scientific concepts and explanations, especially in the biological sciences, occur throughout the book.[14] Why is the book not used as the source, (with page numbers), and the cited source does not support the statement. GrahamColmTalk 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the in depth review. On this example it was coming from the reference's "...mixes memoir and science, culminating with his thoughts...". So I have removed the "biology" specification [18] --maclean 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the links checked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)
    • Support For a smaller page, it seems quite right. The above all seems to check out also. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Could do with a significant copy-edit, not so much for grammar as for style. The article's very choppy. I tried to make a few changes myself, but the prose remains rather unengaging. I do also find the article a little thin, but perhaps that's my problem with articles about this kind of topic. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your edits. I think I got the technicalities of prose down pretty good, but the flow and engaginess often escape me. It is something I'm working on and your sample edits do help me see the difference. On your other point, I've exhausted my search methods for sources. If you come across anything drop a note so I can pursue it. -maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This article is concise and well-written. I just have two minor remarks:
      • You may disagree with me, but the main article link under "Content" section title seems kind of ridiculous to me. David Suzuki is already linked before and I think people generally figure that this article will have more information on his life. But, like I said, feel free to disagree.
        • I agree, for what it's worth. What's more the link is misleading: it's a link not to an article that is devoted to the content of this book (as such links are usually used); it's simply to the author and subject of the book, which is a different thing. In short, it's confusing the written autobiography with the man himself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, also. I put it in reluctantly in the first place and thought about removing it several times. I just borderline didn't care enough. This provides me with the motivation to do it. Thanks. --maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Two weeks before its publication an excerpt was printed in the national daily newspaper The Globe and Mail.[27]" Where that sentence is placed seems a little odd to me. Doesn't that belong to the publication history more than it does to the reception? Also, putting it between two sentences discussing how the book ranked in bestsellers' lists feels weird.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why are two book covers being used (a paper back and, presumably, hard cover)? WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal use, specifically "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Both images even have identical purposes in their rationales. Why are both needed "To identify the subject of the article"? What significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) does a second cover make above and beyond that provided by the first? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for assuming I had good reasons for using the image. I just thought that an image of the paperback would be appropriate for the Publication section. It is mentioned there, but the image is not necessary for understanding. So I removed it. maclean 02:25, 15 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

    History of Norwich City F.C.

    edit

    Self-nomination. After another excellent collaboration with The Rambling Man and following a usefully gruelling Peer Review, I present this history article for consideration. Hopefully, this is another step on the way to a Featured Topic on Norwich City F.C..

    As mentioned at the PR, balancing the article in terms of recentism was difficult, as the club's historic achievements are imbalanced - I refer anyone interested to the debate at the PR, as well as the chart at the head of the article which gives some indication of this imbalance. Dweller (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Ealdgyth
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the links check out with the link checker tool. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving these last two up, since I'm not sure who BSkyB is (and a quick glance around their site didn't help much) I think they are probably reliable, but better to leave them up for others to judge for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for your interest and delectation, BSkyB are the biggest supplier of satellite television to the UK. They supply at least 2 million homes with TV channels and run sports channels Europe-wide as part of Rupert Murdoch's empire. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm a Yank. I'll hide this then, thanks for enlightening me! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the fence about this one http://www.rsssf.com/ It looks like a hobby/self-published site but it does seem to have standards on what they publish.
      • Although past performance is no guide to the future, it's used all throughout the WP:FOOTBALL community. Its content seems as, if not more, reliable than some traditional RS's such as the BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the number one site for worldwide historical football statistics, bar none. It's considerably more reliable than say the archives of newspapers or television companies, which no-one would bat an eyelid at including. The other benefit of this type of site is that if an error is found, contact them and they will correct it. - fchd (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've persuaded me, but I'll leave it up for others to judge for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All done, I believe. Thanks for your time reviewing. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as per my peer review and subsequent improvements (and the PR has been closed correctly, thanks). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    support Comments - righty-ho then, let's get stuck into it.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is during this period that the club has achieved most of its greatest distinctions - hmmm...not wildly enthusiastic and something a tiny bit more succinct. Also distinctions to me seems a bit vague. I was musing on chopping off the last four words entirely but then not sure how that scans either WRT proper English as she is spoke.... Stuff it, I have tried to rephrase it and can't. Can't really describe all as achievements or successes so leaving as is. Not a deal-breaker..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *By April 1905, there is evidence of the use of the nickname Canaries, "This as far as we can tell is the first time that the popular pastime of the day ie ... rearing ... canaries was linked with Norwich City". By February 1907, the term "Canaries" was being used in the national press....ew, I think this bit needs a bit of a massage. Canaries is in italics in one bit and quotes in another, and there is a quotation in the middle. And the section reads choppily. I think the first long sentence can be reworded and the quotey bit eliminated. Maybe try:

    "By April 1905, the team were being referred to in some circles as the Canaries, after the popular pastime of canary rearing. The term had been adopted by the national press by February 1907."

    How does that sound? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternately:

    " The popular pastime of canary rearing had given rise to the teams' nickname of the Canaries by April 1905. This had then been adopted by the national press by February 1907."

    Two passives but flows somewhat smoothlier. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'The Cits are dead but the Canaries are very much alive'. - too nice to de-quote and rewrite, instead can we get who wrote/said/reported it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Following a Football Association (F.A.) Commission, the club was informed on the last day of 1904 that they had been deemed a professional organisation.[14] The main allegations were... - just sorta jumps into it. I think a sentence or two on amateur/professional issues at the time as a mini-preamble would help explain what the issues were. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Events off the field were to overshadow the team's performances. City "were plunged into a financial crisis which threatened their very existence" -should be easy enough to rewrite without quotation marks. done myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the club's results nosedived - I think "position nosedived" but not results as such..can we reword it somehow? done too.

    *Summary - looks pretty good. Some prose tweaks outlined above and I'd be happy to support. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Comment When I went through FAC the first and second times, I was told that all references, even websites, needed both publishers and dates for when they were published. At least add the years.--Patrick Ѻ 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Invalid, an apparent misunderstanding. Copyright dates (years) aren't needed; publication dates are needed for example on news sources and others where they are specified, and this article already does that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why is the first sentence its own paragraph?--Patrick Ѻ 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't. But I'll merge the first and second paras anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, if that's the policy, then I have no reason to oppose this article. However, I may be confused. Here's the diff where, just last August, SandyGeorgia instructed us to have publication dates when they are available. Given the number without dates, I worry some might indeed be missing this.--Patrick Ѻ 12:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as far as I'm concerned, wherever a date was available, it was added into the {{Cite web}} template. When it wasn't available, it wasn't added. If you can find specific examples of problems then I'd be more than happy to fix them. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved Issues from Woody
    • 'SupportOppose for now'Comment For the most part, looks good. I have a few queries though.
    • Per Wikipedia:Layout, the further reading section should be below the References.
    • Image:Norwich City Logo.gif has no fair-use rationale for any of it's uses. I don't see how it could be included here under Fair-use as well.
      • Woody, I've added fair use for the NCFC and the history article. I think the canary emblem and crest ties in so intrinsically with the history article that fair use should be okay here. As for the other article which is using it, I doubt it, but that's not relevant here. If you're happy then please strike! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The decision was endorsed at a public meeting in March 1905, a meeting that significantly was attended by Nat Whitaker, secretary of the Southern League, who seconded a motion proposed by a local businessman, that endorsed the club's " ... determination to run a first class professional team."; Whitaker actively supported Norwich, as he wanted the League's influence to spread eastwards.[15] This is a very long sentence, can we split it up please?
    • who defeated them 2–0, over the two legs Could that not be: who defeated them 2–0 over two legs.
    • Don't start a paragraph with "Soon after, Chase..."; Soon after O'Neill's resignation, Chase..." would be better.
    • A team that could hardly win a game suddenly just sounds a bit fancrufty to me. Could we back it up with facts. A team that had lost... games, suddenly won...
    • I am slightly worried about the bias of the sections. We have "First division yo-yo: 1972–1992" weighing in at two paragraphs and 20 years covered, with "New millennium and centenary: 2000–2008" weighing in at 5 paragraphs and eight years covered. I know the Premiership is covered and is a huge part of their history but I can't help feeling that some of the new stuff comes under WP:RECENT and could be trimmed slightly. The yo-yo-ing section could be expanded slightly? Woody (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked into all the refs and I chopped out a bit of redundancy in them. I replaced a couple as they didn't back up the statements. In terms of recentism: after reviewing the references and looking into it a bit more, I don't think that the sections could be expanded anymore than they already have been. Whilst I am sure that some of the more recent stuff could be trimmed, I do think that it might detract from the prose. So, I support, meets all the criteria. Woody (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing my comments, and after doing some fixes on the article, I think it meets all the criteria. Support Woody (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose—Clearly not up to the 1a mark. Lots of watery patches at the top, such as:

    • "before being admitted" --> "before its admission", since right at the opening and exposed.
    Looks like someone's dealt with this. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shortly thereafter,"—yuck. Soon after?
    <blushes> That one has Dweller all over it. Sorted. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the course of the club's history, Norwich City has survived a number of incidents that threatened its survival, including ousting from amateur football, the need to be re-elected to The Football League and a number of financial crises." Remove the first phrase. "its ousting". "the need to be re-elected" is a bit strange in this list; can it be recast? Is a need an incident? How many financial crises (if it's possible to say—e.g., "at least three"). Comma after "League". Say who Geoffrey Watling was in a short phrase (the linked article is only one sentence); looks funny at the top as a stub-idea, and the lead is shortish anyway.
    All done, except the Oxford comma, eschewed throughout. The sense is clear without it, as no-one would misunderstand the text as re-election to financial crises. I hope my clarification works; the financial crises are clarified in the Watling sentence. That was the original intention. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove comma after 1902 and put it after Norwich. The use and non-use of commas needs an audit throughout.
    Looks like someone's dealt with this specific point. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed all the uses of Oxford commas and the article is once more consistent, with just one retained where it's necessary for clarity. I believe Casliber checked comma usage more generally. --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • THE badge of N C.
    What's that? --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (I fixed that - pic caption) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs a football word-nerd to come in and sift through the entire text. Tony (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your input. I've responded to you more generally at your talk page. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all my points were addressed at Peer Review. The only query I really had at the time, was over possible recentism, but Dweller has more than justified the balance of the article. It's thorough in the history of Norwich City with appropriate images. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - accessible enough even to "barbarians who know nothing of the beautiful game" without spoon-feeding the aficionados. Seems comprehensive without giving a blow-by-blow account of every match of every season. Swap the lead image though, for pity's sake. Yomanganitalk 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are surely my favourite barbarian. Thanks for your c-e (and your support). Happy for the lead image to be swapped with the badge, but I'm out of time and off back to wikibreak. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched. Hope it removes that last iota of doubt! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 17 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:03, 17 April 2008.

    Valley Parade

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've improved the article in line with other football grounds recently featured, Portman Road and Priestfield Stadium, and now think this one is also ready for FAC. I've put it through a Peer Review, which included a copy edit, and now put it forward for comments to a wider audience. NB This is a self-nomination Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted that the information isn't exactly controversial, what makes http://www.footballgroundguide.com/ a reliable site?
    • I'll leave this one up for folks to judge for themselves. I'm on the fence about it. Its so uncontroversial that it's hard to get to picky. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    the links all checked out using the link checker tool and the other sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The writing is reasonable, but a run-through by someone fresh to it is necessary. I found little glitches here and there, such as:
      • "when they changed code from rugby football to association football and became Bradford City"—A football club became a city?
      • "Manningham Rugby Football Club, which had been formed in 1876, had originally played their games ..."—Had ... had. Try: "Manningham Rugby Football Club, formed in 1876, had originally played their games ...".
      • "their ... their"—watch those repetitions; can you do an audit throughout?
      • "The area was already known as Valley Parade—the site of the new ground was described to Manningham's board as near the Valley Parade skating rink[7]—because it was on the hillside below Manningham.[1] The ground adopted the new name and the road on which it stands is also called Valley Parade." Why the skating rink point embedded in this sentence? Twists and winds.
      • "The original ground was composed of a 2,000-capacity stepped enclosure with the players' changing rooms below, the playing area, a cinder athletics track and fencing to limit the total capacity to 18,000." "Comprised a 2000-seat stepped" would be better.
      • "when financial and playing difficulties"—what are playing difficulties?
      • "8,000-capacity stand"—again. Is this the normal term? I'd have thought "8,000-seat".
      • "The stadium remained virtually unchanged until 1952, and was still recognisable in 1985"—"recognisable" is assuming quite a "given" (that it's from the perspective of an old-timer). Express in terms of change, as in the first clause.
      • Why is "yards" linked? And why is the pounds symbol linked?
      • "With" is a very poor connector. "with all but the East Stand being two-tiered"—try ", all two-tiered by the e s".

    Stuff like that. See if you can get the whole thing polished; don't just deal with the random examples. TONY (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: This is not a fixed position, but I cannot support at the moment. The lead is good, clear and concise, but the History section, which is most of the article, needs a considerable amount of attention.

    • The section is a dense mass of facts. You should consider whether some of the more detailed and less important information might be deleted, and other tangential facts, such as the Gateshead appeal, might better be given by way of footnotes.
    • The section should be subdivided under appropriate headings, to give it an internal structure. It's down to you to decide what these subsections should be, but I'd suggest "Early days" for the period up to 1903, another section up to the early fifties, another up to the fire, and a final section to bring it up to date - but these are only suggestions.
    • You also need to look at individual paragraphs, some of which are overlong and switch to different topics without a break.
    • A thorough copyedit of the text is necessary. Some sentences are too long (e.g. second sentence of section), some are awkwardly phrased, (second and third sentences, and there are others further down).

    There are other points which I think need clarification, but I won't bring these up for the present, and some might be cleared up anyway, if the above is attended to. I am impressed by the amount of research that has gone into this article, and feel that it's worth doing the extra work. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much for both your suggestions. I've tried my best to address the points made by both of you, and some input has been made by another two editors. I've not yet add any sub-sections to the history section, but would be prepared to do, if you still feel it needs one. Any other suggestions are most welcome. Peanut4 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it needs subsections, I'd prefer one eight paragraph section to three sections of two or three paragraphs, which might risk breaking the flow. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree, but see my detailed comments below. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. No significant factual issues or omissions presented themselves when I went through the article, and it compares favourably with others of the same type. Good to see Inglis' seminal The Football Grounds of Great Britain used as a reference too, a definite sign that a thorough job has been done. Full disclosure: I have done some copyediting during the course of this nomination, but have not otherwise made any significant contributions to the article. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    You have addressed some of my concerns, but others remain. The chief one is still the lack of structure in the History section. Despite the remarks of the reviewer above, I believe that a fact-packed history covering 120+ years and a number of distinct phases is not best served by this amount of undifferentiated prose. It’s too easy for the reader to get lost in the mass of facts. If you insist on not subdividing, then you need at the very least to have more logic in your paragraph breaks, and I have also made some suggestions in this respect.

    Another point of slight concern to me, reading through, is the extent to which you may have assumed the reader’s prior knowledge of the structure of English football, with references to various Divisions, the Premiership, promotion etc. I know that the article is about the ground, but on some occasions, which I have indicated, I think a few words of explanation would be appropriate.

    The following are my detailed points of concern:

    • History section
      • A natural paragraph break would be after “Midland Railway Company”
      • £1,400 needs a modern approximate equivalence
      • “top part” of new ground is not geographically precise
      • Suggest “comprised” rather than “was composed of”
      • The one-year-old stand moved to the top part doesn’t appear in the ground description
      • “…the players’ changing rooms below.” Below in what sense – underneath the stepped enclosures?
      • It would help understanding if the game against Wakefield Trinity was described as “reserve” or “friendly”.
      • Suggest reword to avoid repetition of “first” in “first team played their first…”
      • Comma needed after Valley Parade in last line of para
      • There is a natural subsection break at this point.
      • Second sentence of para: “The first association football….”
      • Bradford City “was”, not “were” elected
      • I’m a bit confused about the changing arrangements – what happened to the players’ changing rooms below the stepped enclosure?
      • 5-1 defeat by, not “to” Man city
      • Drop comma after “As a result…”
      • Clarify it was a ground, not a club, reconstruction programme
      • Drop comma after “5,300-seater main stand”
      • You say they built a Spion Kop and an 8,000-capacity stand at the Midland Road end. You haven’t yet defined this end geographically. Also, according to the link, a Spion Kop is a stand. Does that mean two stands built at the Midland Road end?
      • “Dressing-rooms” is a change of description – formerly changing rooms. But I’m really confused by a tunnel apparently leading from underneath the Kop to the opposite corner of the ground. That sounds like a tunnel under the pitch. Surely you can’t mean that?
      • The cost of £9958 should have a modern equivalent
      • Better not to use “completed” twice in quick succession
      • Surely matches “take place” – they don’t “occur”?
      • At start of next para the age of the ground isn’t really the lead point, it’s the purchase of the ground in 1932. I would reword along the following lines: “On 17 March 1932 Bradford City paid the Midland Railway Company £3,750 (2008 equivalent approx. £120,000) for the remaining two-thirds of the site, to become outright owners of the ground, which was now 45 years old”. I’d also tag this on to the previous para because hereafter you’re talking post WW2. For good measure I’d start a new subsection here.
      • “virtually unchanged” from when? From the 1908 changes I assume, but this should be made clear.
      • From this point on I get terribly confused about the various stand rebuildings. I can’t quite fathom how it can be clarified, but I’m lost from the moment you say that half the Midland Road stand was closed and its steel frame sold for £450. That sounds like a demolition – with half the stand still open! Thereafter it’s very difficult to follow, and I wonder whether the stand history could be simplified, instead of the detailed stage-by-stage account.
      • When you say the new stand was the “narrowest”, is this good or bad? The point need explaining.
      • The sell-and-buy back deal with the Council sounds like a fix. Is there a story here?
      • I’d start my final subsection with the fire paragraph
      • “one of the worst sporting disasters” is an incomplete statement, needs a context. Worst in Britain, the world, of all time, etc. As it stands it’s too general a statement.
      • “secured”, in loan terms, has a specific meaning. I think you mean the MPs negotiated or obtained the loans
      • Watch for consistency in capitalisation of Kop
      • I’m not pressing this point, but City’s promotion “back to Division 1” is misleading in footballing terms since Division 1 was I believe the renamed Second Division
      • Try to avoid duplication of “opened”
      • I'd have a para break after “27 March 1997”, within the same subsection
      • Perhaps a very brief explanation of why the club went into administration would be useful: “The financial consequences of the club’s relegation after two Premiership seasons meant that it was forced into administration”. Something like that?

    *Structure and facilities

      • “The Sunwin stand is the ground’s main stand and is called such…” Does “such” refer to Sunwin or main stand?
      • “family stand” – usually capitalised
      • “bantamspast” – needs explaining rather than simply appearing in the text
      • “Away fans” might need explaining to non-football people. “Visiting team fans”?
    • Fire: The sentence ending the penultimate para repeats information given in the History section
    • Other users: I think the words “the majority of which” are unnecessary in the third line from the bottom, and that the last line could refer to “their” ground.
    • Records: I’d rearrange this information so that the highest league attendance details came immediately after the record crowd information, and that the highest gate receipts came as the final sentence of the paragraph. I’d also say, for accuracy, “City’s official highest seasonal average…”
    • I think that there are nbsp violations throughout the article (45 years, 40 minutes, 56 spectators, 20 years, 29 games – possibly others). These should be checked.

    Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The final few points from structure onwards are pretty uncontroversial so I've done them. However I don't think family stand should be capitalised because it's not a proper noun. I'll add the non-breaking spaces in at the end unless any crop up later on. If I forget, bug me. Will try get on with the rest now. Peanut4 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These points are fine now. I'll do the nbsps I've found, as mentioned above, but I suggest you do a quick check for others. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. I think I've done most of the above, with the following exceptions:
      • Modern equivalent of values. I'll add some footnotes to explain this. But I don't know how to find the modern values. And my only concern with this, is that they would need continually updating.
    Modern equivalents of pre WW1 values can only be approximate. My normal practice has been to put a parenthetical note, e.g. (2008 equivalent = £xxxx) £1,400 in 1887 was a considerable sum in 1887, and some indication of its present worth would be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know what the Wakefield Trinity game was. I guess it was an exhibition game of some kind, but it's only a guess. None of the sources say what game it was. And the only source explaining Wakefield and Leeds games, simply says the first game was against Wakefield, but the first, 1st team, game was against Leeds.
        • Two sources seem to contradict each other. I've deleted the Leeds game and simply said the Wakefield game was the first, which is consistent across all sources.
    That's OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you win Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: changing rooms. Again the source never mentions what happens to the original changing rooms so I can't guess. As with the above point, I will try my damndest to read over all the sources again to find out, but nowhere seems to say.
        • I've found some info. They appear to have been updated following changes first started in 1897.
      • When you say the new stand was the “narrowest”, is this good or bad? The point need explaining. It's neither good nor bad, simply that in order to open the stand again, they had to build it so narrow. If you think it needs a bit more explanation, let me know.
    Sounds more to me like one of those dispensable facts not worth mentioning. I'd drop it, or leave it as it is - no more explanation. Brianboulton (talk)#
      • The sell-and-buy back deal with the Council sounds like a fix. Is there a story here? Very possibly but it would be WP:OR. The source calls it "Heginbotham's shrewdness and business acumen."
    OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The administration was down to a host of reasons. And not really related to the ground except for the affects it had to be sold - which is in the text.
    Not sure I accept this analysis, unless you're sure that the costs incurred in developing the ground for the Premier League had nothing to do with the administration. Brianboulton (talk)
      • I've still left in without sub-sections. My personal feeling would be simply one for "Up to and including the fire" and "Post-fire" because they are two distinct periods of the ground. But I feel the fire would act too much as a splice. It was as a result of the past, and had an affect on the future. Peanut4 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support The lack of subsections continues to trouble me. You've made it better by adopting more natural paragraph breaks, but I continue to believe that a narrative of this length is navigated more easily with signpost section headings. You have, however, done enough for me to remove my original oppose. The very best of luck to you, after all your efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    I've reordered some of the citations so they appear numerically, just in case you wondered what I'd done.

    • Why is Carlsberg Stand linked to Carlsberg? Misleading link, just link Carlsberg.
    • Don't like the text squashed between the two quote boxes, can you stagger them?

    Otherwise it's very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 16 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:03, 17 April 2008.

    State of Vietnam referendum, 1955

    edit

    This article is about the rigged referendum held by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in order to depose Emperor Bao Dai and establish the Republic of Vietnam, commonly known as South Vietnam. This article is very short. The reasons for this are that BAo Dai was living overseas in France, and couldn't be bothered running the country, so there was basically no attempt on his part to campaign. Secondly, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned anyway, so there was never any real election campaign or policy debates. In the end, the result was faked (133% in Saigon), so since there weren't any proper results, the historians didn't bother to analyse the referendum much at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Shouldn't the Jacobs book be in a references section if its used as a reference?
    Other than a small typo I fixed, everything looks good on sources. No links so they all work. I'll try to get back later and do a full read to support or oppose. (I highly doubt I'll be opposing, it looked pretty good from my quick glance). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support although I have a few picky things I noticed

    • U.S. or US? You use the first in the first paragraph of Background, the second in the second paragraph.
    • Voting and aftermath section, the second paragraph, first sentence seems a bit run on and awkward to me. "The elections were held with Diem's brother and confidant Ngo Dinh Nhu, the leader of the family's Can Lao Party, which supplied Diem's electoral base, organising and supervising the election." The subject and verb are separated by two explanatory phrases, it might flow better worded something like "The elections were organised and supervised by Diem's brother and confidant Ngo Dinh Nhu, who was the leader of the family's Can Lao Party, which supplied Diem's electoral base.
    • Picky, but in the second paragraph of Voting, you should probably go with 450,000 instead of 450 thousand for consistency with the number right before it.
    Very nice article on an important but little recorded subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved,--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "Most historians felt that Bao Dai selected Diem because of his ability to attract US support and funding." That seems to imply that historians may subsequently have changed their minds?
    • "Bao Dai sold the license of the national police to the Binh Xuyen." Not sure what that means. Were the Binh Xuyen allowed to set up a private police force, replacing the existing one? What happened to the old police force?
    • "He slowly began to bribe Hoa Hao and Cao Dai commanders into joining the VNA, while others continued to continue their operations." "Continued to continue ..."? What does "slowly" mean in this context?
    • "Diem got the Council of the Royal Family at Hue to declare that Bao Dai be stripped of his powers and that Diem be made president." Got doesn't seem like very encyclpedic language. "Diem got ... to declare that .. Diem be made president" doesn't sound right. Why not "... and that he be made president"?
    • "Three days after the vote, Diem proclaimed the creation of the Republic of Vietnam, naming himself as its President." Inconsistency in the capitalisation of president. Compare this sentence with the one above for instance.
    • "Colonel Edward Lansdale (pictured) helped Diem in his campaign." Who else would be in the picture?
    • "After a period of three hundred days during which free passage between both halves of Vietnam was allowed, the border was closed on 11 October 1954". It would be helpful to say a bit about who opened the border, who closed it, and why.
    • "Despite Bao Dai's interference, Diem had managed to subdue the private armies run by opposition religious sects and organised criminals." There doesn't seem to be any context for this given in the lead. Were private armies a particular problem in pre-1955 Vietnam? Why did Bao Dai dislike Diem?
    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tweaked or clarified these things, except I don't think the lead is the approrpaite place to detail the long history of animosity between Diem and Bao Dai. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment—The prose is not quite of the required professional standard, and needs someone fresh to it to run through carefully. I picked up the following examples at random at the top, to indicate the need for the whole text to be polished.

    • "He accumulated high tallies in excess of 90% even in rural regions where voting was prevented by opposition groups." Comma after "90%". Logic problem—is the figure a percentage of eligible voters (in which case it makes sense), or actual votes (in which case, it doesn't add up if the opposition suppressed the turn-out). You'll need to specify. Some readers, like me, come from jurisdictions in which voting is mandatory, and almost everyone toes the line. Others don't; further confusion.
    • "police went from door to door warning people to vote"—warning is usually associated with "don't". Here, would "encouraging" be better?
    • "After a period of three hundred days during which free passage between both halves of Vietnam was allowed, the border was closed on 11 October 1954."—Nope, put the time-phrase—either "The border was closed on 11 October 1954," or just "On 11 October 1954," at the start, followed by a comma.
    • "During the free movement period"—bit awkward; why not "During those 300 days," to make the text more cohesive? TONY (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another round of copyedit is being done, in addition to these specific points. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. A well-written and informative article on a little-known (to me, anyway) subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Very nice article. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I couldn't see anything wrong with the article. Seems neutral and well-written. Images are all free. No reason to oppose. Well done. Woody (talk) 17:31, 16 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:50, 16 April 2008.

    Tropical Storm Barry (2007)

    edit

    Self-nom. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this is a great example of a tropical cyclone article on a weak, recent storm. It passed GA, and a few other editors commented how good they thought it was. So, feel free to rip it apart. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    All the links check out with the link checker tool. The spanish language site said it timed out with the tools, but it worked fine with I clicked it (Not that I could read it, but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Repetition avoidable? "Heavy surf killed one surfer ..." (Heavy seas?)
    Just a quick note, surfers are in the surf, so yes, the surf/waves killed him, not the sea itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "though deep convection continued to organize near the center"—although is preferred in formal text, according to my US dictionary. I'm uncomfortable with an intransitive "organize" here; isn't there a better term you guys use? Even "take root" or "develop"?
    • "50—60 feet (15—18 m)"—No, en dashes for ranges please, not em dashes. See MOS. TONY (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I avoided a trip to the Department of Redundancy Department. I switched it to "although", and I changed the em dash to en dash (thanks, I didn't know that). Regarding "organize", are you opposed to the term in general, or just in the form of "to organize"? The National Hurricane Center regularly uses the word to describe strengthening cyclones, including the phrase "to organize", and it also uses "organization" as in "better organization", as well as "organized" and "disorganized". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support It looks good for the most part, but I do see some very minor issues:
    • In the first sentence, I usually like "which" instead of "that".
    • 2 of the 3 last sentences in the lead start in "The rainfall". See if you can find slightly different wording.
    • Operationally it was not classified until eleven hours later.[3] A comma after "operationally" would make that sentence easier to read.
    • The precursor system dropped heavy rainfall across western Cuba, peaking at 12.0 inches (305 mm) in Sancti Spíritus Province.[3] 12.0 inches? Wouldn't 12 inches be the same thing?
    • Wet roads caused several traffic snarls across the state; in both Brevard and Volusia counties, a motorist was killed from an accident. Something about "Snarls" just doesn't sound like an encyclopediac word to me.
    • Rough seas off of Cape Fear left a sailboat of three people requiring rescue from the Coast Guard.[33] I would like to see "a sailboat containing three people..." Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:56, 14 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:50, 16 April 2008.

    Guitar Hero (video game)

    edit

    Self-Nomination - Article was in decent shape before (compared to Guitar Hero II and Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, both already FAsGAs I helped with), its been polished up on references and other details to complete it to a comparable quality as the other games in the series and other FAs I've helped on. I've skipped the GA since I knew this article should eventually qualify as an FA, and with GA overloaded right now, have brought it straight to FAC. MASEM 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Needs to be expanded. And even though GA is is busy, perhaps because of its renown, it can speed up a bit faster. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Expanded how? I will point that Guitar Hero (series) covers the overall aspects of the series. --MASEM 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. So I suppose that will be most of it. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to be reviewing this article, but I've noticed that ref 28 leads to the website but not the actual article, so the ref is useless. I checked after being unsure of the grammatical correctness of a "cultural phenomena". Please check all sources. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that was a moved link. The rest all report as ok with the link checker tool (the NYTimes one has a weird redirect sequence but the URL gets you to the article, so no idea what's going on there). --MASEM 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning Support, but haven't done a close evaluation yet. I'm actually inclined to believe that this is a most appropriate size for an article about a single video game. On first glance I thought the article needed expansion, but the things I would have suggested for expansion were indeed covered in the Guitar Hero (series) article, and by covering these matters in a central article, it allows GH II, and III to be kept to reasonable lengths as well. --JayHenry (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, GH was a hit, but GH2 is really what generated the huge support for the series. If there's any need to bring in more from the GH(series) page or seealso to it, please say so. --MASEM 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, some small niggles:

    • In the lead, I wonder if "controller" is better than peripheral? Not sure if peripheral is common terminology outside of video games, whereas controller I think is acceptable to all?
    • the meaning of "billion-dollar Guitar Hero franchise is unclear. Worth a billion? A billion in sales? A billion in profits? Three distinct possibilities.
    • In Guitar Hero Three you can also activate star power with the select button on the guitar peripheral. Not in this one?
      • It's a detail in the series article that that section references.
    • "affect the behavior of the Rock Meter in a positive manner." Sort of awkward. Just "increase the level on the Rock Meter?"
    • In describing career mode it says "Players can choose their on-stage character, their guitar of choice, and the venue in which they wish to play; these elements have no effect on gameplay but affect the visuals during the performance." Is this accurate? I don't believe that you can pick the venue in career mode. Only in quickplay, right?
      • Technically also after you've cleared that arena in career you can go back and play an unlocked song in it, but that's too difficult to state easily.
    • I'm not sure what this means "the software... allowed them to reauthor a song".
    • Did IGN really say "the mini SG makes is what makes Guitar Hero, rather than what breaks it"? Makes twice?
      • Yes, yes they did (I just checked) I'm going edit this to remove the extra bits.

    I support. Article is short but to the point, and I don't think articles on relatively simple video games need to be lengthy. --JayHenry (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I think the article is just the right size- the only reason most vg articles are longer is due to the plot section, which this game is lacking. There are a couple of redlinks that need to be created or delinked, though. --PresN (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, almost missed it- I don't like the way you started off the development section. Once sentence para/self-stating ref seems...unencyclopedic. There's got to be a better way to say that the details came from Ron Kay than to say... that the details came from an interview with Ron Kay. I'm not going to bother to strike my support, but fix it anyway. --PresN (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. --MASEM 05:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Points addressed --MASEM 20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ll assume that the borked site will return, everything fixed! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case this sourcing is a problem, I've added a secondary source that lists the awards; the IAA site is still borked. --MASEM 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And the site is back to normal, no more borked link. --MASEM 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Waiting on improvements. The prose is not uniformly professional, as required, and there are MOS breaches.

    • MOS requires the final punctuation of quotations begun within WP sentences to be after the closing quotations marks: and started with "super-basic Pong-style graphics" for the game display; through this, they found that "the controller really was the kind of magic sauce for what we wanted to do." There are other examples, too.
    • "The team did not have any initial idea ..."—The team had no idea initially?
    • "Harmonix continually had to modify the track list as certain songs were cleared or removed based on licensing issues, balancing difficulty and popularity of the track list, which continued concurrent with the development of the game engine and up nearly to the shipping date." Cumbersome sentence, and you have to disambiguate "as" in reverse.
    • Caption: "The controller that was packaged with the game, an approximately 3/4 scale reproduction of a Gibson SG."—It's just a nominal group and thus there should be no period at the end. See MOS. Tony (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone through and tried to correct some additional longer and awkward sentences in addition to the above. I will note some quotes are full sentence quotes that, per MOS, should include the trailing period inside the quote, but I've gone through to move the period on partial quotes outside of the quote. --MASEM 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Most FA videogame articles have the gameplay before development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this necessarily a problem? The order feels better with dev before gameplay, but its not like it can be changed around without any work. --MASEM 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I agree with Fuchs that gameplay should go before development. Personally, the order feels better the other way around...
    • Newspaper publishers in references (NYTimes etc.) need to in italics (changing publisher= to work= in cite web does the trick here)
    • "This article is about the 2005 video game. For the series, see Guitar Hero (series)." - I don't think this is necessary; unlikely to type "GH (VG)" in the search box when looking for the series (more likely to type "GH", which redirects to the series).
      • Likely from when there wasn't a disamb for "Guitar Hero", gone now.
    • "The gameplay is very similar to the GuitarFreaks" - "the" is unnecessary
    • "player uses the guitar controller to hit musical notes as they scroll towards the player on screen." - the second use of "the player" could be avoided...perhaps "player uses the guitar controller to hit musicl notes as they scroll towards the top of the screen." (I think that's what the GH (series) article, which I reviewed the other day, uses)
    • Ref 1 confuses me...it doesn't seem to have an article title, and seems to have two authors (but not placed alongside each other...)...enlighten me please :)
    • "The controller initially has pressure-sensitive fret buttons" - keep paste tense
    • "to provide a little more depth to the game — some replay value" - em dashes shouldn't be spaced
      • This is a quote from a source - should we modify it to fit WP's MOS?
      • Also, that area quoted above talking about Star Power is a good example of why gameplay should come before development...
    • "The game was to focus mostly on hard rock songs" - wlink hard rock, and also the title of the Ramones song, if there's an article on it
    • A few redlinks - notable?
      • With the Drist addition below, that's three redlinks, but they are redlinks of businesses or groups. Mind you, it would be really simple to create a stub page for them, but when I did a previous FA that had a redlinked company name, it was passed ok.
    • "Marcus Henderson of the band Drist provided many of the lead guitar tracks for the covers" - again, wlink Drist
    • "In the case of Black Sabbath'" - need an s after the apostrophe
    • See also link in Gameplay section should point to Guitar Hero (series)#Gameplay
    • "Cowboys From Hell by Pantera" - missing quotation marks around song
      • While the song's in the game, to keep down the personal bias, the examples of the songs in the game is based on a list in that cited ref; however, people do manage to add their personal favorites here, and that's how that Pantera song got in there without quotes. It has been removed.
    • "Many reviews praised the game's learning curve and difficulty approach" - in what way? Is there a long or short learning curve, is the game easy or hard, etc.?
      • Added details here.
    • "Since then, the game has sold nearly 1.5 million copies through September 2007" - typical question - any more updated figures? Check the list of best selling video games (I think that's the title...), that one is kept up to date really well and should have the most recent figures
      • Adds another 30k to the value.
    • "Harmonix has since left the development of the series due to being acquired by MTV" - this needs a ref (the fact that they did it because of MTV)
      • Added refs for this.
    • Do refs 42 and 43 have publication dates? (date=)
      • Year dates, but not exact; added anyway.

    Rock on. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Mostly prose issues; the article assumes far too much knowledge on the part of the reader, and is confusing to those unfamiliar with these types of games. Some examples:
      • Lead should be expanded to include a summary of its development.
      • "The gameplay is very similar..."
      • "the player uses the guitar controller to hit musical notes as they scroll towards the bottom of the screen." If you can, think about this from the perspective of the reader that is unfamiliar with the game. What image does "hit musical notes..." convey? Much better would be a more literal description of the gameplay (something like "hit buttons on the controller...").
      • "spanning five decades of rock, from the 1960s to current music" Avoid terms that will become dated, such as "current", which is imprecise anyway.
      • "more than one billion dollars in sales" -> US$1 billion?
      • "The gameplay is similar to other music and rhythm video games, in that the player must play scrolling notes to complete a song." Similar problem here. If a reader is unfamiliar with this genre, this description is not helpful. The reader is left wondering what "scrolling notes" are and how exactly to "play" them.
      • "The guitar peripheral works by pressing the fret buttons simultaneously with the strum bar, while on the standard controller one simply presses the corresponding button." Not a single link to explain any of the terminology. "the corresponding button"?
      • Spot the logical break in the first paragraph of Gameplay. It would work much better as two paragraphs.
      • "The player is awarded points for correctly hitting notes, chords, and sustains, and gains multiplier bonuses for consecutively playing notes correctly." Again, no links to help readers unfamiliar with some of the terminology. There's a less awkward way of phrasing "consecutively playing notes correctly".
      • "using the whammy bar during sustains" And the "whammy bar" is...? I see it's linked far down; it should be linked on first mention.
      • "pressing another button on a standard controller" "Another" implies there was some other button mentioned previously; this does not seem to be the case.
      • "play across the other game modes" I'm not sure "across" is the best preposition here.
      • "Players can choose their on-stage character and their guitar of choice." Spot the redundancy.
      • "Quick Play mode is a simpler method of playing songs, as it allows the player to select a track" "As" does not work as a connector here. Better to break this into two sentences. Is it really a "simpler method of playing songs"?
      • "the player is given a score and a rating based on five stars" Is this only for Quick Play mode?
      • "Two fret boards..." No description of "fret boards" earlier, so the less knowledgeable reader is left confused.
      • "The game supports toggling..." Why is this a one sentence paragraph?
      • I'm stopping here with my specific comments, but I've skimmed the rest of the article, which needs a copy-edit as well. BuddingJournalist 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All above issues are fixed and I tried to identify similar ones later one, though once the terms are wikilinked, that sets them for the article, so... --MASEM 04:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "All above issues are fixed". Not exactly. And, like I indicated above, the entire article needs a copyedit for prose issues, so please do so. I should not be able to skim through and easily spot grammatical glitches, punctuation errors, awkward phrasing, etc. in an FA-quality article. Once the whole article has been copyedited, then feel free to bring me back here for a second look. BuddingJournalist 06:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have asked someone else who hasn't had major involvement with the article to check the prose as I am not seeing the issues (not yet done yet, just to note here). --MASEM 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - LAck of sources. I added to ref tags both were simply deleted. Clearly it is not possible to reference these facts, so the editor simply removes them. --SSman07 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Article is comprehensive, well-written, and adequately sourced. I see nothing lacking and no outstanding issues that prevent this from achieving FA status. Good job guys. -- Noj r (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Could only find problems with some of the prose. I've given it a copyedit to fix problems I've spotted - feel free to revert if you're not happy with the changes.--Gazimoff (talk) 21:43, 15 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:10, 15 April 2008.

    Rufus Wilmot Griswold

    edit

    Giving this a go, as pretty much the only major contributor in the past year or so. Reviewers, I'd suggest you particularly think of neutrality, proper sourcing, and clean writing as I admit they may be problematic. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Oberholtzer ref needs some formatting. Title should be in italics to match the rest of the refs.
    • In the really picky department. You use p. as an abbreviation in some of the footnotes, but most don't. Consistency is a good thing.
    • http://www.virtualology.com/rufuswilmotgriswold/ what makes this a reliable source? They say "welcomes editing and additions to the biographies". Also the ref needs a last access date.
    • http://www.eapoe.org/geninfo/poegrisw.htm needs a last access date. It looks okay to me as a source For the second usage of it, to quote from a letter of Griswold's, you probably should say that you got the letter quotation from a website. Something like "Quoted from Site {Publisher) (access date).
    Otherwise all the links checked out, the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. I'll find a replacement for that virtualology one. I'll see if I can replace the eapoe.org one too, otherwise I'll just fix up the citation format, add access date, etc. The footnotes have "p." if they are not in abbreviated format. It would look odd with the ISBN number followed by a number, so the "p." seems like a logical way of displaying it clearly. What do you suggest? Thanks for taking a look by the way! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quickie answer is to put the p. in the rest of the footnotes, but I'm not sure you have to do that. I'm not an MOS-maven, so lets let someone else chime in on that one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All you need is uniformity. Just as long as you stick with one way of indicating page numbers (either "XX, p. 111" or "XX, 111"), then you shouldn't have any MoS worries. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Midnight, I did a bit of copy editing of a section to improve flow, as the prose seemed a little staccato to me (he did this, he did that, he did the next). However, if you don't like it, feel free to revert me, as I know it can be annoying to submit something for FA and have people who've not worked on it start changing things. Regarding page numbers, I see you've put some after the ISBN. The usual thing is to write p. 100 or position it with a colon after the date of publication e.g. 2008:100. Both would be before the ISBN, which would normally be the last thing in the citation, if included at all. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, a citation with page number would look something like: Smith, John. Name of Book. London: Random House, 2008, p. 100. And then the ISBN number if you want to provide it. There are variations on this theme, but that would be one acceptable way of writing them. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy edits were great, so thanks! So you're saying I should add back the "p."? Does that affect the shortened references? --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't have to add back the p if you'd rather not. But it should come before the ISBN, so for example with this one: "Frank, Frederick and Anthony Magistrale. The Poe Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991. ISBN 0313277680. 149" — there are a number of ways you could write that. You could write "1991, p. 149" or "1991:149," or "1991 at p. 149" or "1991 at 149." I suppose you could also write "1991, 149." I don't remember whether that's an acceptable style, but it probably is. Really, so long as you're consistent, any of these would be fine. As you've not used p in the shorter refs, probably the best thing would be just to add the number without p after the long ones. The main thing is to put it before the ISBN number, which should come last. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Years with full dates should be linked.
    • There seems to be some redundancy in the article. It would be nice if you cleaned that up.

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments (and the edit you made to the article)! Regarding redundancy, more specificity would certainly help me correct as needed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, any MoS suggestions on this line: He was the 12th of 14 children. I'm inclined to write "twelfth of 14" - is there an established method? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:MOSNUM - In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). and Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). I would advise "He was the twelfth of fourteen children." I'll get back to you on redundancy. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Five cats and 32 dogs would be okay, because five is under ten. It's five cats and 5 dogs that wouldn't be okay. I would say the twelfth of fourteen children or the 12th of 14, but probably the former. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On redundancy, for example: "Some of the information that Griswold asserted or implied include that Poe was expelled from the University of Virginia and that Poe had tried to seduce the second wife of his guardian John Allan." The vague term some contributes nothing to this sentence. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I disagree. The term "some of" seems to clearly indicate that the list is only a sampling. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose we're all entitled to our opinions. I tried to remove the redundancy from that specific line, but I would continue to say that "some of" is an incredibly important piece of the sentence. Instead, I removed the more buried word "included". Any other specific spots, feel free to point them out! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What SlimVirgin said about staccato writing. Also I wasn't sure about some of the organization within sections. Overall, though impressively well-sourced and thorough, the prose doesn't flow as it could (and should). I've gone through to copy-edit to try and fix some of this (revert as and when you see fit), but feel it could do with another pass or two. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look - Just so you know, I took half of your lead and half of mine and spliced them together to make a new lead. Part of it was incorrect (there was no selection criteria that Poe questioned and Griswold was not twice-married but thrice). Most of your edits were quite helpful though in some spots it seems to make the prose harder to read... I'll take a look at answering some of your questions too. I think you made some incorrect assumptions on them. But, again, thanks for diving through this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I left a bunch of questions that were deleted. Let me try again here, then...
    Sorry, I thought they had been answered. I'm going to splice some responses in between your comments and questions.
    OK, just one more pass... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why say he "left his family" rather than "leave home"? The former sounds rather odd, and more appropriate of a runaway husband or wife than a child who, well, leaves home?
    That particular wording came from the source. I'm not particularly married to either version but I do think leaving his family emphasizes that he lost all contact with them (presumably; I have not found any indication that he stayed in touch with any of his family members).
    I'd have thought that if you're quoting a striking turn of phrase like that, then put it in quotation marks, then. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll excuse me for misrepresenting myself; I have not quoted, but paraphrased. Not sure quotes are necessary but leaving home or family... maybe the best solution is to say both? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • published a critical response that questioned the inclusion of some of the collected poets. In the body of the text, it's suggested that Poe criticized omissions as well as inclusions. NB this certainly seems to be questioning the principle of selection! (And when we do get to the issue in the article itself, it would seem more elegant not to repeat "inclusion" in the phrase "although Poe questioned the inclusion or lack of inclusion of certain authors.")
    Certainly, but use of the term "criteria" implies that selections were based on serious consideration. They weren't. I disagree on re-using "inclusion"; I like the echo effect.
    I guess we'll disagree on the meaning of the word "criteria." But again, there is a contradiction between lead and body. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Contradiction or just different level of detail? This is an easy fix, either way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree on the elegance or otherwise of the later formulation, but no problem.
    • I do think the lead should say something about his own poetry and writing.
    The lede should really only emphasize the important points of the article. His own poetry, even in his day, was incredibly irrelevant (even to him) so I'm not sure it's worth the space it would take up. I did add the term "poet" into the first sentence.
    • If he only "attempted" to enroll in the school, surely he could be neither kicked out nor expelled?
    Again, wording comes from Bayless's book. I'm not sure about the specifics any more than you are. My assumption was that he was admitted to the school but didn't have the opportunity to sign up for class.
    Again, then, perhaps quotation marks?
    Again, this is a paraphrase. I hardly think the line is relevant enough to quote in full anyway. I'll try to take all ambiguity and question from this line. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not sure about saying he "wandered around" the New York area. Is that the verb used in the source?
    Yes. I think it mirrors that whole "wandering soul" quote from earlier. He was a restless fellow and I think that is being emphasized. It might be worth using a softer term?
    Again, it just strikes me as a little odd. If the oddness comes from the source, then better to be clear about it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the distance between husband and wife, Griswold's marriage continued. On November 6, 1842, Griswold visited his wife in New York after she had given birth to their their third child, a son. But three days later, after returning to Philadelphia, he was informed that both she and the infant had died.[17] Deeply shocked, Griswold traveled by train alongside her coffin, refusing to leave her side for 30 hours. I asked here both what was meant by "distance" (if simply geographical distance, I think that should be clarified) and about the mechanics of this journey; it's rather confusing that at one point he's in Philadelphia and the next point he's on a train with his wife's coffin for perhaps up to thirty hours. I presume he was taking her to Philadelphia for burial, but do I presume aright?
    I think we're all presuming. I did answer your question that it was a literal distance; I can't imagine a reader would automatically assume the more poetic interpretation in an encyclopedia article. The 30 hours is not a journey. It's just how long he stayed on the train. The ride itself was likely about an hour; she went from outside New York to the Bronx. Again, I'm presuming. The source leaves little further information on this incident.
    You answered the question in the edit summary, but didn't clarify it in the text. I don't see anything poetic about recognizing that there are different sorts of distance. And if we know that she's buried in the Bronx, then it's easier to clarify the matter of the movements of corpse and grieving husband.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not sure I agree that "distance" should be clarified to mean "distance". --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this sentence by itself, I would expect the distance to be psychological, not spatial; the implication that being in different states would dissolve a marriage is an anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I've let it sit for a few days, looking at the line again makes me think the confusion is irrelevant as the sentence is really useless and says nothing (which you sort of pointed out). I've removed it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's meant by the notion that he "began" The Opal if he didn't in fact work on it? Did he simply hire an editor to work on it?
    He started up a magazine... I didn't think it was confusing. The next line, in fact, says that it's editor was N. P. Willis.
    I'm confused. How do you start a magazine without working on it? What was his role? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Founder. Is this still not clear? Maybe the word "founded" would be better than "started". --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As written it's not clear whether or not "his poetry collection Christian Ballads and Other Poems (1844)" refers to his own original work or not: the article uses the term "collection" indiscriminately. More generally, I'd still suggest separating out his work as an editor from his work as a writer (and again, mentioning the his writing also in the lead).
    Poetry collection vs. poetry anthology? The whole section is about Griswold's own work. If confused, the list of Griswold's works at the bottom seems abundantly clear, don't you think? Actually, I'm really having a hard time understanding why you're confused... those few sentences are specifically about Griswold's own works, not just his editorial anthologies... You suggest separating his work as an editor from his work as a writer, when these lines are doing exactly that... How can I separate them further??
    That paragraph includes mention of his his work as an anthologizer (unless I've misread the first two sentences) and editor. The section is about him as "anthologist and critic." The title isn't exactly a giveaway (especially as the other information we have about him doesn't really make it obvious that he'd be one to write "Christian ballads." I'd have thought a word of clarification was in order. All I can give you is my response as a reader, and the points at which I was confused. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Still seems clear to me. Do you think The Republican Court is clear? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notion of Grisworld's "purchasing" Poe's review still sounds odd to me. What would be the mechanics of that?
    He tells Poe write a review and I'll buy it off of you. It's no different from freelance writing today. I think it's a little clearer later that it was probably a bribe. Remember this is during the "puffing" era of literary criticism.
    Actually, it's rather different from freelance writing, in which the publication pays the author. Here it seems that Grisholm is acting as some kind of a middleman: he pays the author then he gets it published in some other journal. He's acting like an agent, but paying rather than being paid. Perhaps that's how things got done in the nineteenth century? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, it was sometimes done that way. Then again, it was probably a bribe, as the text states. I've already edited this line to be a bit clearer. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why repeat the number of pages here?
    I don't know. I suppose it can be knocked off in its second mention. I hadn't noticed it before. Was that a question you asked earlier? You make it seem like these questions are those that I have blown off or disregarded, which I certainly didn't do intentionally. I had tried to answer your questions one edit at a time in the edit summary.
    I included the comment in an edit summary. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another source of animosity between the two men was their competition for the attention of a female poet named Frances Sargent Osgood in the mid to late 1840s. While both she and Poe were still married, the two carried on a public flirtation that resulted in much gossip among the literati. "The two" here need to be clarified. Addendum: Ah, now I get it... while she and Poe were married to other people, right? But I only realized that as I've recently read the article on Poe's wife, and suddenly put two and two together. We can't assume that people who read this article will have read the other one. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't realized it wasn't clear; it seems very in the face obvious to me. But, then again, I wrote the thing. I'll try to clarify. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope this helps! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, thank you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I made some minor changes you might want to look at. I'm not particular about these things. Change back if you'd like. The article is well-written and interesting. Very much a Salieri-Mozart thing here. It might possibly be worth a sentence or two somewhere making a little more explicit why his relationship with Poe is of such importance that it's a level two heading. It seems from the bibliography that scholarship about his life is primarily because of his relationship with Poe? If this is the case, I think it's worth saying so somewhere, probably in the lead, "He is primarily remember for his rivalry with..." or whatever exactly would be appropriate. Anyways: well-written, comprehensive, stable, concise lead, well-organized, proper referencing. If you wanted to add a few more images, I think you could. Appropriate length. I'm not a subject expert to make conjectures about neutrality, but I am left with the impression that he was an abrasive personality, mostly resented by the poets who craved the publicity he provided, and without much credibility (today) in his evaluation of good poetry. If that impression accurately reflects modern views of Griswold, I believe the article is neutral. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! The edits are very helpful. And I think your final assessment is just about prefect. It was interesting doing the research for this because I now think Griswold was more complex than he has been given credit for, considering his difficult marriage/family situation, his health, the fire, etc... I think an earlier version of the lead did say Griswold was mostly known for his rivalry with Poe but it bordered on POV and/or OR. I'll see if I can find a good source I can paraphrase that makes a similar statement as, frankly, it's true (at least in 2008). --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Along with later anthologies such as Prose Writers of America and Female Poets of America, he earned his reputation as a literary dictator whose approval writers sought only begrudgingly. Please recast; I think I know what this is intended to mean, but it doesn't say it: In later anthologies? And the authors don't begrudge, Griswold does.
    • Can we please drown authored? The English is wrote, or for anthologies, compiled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got what you were going for. Take a look and let me know what you think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked somewhat further.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was somewhat copy edited throughout the FAC though I'm sure it's not perfect. Of course, some corrections may have been more subjective than others. If there are a couple commas you think are mandatory that others have not caught, would you add them in or at least point them out? Thanks for pointing out what you already have, by the way! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added one after literary dictator, which I see survives.
    • In the lead He worked as a journalist, editor, and critic in Philadelphia, New York City and elsewhere. is inconsistent: either none after editor or one after City
    • He built up a strong literary reputation in part due to his 1842 collection... needs one after reputation; due is non-defining.
    • Griswold was born on February 13, 1812 in Vermont near Rutland, and raised a strict Calvinist in the hamlet of Benson. needs one after 1812 or Vermont to open the parenthesis closed after Rutland.
    • Griswold attempted to enroll at the Rensselaer School in 1830 but was unable to take any classes after he attempted to play a prank on a professor. needs one after 1830.
    That's five; the problem is endemic. Don't just fix them; copyedit the whole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have fixed those ones. If I were able to catch the other errors myself, I would have caught them by now. When you've seen this article as much as I have, there's a slight haze that encompasses the whole thing. If you see any other problems, feel free to lend a hand or let me know! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know, it's very hard to copyedit your own prose; but try having another look anyway. This is not an oppose, but I don't think I can support unless someone looks through the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable. I did what I could, just now and a little earlier this morning. Not sure it's perfect but it might be better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments by Lar (this article was brought to my attention by my wife, since some of "her ladies" are linked from it, it's far from my normal area of interest :) )
      • There is a potential sequence problem around George C. Foster: Griswold attempted to enroll at the Rensselaer School in 1830, but was unable to take any classes after he attempted to play a prank on a professor.[8] He moved to Albany, New York to live with a 22-year-old flute-playing journalist named George C. Foster, a writer best known for his work New-York by Gas-Light.[4] Griswold lived with Foster until he was 17, and the two may have had a romantic relationship.[7] When Griswold moved away, Foster wrote to him begging him to return, signing his letter "come to me if you love me".[9] 1830-1812 == 18 so he was either 17 or 18 when he tried to enroll. But he lived with Foster "until he was 17" so that suggests there may be a sequencing problem there, or maybe the order is right, but the reader might be left confused. Do references support what months these things occurred in? Use of months might clarify the ambiguity. I see you ordered this in a different order but is that the order the sources gave? Struck though since I think it's sorted.
      • In 1843 Griswold founded The Opal, an annual gift book that collected essays, stories, and poetry what is a gift book? This needs linking or explication I think. Elsewhere it seems to be referred to as a magazine.
        • I may be confused here with another publication by the same name, which was a magazine. I expect E to help clarify this, she just rang me about it. :) As for Gift Book == Coffee Table Book, why not set up a redirect from GB to CTB and if someone thinks they are different, they can put an article at GB explicating that (rather than just linking directly to CTB from here)
      Actually, now I'm tempted to start an article on gift book, if I can find some good sources! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh, wouldn't be the first time. Might be hard to find sources that define/describe the class, because the two words are so common. You might want to also define this meaning even though it's not what is meant. (I could see it as a likely search term) I am assuming this is another example of the term as you intend. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I see you and E have started working on The Opal (annual) which sorts this objection, whether or not you end up doing Gift book ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He had by now earned the nickname "Grand Turk", Why? If this nickname is significant it might be good to explain how he got it and why, assuming sources exist. If it's not significant, why mention it?
        • Maybe source that people called him that and let the reader draw the conclusion?
    Let me see if I can go back to the source and do that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a lot of places that reference it. Google books won't let me look inside Bayless, but check page 137 if you have it, that text apparently refers to some of the nicknames he got. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jewish woman named Charlotte Myers, woman named Harriet McCrillis, "woman named" seems awkward wording to me. Why not say Griswold married Charlotte Myers, who was Jewish. and Griswold pursued Harriet McCrillis? Mdreary sorted this out...
      An interesting article, I hope to support it shortly. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One new worry... it seems you use Bayless a lot. That's the only ref that is ABOUT Griswold, the others are about other folk or topics, but is this overreliance? ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I thought about that myself but I think it's pretty solid. And just because a source is about Poe doesn't mean it's not a good reference for Griswold material. As I've told people, you can't talk about Poe without Griswold and vice-versa; their biographies are really one intertwining story. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look! I hadn't noticed the chronology problem but it's now fixed, as are the "woman named" lines (and one more, actually). As far as "Grand Turk", it's relevant because, well, people did call him that quite a bit. I think the significance is mostly sarcastic, making fun of his own elevation of self... but that's just my opinion and I have no source to support it. As far as The Opal, I'm curious as to where you saw it referred to as a magazine. Gift books, I suppose, were the equivalent of today's coffee table book: expensive, showy, with little significant content. To me, it's a very common term so I hadn't realized it needed explanation. I don't want to link to coffee table book because that's my own assessment... what do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    revisions and strikes in response. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More strikes. I think there still are issues that need attention but it's getting closer. Tony's right, a good copyedit by fresh eyes might be very advisable. Perhaps ping the League of Copyeditors to see if they can squeeze it in? ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice requested It suddenly occurred to me that most bio articles on reverends on Wikipedia start with "Rev." in the first line. Does anyone think it would be necessary to start this page as Rev. Rufus Wilmot Griswold, despite it not being his primary point of interest? It seems almost like a technicality and therefore not as important as in other bios. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't; I agree that it would be misleading. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was not his primary vocation, as in this case, I would leave it out of the lede. It could be mentioned that he was entitled to the title somewhere though... ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments—The whole of the text could do with a polish: I'm finding glitches like these in just a sample portion of the article:

    • "the best examples in American poetry"—"of" rather than "in"?
    • "Griswold succeeded Poe as editor of Graham's Magazine at a higher salary than Poe"—false comparison: "Poe's".
    • English speakers should know what an obituary is: why is it linked? Same for "copyright". And "flute" ... really, these are common terms.
    • "He worked various editing jobs in the New York area."—Does one work a job? TONY (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I for one can easily see "working a job" being acceptable, I see your point, Tony. I wonder, since you are so good at picking up these things, if you would be willing to take a quick run-through and see what you can catch? I'll fix these ones you just pointed out myself. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, not to defy you or anything, but I kept one of the links for copyright. It seems like a complicated enough concept that readers could benefit from viewing that article, if they so choose. I definitely agree with you on flute and about 99% agree about obituary. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking, but I usually avoid copy-editing myself. Why? (1) I can have more influence over standards by reviewing instead, and there's constant pressure on me to review more (I hardly touch FAR, by the way). (2) Copy-editing is too much like my RL job. Please find a collaborator or two who are in the field and wouldn't mind assisting with the c-e. TONY (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and thanks anyway. I'll see who I can find to lend a hand with a good, solid copy edit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is an excellent article. I saw a few minor things that should be addressed.
      • "but was unable to take any classes after he attempted to play a prank on a professor" - was he hurt in the prank, was the professor hurt and unable to teach, or was Griswold expelled because of it?
      • quotes of under 4 lines should not be offset, but should be inline (WP:MOSQUOTE) (see reputation and influence)
      • Should put a citation immediately after "Griswold claimed that "among the last requests of Mr. Poe" was that he becomes his literary executor "for the benefit of his family". ", even if it is coveed after the next sentence (just in case someone slips in another sentence from a different source)

    Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your thoughts; I've made these recommended changes. I wish I could find more info on this prank but, for now, I think the current line satisfies your confusion. Thanks again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:22, 14 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:10, 15 April 2008.

    Maynard James Keenan

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article on behalf of Wikiproject Tool. Lara❤Love 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just saw on the links tool that the first reference, Spin Magazine's "iPuscifer" article is an unaccessible article now. I've sent them a message, as I can't seem to find the page in archive. The only proof it existed that I can find is here. So just know that I'm working on it. Lara❤Love 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Lara❤Love 06:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please close and archive the peer review; articles can't be listed at both places simultaneously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Lara❤Love 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    1. Hm.. http://toolshed.down.net/news/ is this a reliable source?
    2. Am I correct in assuming that http://www.avclub.com/content/home is connected to the Onion?
    3. What makes this http://www.seaoftranquility.org/index.php a reliable source or noteworthy for a review?
    4. http://www.metal-observer.com/home.php?lid=1 is this site an online site for a magazine?
    5. http://www.rockonthenet.com/ is being used for Grammy Awards. Why not link to the Grammy Awards site itself?
    6. Is this http://www.nyrock.com/ a reliable source?
    7. http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=89397 gives me a dreaded Microsoft OLE DB Provider error
    8. What makes this http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2006_07.php a reliable source?
    9. What makes this http://web.archive.org/web/20061017011856/http://www.fadetoblack.com/interviews/billhicks/13.html a reliable source?
    10. http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?artist=&show=&member=3&entry=6933 what makes this a reliable source?
    Tool linkie thing checks out (except for the abovementioned problem) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It's the official fan site, approved for use in the Featured Article Tool (band).
    2. Yes, it is connected to The Onion, however:
    So the stuff you write is all fake, like The Onion's "news," right?
    No. Not even a little. The A.V. Club features real interviews, reviews, and other entertainment-related articles.[22]
    3. I believe it is a reliable source per [23]
    4. It's a webzine with a paid staff, including their reviewers.
    5. Updated.
    6. Yes. And it's used in a plethora of articles including Godsmack, Metallica, The Smashing Pumpkins, Audioslave, Tool (band), One Hot Minute, Niandra Lades and Usually Just a T-Shirt, and Kid A, all of which are featured articles.
    7. I don't know what that means. It loads for me. This one has been removed.
    8. That's the band's official website.
    9. It's a webzine with a paid staff. Kevin Booth, the interviewer, recorded Bill Hick's Arizona Bay CD with the comedian.
    10. It references that Maynard did vocals on a King Crimson track. Robert Fripp is the guitarist for King Crimson. That is his official website.
    Hope that clears all up. :) Lara❤Love 02:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a few for other reviewers to decide on their own, in cases that I don't see as cut and dried. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but for number 6, considering it's used in a couple dozen articles including several FAs, I don't see what the issue could be with that one. Lara❤Love 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The unstruck concerns about reliable sources need specific answers per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB; "used in another featured article" is not a relevant argument, this article is under review, and what may have gotten by on another article isn't pertinent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've spent a good portion of today looking over many sources sent to me by another editor (Sorry for the delay. I had the stomach flu this weekend so I wasn't up to doing it until now :X). I'll be replacing many and hopefully expanding a bit. As far as the NY Rock source, I'm confused. It didn't get by in one article, but eight. I can't see what the issue with that source is and I can't replace it as it is a source for a quote from an editorial interview. Lara❤Love 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I removed #3. For #5, I believe WP:SPS applies, specifically, Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The author previously worked for a published paper magazine on music. They also host a live radio show in Austria. And, it's sourcing an opinion, not a fact. i still don't see the issue with #6, and it's sourcing an interview, which is straight from Maynard. I believe #9 falls under the same as #5, as the interviewer worked with Bill Hicks on his CD, thus he would be an expert. Lara❤Love 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't #5 resolved? That was the one for the grammy awards, which when I looked, you had replaced with a cite from the grammy awards site. So I'm lost.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To recap, I think I'm still concerned about 4, 6, 9. I'll probably have to go through again when we're over, it's been a bit! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant 9, not 5. My bad. For 4 and 9, considering what they source, I believe they are exceptions to RS because they're no sourcing claim or fact. It's opinion and an interview quote. You can't question an opinion and I don't think you're challenging that the interview actually took place. And I have to stand by 6 for the same reason. I can't put my head around what the issue with an interview from a site that's sourced in eight Featured Articles is. Lara❤Love 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What other featured articles use isn't relevant because 1) articles change and 2) we don't know what kind of review they got. One reason an interview that is not from a reliable source can be questioned is, how do we know the interview even happened or is presented accurately, as sample questions? I can put up a website claiming I interviewed the queen of sheba. Another reason it matters is that something that 1) wasn't published by a reliable source and 2) isn't even available on the internet today (is only in the internetarchive) may not be notable or worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked at ths specific sources now; it took a while for the internet archive to load. For example: unless I'm misunderstanding ... we have statements being made in a BLP from an interview by a friend talking about another third party (Keenan, Booth and Hiatt), that is on a personal website that's no longer available, but is now accessed via the internet archive, and was hearsay even when it was available on a non-RS. Why would we include third-party information from a non-RS in a BLP? If I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading there, pls explain; I offer this as an example of why we don't usually include this sort of info in an encyclopedia, and why we should stick to reliable, notable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, to clear up another issue about WP:SELFPUB: you said, " ... as the interviewer worked with Bill Hicks on his CD, thus he would be an expert." Working with someone doesn't make the author an expert per Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. Wiki's policy is very clear on how we define an "expert" and when we should use these sources, particularly in BLPs:

    Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

    Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

    Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What it sourced was an opinion made by someone who worked closely with Bill Hicks in the comedy industry, an expert in the field, as Bill Hicks was not the extent of his career. I don't think BLP covers such an opinion of "inspiring comedy" from someone who works in that industry, regardless, I've removed it. #4 falls under the exceptions as the author previously worked as a writer for a print magazine in the music industry. It sources a review of lyrics, not Keenan, so I don't think that falls under BLP either. And #6; just so I'm clear, you're challenging that the interview took place and stating that this source needs to be removed from the current eight FAs it's used in along with another 19 non-FAs? You don't believe Keenan actually stated "Everything we release with Tool is inspired by our music. It doesn't matter if it is a video or if it's lyrics. The lyrics for "Schism" are nothing more than my interpretation of the music." in an interview with this site? Lara❤Love 05:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just took a look again at the NYRock link cited in The Smashing Pumpkins since I'm the one that brought that to FA status a year ago. In both that article and this, quotes from original interviews conducted by the staff with the subjects mentioned are being cited. In those contexts, it's a reliable source for the purposes of these articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment 'ello, 'ello, 'ello...what's this undesirable doing at FAC then? (in best London Bobby voice)...better give it the once over then.... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • ...in 1988 to work in interior design.. - was musing on this I think "to pursue a career in interior design is more accurate (?) rather than merely working.
      • Good fix. Thanks. :)
    • James Keenan was born in Ravenna, Ohio on April 17, 1964, the only child of Baptist parents. When his parents divorced in 1973, his father, Michael Loren Keenan, a high school teacher, moved to Michigan and for the next 12 years, Keenan would only see him about once per year. - the 2nd sentence has 5 commas, which is a tad excessive. Why not place both parents' names and dad's occupation in the first sentence, this way lengthening the rather abrupt first sentence and improving flow of the 2nd and 3rd sentences.
      • I did a reword. Let me know if it needs further tweaking.
    • ''His mother, Judith Marie, remarried, bringing Keenan into a step-family of intolerance and suffering. -this is a difficult one. I understand information is very limited as the subject has declined to elaborate. It occurred to me that all we have is his word, so the statement might have to be paraphrased with Keenan reported/disclosed that (new family etc.)
      • I reworded, quoting part of the source.
    • to disillusionment with his colleagues' points of view - ahaa, we've all been on WP too long. Maybe 'political beliefs/ personal beliefs/ values' or some other term is better than POV.
      • The source reads:
        He even attended West Point, before dropping out in disillusionment over his fellow students.
        "Some of those people, who would end up being world leaders, had horrible points of view," he says.
        I get it - it's tricky. I'll think about it. The more I think about it, the more I feel 'values' fits it fine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "undetected" - must say I find the quotes disruptive to flow. I'd just remove them. If worried that one adjective could be construed as plagiarism I am sure there are some others.
      • Removed quotes.
    • After the release of the album, Tool began a prolonged legal battle with their label Volcano Records (formerly Zoo Records). - sorta leaves me hanging. What was the legal battle over? Was Keenan the ringleader in it?
      • I expanded a bit. It's in the Tool article and seemed unnecessary to go into detail, but you're right that something needs to be eluded alluded to. I'll look at it again after some sleep and possibly add a bit more. Lara❤Love 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Tool does not print lyrics for any releases as they believe most people "don't get it" and it is not a priority of the band that they do. - the last bit do 'get it' or do 'print lyrics'? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) ok, it is here, question is, does the term as applied to people appear in a recognised dictionary? If so, I think tweaking the wiktionary entry and linking is the way to go. I'm going back to bed as its 5 am and I couldn't sleep and made the stupid mistake of turning the computer on...8P Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • [24] - "Access Denied"
    • :I've addressed this above. I've messaged Spin, I'm also looking into finding the print information to replace the web version. Alternatively, I've been sent some additional references which I haven't had time to look through, but today will be good for that.
      Found it.
    • "Although originally from Ohio, Keenan spent his high school years in Michigan and, after serving in the Army in the early 1980s, he attended Kendall College of Art and Design in Grand Rapids, Michigan." - get rid of awkward phrasing and redundancy.
      Fixed, I think.
    • "and for the next 12 years Keenan would only see him about once a year." - "and Keenan would only see him about once a year for the next 12 years."
      Done.
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be three to four paragraphs.
      It's suggested. We had three paragraphs at one point, but it was condensed to two considering the amount of information being included. It was scraggly looking at 3.
    • "After moving to Los Angeles, Keenan met Adam Jones, who had heard Keenan singing on a demo in college and suggested that they form a band." - awkward phrasing; it's hard to tell who suggested it. Divide it into two sentences if need be.
      I tried two sentences, but I couldn't get a good wording from it. So I tweaked a bit. Hopefully that's better.
    • "Tool was formed. Fronted by Keenan, the eventual lineup included guitarist Jones, Keenan's neighbor Danny Carey as drummer, and bassist Paul D'Amour, who would later be replaced by Justin Chancellor." - consistency of assignments to instruments. Either do all of them as [instrument]ist X or X as [instrument]ist.
      Done.

    I'm a bit tired right now; I'll check some more of the article later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressed some. I'll be back. Lara❤Love 01:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Lara❤Love 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the first paragraph of early life, it says Keenan only says his father once a year for the next 12 years (that would be until 1985, or he was 23). Later in that paragraph, it said that when Keenan was 13 he went to live with his father...that would be about 1977.
      • Any idea why he was fired from his pet store design job?
        • No. I searched through dozens of interviews and bios for this. I couldn't find an answer as to why, besides a copyrighted YouTube video that I can't link to that suggests he was a poor worker, but he could have been joking, so wholly unreliable. Lara❤Love 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is a link between the fake named 2001 album and their criticism of file-sharing networks, it needs to be made more clear in the article.
        • No apparent link, although I am not sure of the author's intentions. I have moved the filesharing info to the preceding paragraph according to chronology. Skomorokh
      • Per wP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of fewer than 4 lines should not be offset.
        • The only thing MOSQUOTE says about four lines is "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation..." There is no use of {{bquote}} in this article, and only one use of {{quote}}, which is for a five sentence quote in the A Perfect Circle sentence. Could you please clarify? Skomorokh
      • ""Puscifer" (pictured to the right)." -> no picture
      • Per WP:ELLIPSES, there should be a space, then ..., then another space
  • Comments
    • very clunky sentence " realization that he would not go through West Point undetected for his dissidence"
      • I don't know that this really belongs in the article "This was not the first time Keenan and Love were in a media story together; Love once referred to Keenan as a "media whore" to which he responded, "Isn't that great? I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love." -> it is very trivia
        • It gives important context to the "Free Frances Bean" incident. Without that line, the reader would not properly understand why Keenan undertook the campaign. Skomorokh
      • The April Fool's Day prank seems more trivia-y than encyclopedic.
      • " to obscure his identity " How has he obscured his identity? Yes, he wears costumes on stage, but people know his name and apparently lots of information about him. Maybe this needs a less strong word?
        • This is from the sources, his own explanation. It was to prevent people from recognizing him in public. I believe the exact example was that he wanted to be able to walk into a 7-11 with his son and not be hassled by fans. He didn't want his fame to affect his son. Lara❤Love 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without more context, this doesn't really belong "Amos had often referred to Keenan as an unofficial brother"

    Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments There are some unclear sentences and phrases.
      • This one: A primary purpose of Keenan's lyrics for Tool involves a personal connection with the listener on a level in which people are striving for self-identity, understanding and reflection. I have read five times but I still don't understand it.
        • I piped some links. Hopefully that helps. It basically means that he writes lyrics that encourage the listener to search within themselves. They are "thinking-man's lyrics".
          • It isn't the words that I do not understand, is is the sentence. The one you have written here, (above), is much better. GrahamColmTalk 07:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I tweaked it to sort of include my explanation while holding a more encyclopedic tone.
      • And this .....and the realization that he would not go through West Point undetected for his dissidence.
      • He dropped out of West Point because he realized that his dissidence would be noticeable.
        • Moniker - doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
        • I changed it to name.
      • Is this US English ....he ran on the cross country running team? Ran with or ran for?
        • In US English, it's ran on.
      • Pulled by - again not an encyclopedic word, how about withdrawn.
        • Done.
      • Lastly , I think you will find that the Lead does not need the also.
        • Removed.
    • GrahamColmTalk 17:39, 12 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:10, 15 April 2008.

    Ian Craig

    edit

    An article on the youngest person to represent and captain Australia in cricket. Ian Craig was a child prodigy who was compared to Don Bradman, regarded as the greatest batsman of all time. However, Craig fell ill and had to drop out of cricket for a year, and then retired early because of his work commitments. Hopefully, I have pre-empted the jargon problems that were identified in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernie Toshack and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don Tallon, so there should be less gremlins that need to be ironed out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    All the links check out with the link checker tool. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - looks good, but suffers a little from PEACOCK and "hagiographising". A quick glance revealed "media frenzy" and "child prodigy" both of which are unlikely in their strict senses as I cannot imagine the 1950s media behaving in a way that we'd describe today as a "frenzy" and he didn't really achieve anything at all while he was still a "child". Will you take another glance over with this in mind? Drop me a line when you're done and I'll do a review. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okey. Is teenage better? I do note that while I talked a lot about everyone praising his wonderful potential, I also listed out all of his bad results as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    I'll take this on below. Striking. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support—I must say that this is a cut above the standard of previous Australian sporting nominations. I haven't content-reviewed it, though.

    • "mid 1950s"—something is missing.
    • "New South Wales"—repeated links? Why? Who cares about it?
    • Lead wouldn't want to be any longer.
    • "Matting wicket"—Can someone at least put a stub-definition at that linked article?
    If you're asking about ownership, Cricinfo is now owned by ESPN. There remains a close relationship with Wisden, who used to own it. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Craig was the youngest player to score a fc double century at the time. Hassan Raza holds that record now, Craig is fourth or fifth, and is still the youngest Australian. The article goes a bit back and forth on the "is/was the youngest player/Australian"; if someone wants to make it uniform, please do. (Have no refs with me at the moment, but shouldn't be too difficult to find it).
    • universally regarded as the greatest batsman of all time Ahem :-)
    • out of a total of 416 runs for the loss of seven wickets (7/416) - why the score in both forms ?
    • He scored 63 of 81 runs in a partnership with Jimmy Burke - Can't have. Burke made 27
    • However, Bradman was not playing first-class cricket at 17 and did not captain Australia until he was 28 - Awkward and possibly unnecessary line.
    • double-century earned the eye of Australian selectors - is "earned the eye" common usage ? I am more familiar with caught the eye
    • scoring 867 first-class runs at a batting average of 54.18 with six domestic half-centuries in addition to his double century. CA says 7 50s; if the 53 in the Test is not considered as "domestic" neither should the 213
    • with a top score of 71  : 71-star
    • His tour started poorly, with food poisoning putting him out of action until after the Second Test He played four matches in May and four in June.
    • Craig came out to bat at 2/55 in the second innings on a sticky wicket I doubt if this is true. FoW wasn't followed exactly as Colin Macdonald retired early in the innings.
    • He battled for 270 minutes in compiling 38 - CA has 259

    That's all for now Tintin 14:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dweller

    Another impressive piece of work by the unpronouncable one. Some comments:

    • Doesn't seem right to include same achievement twice in Lead, as with the three "youngest player" achievements (NB on its repetition, the first of those, the double hundred, implies he's the youngest ever whether Aussie or not. Is that (still) right?)
    Chnaged to "holds the record for" to make it more obvious
    • "the youngest player to tour England" - youngest Aussie? youngest any nationality? Still valid?
    Book was unclear, so I changed to Aus to be sure. Not sure if it still is valid, so "was" keeps us safe. I suspect it is valid. I can't remember any other young players, unless there was a really young guy who sat on the bench for ages (don't think so). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he was unable to perform on English surfaces" know what you mean, but cricket newbies will take it literally
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Craig regained his place for the final two Tests of the series and retained" was retained? retained it?
    Pruned anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too much detail in Lead on a few points but notably on how he came to be appointed captain (and subsequent events in that parag too). Keep the detail for the body text
    Cut off two sentences. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "youngest captain in Test history" - still?
    No, that's why I used "is" in the first sentence for Australian records. For the worldwide cpatains, I said "was". I explicitly note in the main body that he has since been passed. I think it would be unwiedly in the lead with brackets. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Aged just 22 years and 149 days, Craig was the youngest captain in Test history and led a team derided as the worst to have left its shores." - presumably "its" refers to Australia, rather than them being derided as the worst ever touring team to leave any country?
    Fixed. Australian. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "less than twenty" - 20? MOSNUM - please check the whole article.
    • Lead allows 0 words for the life of the man from age of 26 to 72. That's a serious flaw. Allowing for the fact that it was far less notable (!) surely at least a sentence can be spared for it?
    Fixed. duh....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • infobox: reference height. Is that the usual designation for a middle order batsman? Not seen it before in an infobox
    Some people like Phanto have put specialist opener, so this seems fine. reffed height Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok the height is in teh main body. Adding a ref note to the numerical height calculator breaks the template. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "striking 91 against South Australia in his only innings of the season" 1st class innings I'd guess
    • The story of the 213 is told choppily as a sequence of stats. Can you try to flow it a little?
    Tweaked. hopefully better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bradman was not playing first-class cricket at 17 and did not captain Australia until he was 28" the second half is incongruous to this stage of the story - you could introduce it later if you like, but I actually suspect it's anachronistic anyway. I think the contemporary Bradman comparisons were more when he was a rising star, not once he was in the Test side... but not flourishing.
    Yeah, in hindsight mentioned Bradman's FC and Test debut age is more relevant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink selectors
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the age of 17 years and 239 days, he became the youngest ever Australian to play Test cricket." - cite
    Fixed. Moved up from the main body directly next to the statement. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "under heavy public expectations", "Craig seemed a boy among men" all unreferenced/not direct quotes and therefore sound like OR
    Fixed the first one. The second, I changed to was. Technically, he was < 18 and all the others were > 18. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The youngest player ever to be sent to England" as above - presumably Australian
    Changed to Aus, since the book was not all that explicit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "some media likening it" - subject of "it" is "Craig"
    Fixed to "his arrival". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bradman had scored world record of 974 runs" needs fixing
    Fixed. zzz monkey was asleep so it seems... or blind Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Craig failed to adapt to the English pitch conditions and his confidence plummeted." contains two claims, both of which definitely need citing and preferably put as direct quotes IMHO
    Fixed. Teh first one is pretty generic by everyone, so I moved teh cite up from further down the para. The confidence thing ditto, especially with the QE2 comment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to say I love the exchange with Her Maj. A witty man, clearly.
    • "Upon his return to Australia, Craig was unable to replicate his feats in the previous summer" multiple problems. There's a grammar glitch and confusion over northern/southern hemispher summers, made worse by the fact that he'd just endured a rotten (English) summer
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "twentieth" 20th - and some context would be good. 20th might not sound bad if you don't know that only five or six specialist batsmen will be selected, and few overseas players (if any) would have been involved, so his team-mates and about 15 rivals for his place would have done better!
    Done. Since we already mentioned First XI earlier in the text, people can understand that 20 > 11 so he won't be 1st choice player based on stats. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we know why he chose to drop out of cricket for a degree? It's pretty unusual behaviour for a top player. Also, how did he manage to get a degree in just one year, and that on top of doing national service in the same period! (how long was he on nat service - and what did he do?)
    Done. Conscription in Australia says that 140 days are required for military training and then they are in the reserve. So it would have only cost him 140 days and not more than a year. I clarfied that the book says he did a diploma. I don't know what it specifically means but Diplomas in Australia usually take 12-18 months. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "spin twins" is lovely cricket jargon but will mystify newbies who'll wonder why twins have different surnames
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "single-handedly routed the Australians" is hyperbole and POV. If the other 10 hadn't batted and fielded, I doubt he'd have done too well.
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Australia were levelled for 84" never heard that expression before, though it's clear what it means. Is it common Australian usage?
    Changed. Levelled can mean demolished in a literal sense and has been used to mean bowled out for a low score. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "defiant" used twice to describe the same innings
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he failed to pass 40 on any of his five innings" in any of his...
    Snoozing monkey. fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikilink subcontinent
    Fixed. Already did I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The 1956–57 season marked the start of a renewal phase in Australian cricket." says who?
    Errm everyone. I'll get another book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikilink Invincibles
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are 5 cites needed for a fairly ordinary sentence?
    No one article mentions Johnson and Miller together, so I needed separate pages. Also, the three conseuctive Ashes losses and the 18 month gap between Tests for rebuilding isn't mentioned in one sentence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The leading contenders" refers not to the team but for the captaincy
    Fixed. Very attentive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was seen as a bold move" - cite
    Fixed. Cited a pile. It's a pretty generic thing, so I'll cite lots and lots of books rather than quotefarming. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Craig was seen as being...." - cite, better yet, quote
    Fixed. Cited a pile. It was pretty generic, so I'll stick more citesBlnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "responsibility" - can the second usage in the same short parag be tweaked?
    Changed to workload. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and can the team manager get a name, poor fellow!
    • "who at the time has only managed" had
    Fixed. Blind monkey again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in his first Test as the lead spinner" comma
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as his team won its first Test with a decisive innings margin" in England we'd normally say "by" (only we're usually talking about losing by a decisive innings margin, lol)
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his first half-century since his Test debut" better would be "his first Test half-century since his debut" as pedantically the former is incorrect
    Fixed. Very good attention to detail. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB have you wikilinked century and half-century on their first occurrences?
    Yes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Graph is too small to be really useful and would be better in with the stats IMHO
    Fixed. Inflated and moved. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Craig declared that he was not ready for Test cricket" a return to
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "relinquished the Test captaincy to Benaud" I doubt it. I assume he relinquished it and then the selectors chose Benaud
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The events of the season meant that Craig faced an uphill battle to regain his place in the national team." presumably that refers to the events described in the last sentence of prev parag, in which case it's in the wrong place
    I've reworded but I don't think so. The new para is talking about his attempted comeback, so the first sentence explains why the odds are stacked against him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Australian Second team" lower case s? wikilink second team?
    Linked to Australia A cricket team, which is the modern equivalent I guess. I added a sentence in Aus A about the olden day 2nd XI tours. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • subcontinent wikilinked here, when it should have been earlier instead, as mentioned
    Fixed. I'm sure it was wikilnked the first time and undid it this time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 59.16 isn't a steady season - it sounds outstanding. How did it compare with his rivals' averages?
    Used stronger adjective. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "New South Wales had a streak of nine consecutive Shield titles in this period" rofl - nine titles in 2 years! That's good, even for Aussies!
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Harvey moved to Sydney due to his employment, and the period saw the emergence of Test batsmen Norm O'Neill, Brian Booth and Bob Simpson, with the latter two later becoming Australian captains." multiple problems. Harvey moving house will be meaningless to most readers without context. Is the list of others to do with Australia or NSW? Sentence also implies Booth and Simpson were contemporaneous captains of their country at the time that Benaud was. The Aussie equivalent of the summer of four captains?
    Tweaked. Pointed out that NN, BB and BS were emerging state players who were on their way upwards towards Tests, and that they threatened Craig's spot in the team. Same for Harvey except he was already in the TEst team. rmvd the Captaincy as it isnt relevant to batsmanship. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite this, he captained" last subject is Harvey.
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite this, he captained New South Wales and Australia in 48 matches, winning 28 and losing only two." despite what? the emergence of NSW players? Why combine NSW and Australia in the one stat?
    Reworded to rm Despite. I left NSW and Australia because this was his total FC captaincy stats. Nvm, reworded to say all FC matches. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP demands careful citation of all the sentences in the "Later years" section. I'm especially concerned about the marriage linked to his cricket failures - please check that's cited accurately
    Fixed. Teagged. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later years" seems the wrong heading as some info is about his youth
    Fixed. changed to "After cricket" Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article kind of peters out without a "today, he..." kind of comment
    Fixed. Pointed out that he was the managing director of Boots until he retired from work completely. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he didn't bowl in Test cricket, the right hand side of the stats box seems pointless
    True, but I'm trying to keep them uniform across the article. Like the infobox. We don't chop off the bowling half of the infobox when the guy never bowls - we leave spaces. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these cricket bios include a style/personality section
    I know. I couldn't find a full bio of Craig, only a short one in the captains book and the profiles book. It seems that his style didn't gain anybody's attention. Wisden COTY and obits normally discuss style a lot, but Craig was never COTY and he hasn't died yet. So I'm a bit thin. I'll continue looking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Otherwise, good stuff. Sorry to be so pedantic, but you know what a stickler I am! It's a bit of a sad story, isn't it. Seems peculiarly English in a way. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
    • Last line of the lead is rather past tense. I had to recheck he was still alive...
    Tweaked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "involvment" typo.
    Fxed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Role in infobox needs initial capital S.
    Fxed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will selectors (sport) have an article ever? I'd make a stub if you believe it should do.
    • Order citations numerically - there are a couple of [4][3] in there. And a [14][10]
    Fxed. Teh additions changed the auto-ordering....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "slashed a ball" bit peacock.
    Fxed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is 173cm really considered "short" these (or moreover in those) days?
    Yeah, at least for non-Asian cricketers. Justin Langer is 179cm and is considered short for a sportsperson. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "1957–58 season" has anomalous linking.
    Fxed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "had a moderate season" moderately successful?
    Fxed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any blue dots on the graph per the caption.
    Fxed. He was never not out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caroll[2][3] is immediately followed by a full stop and [2][3]. The latter is fine, the former should go.
    I don't see what this is referring to. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor points, otherwise excellent. Let me know when you've remedied these. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose At this stage, I am focusing on content, but I also think the article needs a ce as it has had a number of alterations since its initial FAC nom, which has caused problems.

    “Youngest ever Aus capt” section:

    The analysis of the way Craig came to the captaincy is not right. He was appointed NSW captain in 56-7 (which isn’t mentioned in the text), while Harvey led Victoria; they were the only contenders for the job. At this time, the Board chose the captain, not the selectors. The Board was comprised of delegates from each state (NSW 3, Vic 3, SA 3, Qld 2, WA 1, Tas 1: total 13) who always voted en bloc. Therefore, NSW and Vic needed another 4 votes from other states to get their man up. NSWCA wouldn’t appoint Craig and then have their delegates support Benaud for capt at Board level. Lindwall was stand-in Qld capt for Ron Archer, who was considered as a potential Aus capt until injury wrecked his career. Besides, Lindwall was considered to be finished and he was a fast bowler, not captaincy material in Aus cricket history. It was a tribute to Lindwall that he was able to modify his style and later to return to Test cricket, some suspect to provide “purity of bowling action” during the controversial 58-9 Ashes series. But the text reads as if he was dropped for good after the SA tour.

    Mentioned the state cpataincy and culled the Lindwall and Benaud thing, which seems pretty suspicious of Perry in mentioning I guess. I removed Benaud as well since it would be the case that Harvey >> Benaud so the average person would think Harvey straightaway anyway. At the time that Lindwall was dropped, it did appear as though he was gone for good - with youngsters like Meckiff and Drennan and Gaunt being called in. Lindwall only came back after Meckiff injured himself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So it was a straight choice between Craig and Harvey. Famously, Harvey spoke to the team to pledge his support, which was considered a major factor in the tour successes. In his latest book, Bob Simpson (who was on the tour) has written that Craig wanted to drop himself during the SA series, but was outvoted by Harvey and Peter Burge. Although Craig’s batting figures were poor, he was voted one of five SA cricketers of the year, so to say Australia played with ten men is just nonsense (no, I’m not related to Mike Brearley). Craig was expected to lead Aus in 58-9, but his health let him down, Harvey was disappointing when leading an Aus XI v MCC early in the tour, and thus the legend of Benaud began. Bill O’Reilly (1985): “Benaud was not likely ever to be considered to fill [Ian] Johnson’s place – that fact was public property in 1956.” Bob Simpson wrote of Benaud’s aloofness and unpopularity with other players until his appointment as capt, when he made a remarkable change.

    Dropped the ten men thing, it's nn and we can tell from the raw stats. I don't think it's necessary to mention the theories about why Benaud then skipped over Harvey's head. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added RSA award. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig began his comeback with a Commonwealth XI in South Africa in 59 (not mentioned). He captained NSW whenever Benaud was absent and re-invented himself as an opener (not mentioned). In his last two seasons, he opened with Simpson for NSW and scored 1339 runs at 46.17, hardly the figures of man struggling for a place in the team, besides which he was opening and not in competition with Booth, Harvey and O’Neill. He finished his career with a century in his last first class match for an International XI in India (not mentioned). His teammates commented on his matured style but he took the path of many Aus cricketers of his generation and chose his professional career over playing on (eg. Bob Cowper, Ian McLachlan and Paul Sheahan). Some chose to play for a long time (eg Harvey) at cost to their working lives, hence the WSC schism of 1977.

    Adjusted the thing about middle order, and added new technique against fast bowling and teammaters' praise. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    General points:

    • Craig spent the winter of 1957 in London gaining work experience before travelling straight to SA to meet the team (not mentioned). The team manager suffered a heart attack prior to the tour, not during as written, so Craig assumed managership for the first fortnight of the tour.
    Fxed and mentioned. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Craig made a good start to the tour in two warm-up matches against Rhodesia, scoring a century – confusing.
    Fxed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His capt stats are actually played 48, won 27, drawn 18, lost 2, tied 1 [27]
    Fxed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Craig was appointed OAM in 1997, a year after his retirement from the SCG trust.
    • Robinson offers an excellent analysis of Craig’s style and technique in On Top Down Under.
    Added now that I noticed the book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • youth-oriented regeneration plan, please give good cites for this or delete it as IMO, no such thing existed.
    Made less peacocky by explicitly disccusing age. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is too long & detailed.
    pruned. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phanto282 (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I found Robinson yesterday and was still doing it up. What books did this come from? btw, I didn't make up these stats, they were in the books that I used. But some of hte other stuff is in the Robinson book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I read the article through a few times with my pen in hand as per usual but didn't written down a single thing! An excellent and engaging article. I really liked the pace of the prose, it made reading the pleasure it should be. A well-written, comprehensive contribution to Wikipedia's cricket canon. Well done. GrahamColmTalk 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes: what is the source for the data in the graph at "Test match performance"? Something is off in the punctuation here:

    • Upon first being appointed in 1968 to replace Stan McCabe, Craig was the youngest trustee of the SCG.[49] ever Craig retired as the managing director of Boots' Australian subsidiaries.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed for both. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:44, 15 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:10, 15 April 2008.

    Lazare Ponticelli

    edit

    Self nomination I know what you're thinking. This article is tiny, and from what, 15 sources? Well, every single thing in this is sourced, and it passed GA and was peer reviewed. I know that the fr: wikipedia's version is longer, but then again, it does have unsourced statements in it. The only thingwe can possibly thaw information out of is his autobiography, which is in french and apparently has lots of pictures. Any issues stated here will be adressed immediatedly. Editorofthewiki 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment All the links worked and the sources look good. (Thank goodness for short articles! Yay!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that a support? Editorofthewiki 09:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a comment, because I don't have time to do a full review on every FAC, but I do try to look at the sources of every FAC and see how reliable they might be. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Yup. Neal (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comments When I click on the "[A]" note, I'm not taken to the bottom for some reason. "In his later years, he was critical of war in general and kept his war awards in a shoe box." Two disparate ideas (unless the second is somehow connected to the first...sentence does not explain) mashed together into one sentence; makes for awkward sentence. Read further down, and saw "A recipient of several awards, Ponticelli knew it was his age that gave him the medals and kept them in a shoe box", which again tries to somehow connect these two ideas, but isn't very successful. Also "knew it was his age that gave him the medals" is quite awkward and ambiguous. "...the emphasis to be on..." What emphasis? BuddingJournalist 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The A note works perfectly for me, it must be something with your computer.
    2) The war awards stuff implies to the reader that, while Ponticelli was proud of his medals, he was humble about it and didn't go around hanging his legion of honor.
    3) Because he was le der des ders the last of the last, he was given these medals, and he knew it.
    4) The emphasis of the procession.

    All added to article. Editorofthewiki 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He earned them for his service and because he lived so dang long. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have received any of the medals.

    Conditional support This is good and it reads nicely. But I would suggest you remove all the citations that are repeated. It really does not help to cite the same Times article a dozen times. There's a growing tendency for people to think that just because there's a footnote behind every sentence or a word, that makes it good. The John McCain article is example of this sort of thing going slightly over the top. Wikidea 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To be more specific, I would suggest combining references where possible. If two or more consecutive sentences are sourced to the same reference, then just reference the last one; it's then implied that everything prior is sourced to that reference. BuddingJournalist 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I peronally like sourcing every sentance, even if it was with the above source. If you could link me to a policy or guideline I'd be happy to fix it. Editorofthewiki 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any relevant policy or guideline about this. It's just a stylistic suggestion, since it makes article text much easier to read. Many of the articles on Wikipedia employ it, and it's common in academia to have a single citation "cover" a multi-sentence paraphrase of another work. BuddingJournalist 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have fixed everyone I noticed. Editorofthewiki 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Excellent article - the fact that it's so short only reflects the fact that there probably just aren't that many notable things to say about him. I just have once concern: the Sarkozy quotation at the end of the article isn't at all integrated into the prose. This kinda makes it seem like Wikipedia is advancing the view Sarkozy is expressing. I would suggest either removing this quotation or, if it is part of the statement mentioned two paragraphs before, moving it to that paragraph.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I was thinking of a good way to do that... However, I have discoved a Quote Box that I have added to the article. Editorofthewiki 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Although I can't say I'm completely content with this solution, since I feel having this quote box the way it is does still sort of editorialize Ponticelli's life and his military service, I'm willing to settle for this. --Carabinieri (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SupportSlight oppose for now, mainly because of some prose rough spots. Changed to support.

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead, did he lie about his ancestry or his age? The second sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing. I would think he lied about his ancestry and age, which would explain why he was transferred to the Italian armies. Ah, now I see. The two events aren't really connected. He was tranferred because Italy joined the war, correct? The lead should reflect that, because as it is now written, it implies that he lied about his ancestry and was discovered, which the article itself doesn't support.
    • World War I section, the first sentence of the first paragraph seems awkward to me. Perhaps "In August 1914 when he was 16, he lied about his age to join the 1st Regiment de Marche of the French Foreign Legion, where his older brother Celeste was already serving."?
    • Same section, last paragraph, the third sentence feels odd to me. Perhaps "In 1918 he was gassed in an Austrian chemical attack that killed hundreds of his fellow soldiers."?
    • The quote in the next section needs a citation directly on it, per WP:CITE#When quoting someone
    • Last sentence of Work with Ponticelli Freres section, I think the "there" is unnecessary.
    • I think the third sentence of Later life might work better if it ran something like "Originally offered a state funeral by Jacques Chirac, he initially asserted he did not want one,..."
    Other than these prose concerns, it is a good article, and I'll be happy to support when these prose rough spots are smoothed over. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I have addressed the above issues in a suitable fashion. Editorofthewiki 01:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Quick work. Changing to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconditional support. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:14, 13 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:11, 14 April 2008.

    Bezhin Meadow

    edit

    Self-nomination. I found this one day back last September when browsing Special:Random, when I landed on Sergei Eisenstein, who I hadn't heard of in ages. The name "Bezhin Meadow" caught my eye, I landed at this version of the article. I started reading up on it, and added it to my to-do list, but it sat idle forever. I've worked on it on and off, and finally put it up for GA, but decided to go for FA instead and pulled the GA nomination when I really realized how long the article already was, with another 12-25 sources give or take that I still haven't even had time to properly look at. This is still just my second FA nom after Storm botnet, so please be gentle! I think this article can reasonably expand another 3-4 paragraphs over time (perhaps 5-6), based on sourcing. Lawrence § t/e 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • CommentSupport I think that the article is very good and overall well written. It seems to conform well to the FA criteria of content comprehensiveness, stability and neutrality. I think the areas that will acquire most attention are copyediting, prose, style and references. Lead: some minor language problems, repetitions of some words, e.g. wake, failure/failed, discussion. "The film is based on a historical Russian figure, a young boy who became a political martyr figure after his death in 1932, immortalized in school programs, poetry, music, and in film." It would be more informative if we got some information about the circumstances regarding the boys death which presumably is what lead to his martyrdom, also is nothing more known about his identity? In short I think the following note should be in the main text - it is certainly important enough to merit inclusion. Remember that the lead should be able to stand alone with the most important information. Generally I think the prose is clear and easy to follow but sometimes there are some slightly awkward wordings and dull repetitions. The only information I was left wanting on reading the article was why the title "Behzin Meadow"? is it just the name of the town where the story takes place? (Maybe its there and I just did't pay attention). I also would like a real bibliography section - also with all the discussion there has been over the movie I would expect more written sources to have been published about the movie, are you sure you have used all the best published resources? It seems as if you have focused on sources that are available on-line. to me it is important that all the major paper sources about the topic are reference in the bibliography section - also if you haven't used them much for writing the article, but simply so that readers can find them and verify whether the picture painted in the article is accurate.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on expanding Morozov's section next. Ironically, for the title of the film: yes, the answer is literally what you guessed; they just took the title from the original short fiction in the end, and nothing else. I'll work on the rest shortly. Lawrence § t/e 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an update; the section on Morozov and Turgenev (the titular short fiction) has been expanded out at Bezhin_Meadow#Original Turgenev story and Pavlik Morozov. As far as a proper bibliography, as I don't read or speak Russian, I have (the last time someone mentioned this for me) a loss of about 30~ odd sources. For the English language ones that I was/am able to get easy access to, I've got them all used now. There are far, far more references to Bezhin Meadow that are trivial, or just in passing, or with information already covered in the sources (24 sources, as of today) that they weren't overly worth adding. The bulk of the english language material on the film I think I've gotten covered from the works listed in the general References section now. I'm still going to do an additional few passes through for old news stories to see what else I can find; the vast bulk of the article is currently sourced to books rather than news media. There are apparently far more references as well in academic texts that are used in some film schools, but I don't have any access to those (and I don't know if whats in them isn't already covered in the ones I've found, unfortunately). Lawrence § t/e 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a look and I am ready to support. I would just ask you once again to consider putting the references to published books and articles into a separate bibliography section. Also I still don't find an explicit explanation of the title. These things however are not necessary for my vote of support which I am giving now. Its a really good article.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Maunus. The title explanation is basically summarized here, with "Eisenstein would later remove any direct references to Turgenev's fiction, aside from the title, from the film.[8]" That's basically it--they liked the title, and cribbed it. I've never seen from the sources I've looked in any other explanation.
    As far as the bibliography, I think I'm missing something or being dense here. The current References section are the major non-trivial works on Bezhin that I could find, with the ISBNs listed (I see I missed two ISBNs, I'll add them tomorrow). I admit to being limited on building the article to just materials I found online. There are a lot more possible works from a quick look, but from going pretty deeply into the results that I could access these were the "main" ones that I already made us of. There certainly are more, though. Do you recommend additional works besides the ones already listed in the References section, or the ones already listed plus extra? Sorry for the dolt question--never done an article here with a seperate dedicated bibliography. Lawrence § t/e 07:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise its not really necessary with a separate bibliography section the way you have included the entire information of the works used in the notes. I just prefer to have a section at the end of the article that shows all of the works. I simply find it more accesible that way - and it is what is normally done in scholarly literature. Look at an article like Nahuatl to see how bibliography section following the notes can look.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise all the links worked and the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd debated using that source early on, but it's a well-written article, and the site itself appears to have a very wide array of well-written other news stories. The particular source in question actually in some cases sources back to other sources in turn, and seemed to be alright. The source itself here is used for fairly mundane, non-controversial information on the article. It seems to be a reliable source, but if there is a major problem with it I can try to cross-source to other sources and see if I can do it another way. Lawrence § t/e 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it isn't very contentious material it is referencing. I guess I'm a source elitist, I want the best possible ones for articles I work on, so I just can't help hunting for better ones for every article! (grins). Personally, I wouldn't oppose on the basis of it being used, but if get chances to improve you probaly should do so. If it makes Main Page you can be sure someone somewhere will complain about every less than perfect source. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'll do a bit of a copy edit to smooth out some of the rough edges identified by others here.
    • Question: Bezhin Meadow appears to be a short story by Turgenev, but is not listed on his article. Can you identify which collection it was from, and perhaps have some cross referencing there—e.g., "Turgenev's short story Bezhin Meadow, from the _______ collection, was in part the inspiration for the controversial 1930s Soviet film of the same name."
    • I'll probably add more comments as I go along in the copy editing. Risker (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, if you stick it into the Ivan Turgenev article in the paragraph starting "In 1855 Alexander II had ascended the Russian throne...", that will make the most sense; the short story First Love is discussed there. You can start the sentence with, "Another story from the same volume as First Love, called Behzin Meadow..." --Risker (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Another question: "In the wake of the film's failure, Eistenstein was made to recant, in public, his art as an error.<ref name='Seton_Eisenstein_quote' /> " This sentence feels somewhat clumsy; could you provide the original quote so it can be fine-tuned?
    • The made to recant is a summary for the lead drawn from this passage and this passage in the Production section, from Eistenstein's response to Shumyatsky, The Mistakes of Bezhin Meadow that was a published originally in Pravda. Made to recant might be too strong of a wording, and it should probably say "did recant" in tone and form there. You want to change it while you're in or should I? I was going to hold off on anything substantive till you finish. Lawrence § t/e 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I fixed that sentence, made it a little more benign. Risker (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the shelving and production of Bezhin being discussed, that summary sentence of it being cited and discussed is drawn from this source, on page 90, with the reference to it being the most cited Soviet film from that era in academic works. Combined with the extensive reaction, Party meetings to examine the film, and the Jay Leyda retrospective from 1988 mentioned in the Legacy seciton. No one source ever outright specified it's been discussed for "x years" since it's release, or anything that easy, but since we have discussion and review of the film (add in the reconstruction in the 1960s) I left it general for that point to avoid WP:OR. It's obvious though and not really OR to say it's been discussed and examined for years, since we have documented instances of that in the late 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s. Does that make sense? As far as the geographic scope, Leyda was in New York, the reconstruction was Soviet, and most of these sources themselves are American or British, but I wouldn't want to say the attention was international, maybe, without a source. Or if its this obvious, its ok? Lawrence § t/e 02:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, better to leave it unspecified. Risker (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more question (my last, I think!): "The fire was set in the film by leaving matches in smoldering sunflowers which were thrown into the area that stored the fuel for the community's tractors." This sentence is a bit confusing - was that the technical method by which the fire was set, or is that how the fire was portrayed in the film? Would it be more accurate to say "In the film, the fire was started when the arsonists threw dried sunflowers and lit matches into the community's fuel storage area"? Risker (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One more: "A former student of Eisenstein, Pytor Pavlenko, defended his work in the wake of Bezhin Meadow"....did Pavlenko defend Eisenstein's work or his own? Glad to be of help! Risker (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clear it up, Pavlenko defended Eisenstein's work there. Again--I love the rewrite and changes. I think the tweaks make the article stronger. Lawrence § t/e 05:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Based on Maunus's comments, I'm actually going to go back and redo all the sourcing like that, afterwards--his example really is easier for readers (it will just take a good chunk of time to do so). Lawrence § t/e 00:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, Lawrence, in case you want to take this up somewhere later, I was uneasy changing to "Further reading" to conform to WP:LAYOUT when one was a book, the other a film. Layout should deal better with that, in case you want to raise it over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any little changes that like that which improve the article (Risker mentioned not wanting to change too much of my wording/voice and such) are fine by me--the MOS stuff is still a black art to me. What do you think is the best wording for that given it includes a film...? I was stumped on that as well. Maybe change the reflist section to Notes and the extra section to References, something like that? Lawrence § t/e 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure. I've not come across that before, and haven't thought about what to call Further reading when it includes a film. Maybe ask the Film Project, and then raise it on the talk page at WP:LAYOUT, but no need to hold up this nom over that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be legal, since the film would be out of copyright by far at this point. I hadn't clicked on it after it was added by Alex. Is that a torrent link? It doesn't work for me on Firefox or IE. For movies that would be out of copyright, do we allow linking to direct sites? Or torrents? Thanks for the cleanup by the way! Lawrence § t/e 23:55, 13 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:11, 14 April 2008.

    Catherine de' Medici

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it meets the criteria. Many thanks to those who contributed to the useful peer review. I hope to help improve the coverage of late-sixteenth-century French history on Wikpedia (which is somewhat scanty, in my opinion). Catherine de' Medici's life strikes me as a good place to start, since she was the only member of the French royal family who managed to live for very long during the period. I have worked on this article on and off for eight months without ever tiring of it—so I hope it fits the bill. qp10qp (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I can't wait to read this article, but I must comment on the near gallery of images first. I can't read the text for all of the images! Some must go! The text is offset in all sorts of weird ways over here and sandwiched between images in unsightly ways. I know it must look better wherever Qp is, but over here it is a collage. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, how infuriating. Nobody mentioned this at peer review. OK, I've lost some of the images, and moved some others about, after switching my own preference down to a 12 font. It's a shame, because this article has a cast of characters and we have such brilliant paintings and drawings of them: I'm particularly going to miss Leo X by Raphael and Marguerite de Valois by Clouet (sobs). Could you tell me if it looks all right now on your screen? The only other thing I can think of is that I've read at MoS that images on the left under a heading can be a problem (not for me): I only have Henry III and the Duke of Guise in that position—please let me know if they are a problem.qp10qp (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support What an enjoyable article - well-researched, well-written, and beautifully illustrated! Thanks Qp, for taking on such an important figure and doing her justice! This was really so fascinating to read - I was riveted. Small things:
    • The monarchy had no control over the causes of these conflicts, which would have daunted even a mature king. - What is this supposed to mean exactly?
    It's supposed to mean that the monarchy had no control over the causes of the conflicts, which arose from the Reformation and irreversibly polarised society, and that the situation would have been a tough order even for a mature king to cope with, let alone boy kings. I've changed the wording and punctuation slightly, in the hope of making things clearer. (The point itself is unexceptionable and is made by several historians.) qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, the sentences still sound like the article is comparing a female leader (standing in for her sons) to a "mature king", as if somehow a "mature king" is the highest form of leader. I'm not sure I like the gender connotations here. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I see what you mean now. I have simplified the sentence merely to show that the situation was complex. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to a chronicler, when Catherine de’ Medici was born in Florence on Wednesday 13 April 1519, her parents, were "as pleased as if it had been a boy". - A chronicler from when?

    I've now added "contemporary", and given the date of Goro Gheri's remark, which he wrote two days after Catherine's birth. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • During his childhood, Henry spent almost four and a half years as a hostage in Spain, an ordeal that marked him for life. - How did it mark him?
    I've added that it left him gloomy and introverted, per Frieda.qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proved that Henry was virile and added to the pressure on Catherine. - Be explicit about pressure!
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second paragraph of "Dauphine" needs a cite.
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third paragraph of "Reign of Henry III" is a little disorganized and unclear.

    I've rewritten it slightly, adding a touch more explanation and chronology. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On one occasion, in March 1578, Catherine had to lecture François for six hours about his behaviour - I don't really understand this sentence yet. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a bit more: Catherine did all in her power to bring François back into the fold. On one occasion, in March 1578, she lectured him for six hours about his dangerously subversive behaviour. Throughout the article I included touches that showed Catherine operating essentially as a mother. Despite what some of the pamphleteers said, I don't think she cared for power itself except on behalf of her children. And it amuses me that she didn't hesitate to yell at them and cuff them even when they were grown up. If this bit is still not cogent, could you suggest what might be added here? qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearer - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading the article, I felt that the lead lacked something - it didn't give me the full flavor of the article to come. Some nuance was lost that I thought could be retained about her attitude towards the Hugenots. Also, no mention is made of her patronage of the arts in the lead.
    I've mentioned the patronage there now. To me, the lead does encapsulate her attitude to the Huguenots, but perhaps I am too close to it. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It just seems like there is so much about her reputation rather than about the "actual" history. Seems odd for you. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know; I have mentioned reputation history in the leads of other articles; I suppose that is to ape the introductions to histories and biographies, which often do the same. But, OK, I have cut the Huguenot-Michelet stuff from the lead. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wonderful job - thanks again! Powerful women represented! Yeah! :) Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment: I know how busy you are. In fact, I think you have something in common with Catherine, both being "workaholics". Except I doubt you'd massacre anyone. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Armstrong is a reprint, correct, of a 1904 work? does it have corrections and stuff or is it just a straight reprint. If a straight reprint, it should probably be noted that it is such.
    • same for the White book.
    Yes, those Kessinger books are just straight reprints of old classics, but obviously the publisher, cover, etc, is different, so I figured that counted as a new edition. Glorified PODs really. I've now added the original dates before the publisher details.qp10qp (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I just checked and realised they only had one footnote between them, so I've cut them. The article is reffed up to its eyeballs and doesn't need them anymore. qp10qp (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Guy ISBN is 184115752X according to GOogle books ( l looked to add it to my book list to buy (grins))
    Yes, that's it, isn't it? I don't think it was wrong (I have the book in front of me). By the way, that book is brilliant—the best book on Mary, Queen of Scots, in my opinion, despite the title the publishers obviously forced on Guy (he changed it to something more scholarly for the next edition). I found it unputdownable: it's best read against Wormald's assassination job on Mary, which is also excellent, but an analysis rather than a biography. qp10qp (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Otherwise, the sources look good. I'll try to be back later to do a fuller review. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You and your tool, Ealdgyth. Does it work rather like a metal detector? qp10qp (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When they write me a tool that automatically finds iffy sources, I'll be happy. I suppose I need to find a fresher phrasing on that, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I reviewed this at peer review and was impressed; I did a minor copyedit but there wasn't much to fix then. I am sorry to see the images go -- I have 300px as my thumbnail default and they weren't overwhelming to me. Still, I think this is an issue where you have to compromise as there are multiple possible settings for images and we need articles to look good for as many viewers as possible. Anyway, a great article, and I'm glad to support it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks! I should say that all the images are raw thumbnails and deliberately do not have pixel values, which I understand is the approved approach. qp10qp (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. A few minor MOS issues and some citation issues.
      • Need citation for ""those close to her believed that her life had been shortened by displeasure over her son’s deed"
      • Month-day combinations should be wikilinked.
    I don't like linking day-month without a year, especially since there will be a day-month-year link close by. However, I have done this now. I haven't linked retrieval dates. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation after the quote "many people advised the king and the dauphin to repudiate her, since it was necessary to continue the line of France".
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need citation after quotes "away, "for fear", in the words of a chronicler, "of being expelled by the Queen"."
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of less than 4 lines should not be offset
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need citation after quote "If Monsieur de Guise had perished sooner," she told the Venetian ambassador, "peace would have been achieved more quickly".
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why was it unlikely that Henry and Louise de Lorraine-Vaudemont would have children?
    Extended the quote by the Venetian ambassador. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for "Oh, wretched man! What has he done?…Pray for him…I see him rushing towards his ruin"
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for ", "Your words, Madam, have led us all to this butchery"."
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This might need to be reworded: "She left him in tears." It could either mean that she left in tears (which I assume is the case) or that he was in tears when she left
    Done. Good spot.qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably need a citation for "Although Catherine spent ruinous sums on the arts,"
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for your observations. The quote refs tended to be nearby, but you have reminded me to nail them on directly after the quotes. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support With the following quibbles.

    • The statements in Daupine section, the second paragraph are opinion and need some sort of sourcing. Specifically that Henry adored DIane for the rest of his life and that he respected Catherine's position as his consort. Citing them to someone would work, or possibly that Henry kept Diane as his mistress for the rest of his life, which isn't opinion, but fact.
    All sourced now. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huguenots section, second paragraph. "Swoop"? perhaps trap or attack?
    For me, "swoop", which is not a slang word (though it sounds like one), is the mot juste. This was the only occasion in the whole of the French Wars of Religion when the court itself (as opposed to armies) was taken by surprise. The Huguenot plan, to swoop on the royal party and take possession of the king, very nearly succeeded. It was every court man, woman, court jester, and bottlewasher for themselves, and by all accounts the whole bunch lammed it to Paris at dawn, in comic disarray. Oh, how I'd love to have seen that. qp10qp (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did the war that ended in March 1568 start? Was it with the "swoop"? Did I miss something about it starting?
    Yes, I thought that was implied, but I've made it clearer now. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Am glad to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The table of children needs more introduction, perhaps some prose explaining the collective significance of her children. As it is, it is left to the reader to infer that the table summarizes the lives of the "issue" of de' Medici and her husband. Is there a compelling reason to use the term "issue" rather than more familiar terminology? That section (Marriage and issue) might be retitled as well ("Children", perhaps), since there is already a section on "Marriage" and the "Marriage and issue" section is not actually about the marriage.--ragesoss (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You get those horrible and partly superfluous tables in so many of these articles. I hate the word "issue", but it seems to be the regular term on Wikipedia, for some reason. OK, I will go and change it; but in my experience certain projects will come along and change it back. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I've retitled the section "children", given it a little collectivising introduction, changed it from a table to a bullet list, and removed some of the overdetailing. I've also changed "issue" to "children" in the infobox, where the children are all listed and linked too. Well, no one can say this article doesn't contain any information about her children, that's for sure. I wish I knew how to put the children list in a "hide" strip thingie, like the ancestors. qp10qp (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments pertaining to WP:MOS#Images:
      • There is a sandwiching issue in the Huguenots section.
    I've removed one of the two images, although this sandwiching was invisible to me, even with a small font. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've placed it above the header, as it were—which always looks a little ugly to me. I'm surprised that with all the technical progress of Wikipedia, this problem of left images under a heading has not been solved. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - good work on a difficult article. The writing is so engaging that I can even ignore all those lowercase Dukes (Holy Roman emperor though? Have mercy!). Couple of very minor queries late on:
      • He was also healthier than them followed by those who know him well say that he has an extremely weak constitution and will not live long in the next paragraph jars a little.
    He was still sickly. But the first two were invalids. I've cut the first statement, to remove the apparent clash. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At about this time, he took to wearing death’s heads sewn into his clothes and carrying little dogs around with him in jewelled baskets - what does that tell us?
    It's supposed to tell us that he was losing the plot. The trouble is that I've had to cut so much from the article that perhaps I've severed too many links in the chain of reasoning. Anyway, I've now moved this out to make way for a sentence addressing Carabinieri's abscess point. qp10qp (talk)
      • Catherine, in bed with a lung infection, had been kept in the dark. - presumably metaphorically and not as a treatment. Could do with rephrasing.
    Great catch, ha ha. Changed. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • the Forty-five plunged their blades - are they called the Forty-five because that is how many of them there are? Seems a fairly busy bedchamber if so. Some explanation of where the name came from or how many of them were there for the stabbing would help. Yomanganitalk 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it to "members of". To tell you the truth, I can't find out much more about them. I had thought of not naming them in the article and just calling them his bodyguard, but I think it's best to put names like this in articles, if historians choose to use them. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod strikes again. Brilliant work! Reading that, they didn't have a great record, did they? Two kings, two assassinations. qp10qp (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - I added in conclusion:" Their record on offence was therefore rather better than on defence." but Yomangan wasn't having it! Of course, they didn't have Dumas doing their PR. His question is presumably answered in that 15 were on duty at any one point, though as the King still needed guarding, perhaps some of the next shift were putting in overtime. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. I hate to do this, as I see a lot of work has been put into this article, but I do feel there are a few issues that need to be addressed first. It's been a joy to read the article and it is very good, so I'll be more than happy to support once these have been taken care of:
      • I think the structure of the lead is somewhat odd. It starts out by talking about her birth, then it goes to her reign as Queen Consort, and then it goes back to her marrying Henry at the age of fourteen. I would suggest starting the article with what she is best known for, being Queen Consort of France and then having influenced her sons when they ruled France, and then giving a slightly more in-depth biography. Most articles start by saying what their topic is best-known for, so I think it would be nice, if this one would too and that would eliminate the skipping around in the lead. It would only require moving the two sentences about her birth to the second paragraph of the lead.
    Good point. Done. qp10qp (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "As a result, she was blamed for all the sins of the régime, in particular for the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572, in which thousands of Huguenots were butchered in Paris and throughout France." "sins" doesn't seem like the right word to me here, especially as it kind of makes it seem as if the article is taking the view that these acts were sins. How about "violent acts"? Also "butchered" seems too emotional a word to me and thus violates WP:TONE; "killed" or something similar would be more neutral. Although I find this article's language more engaging than that of most Wikipedia articles, I think in this case it goes to point of being POV.
    I've changed it to "faults" of the régime and "killed". But I don't really agree that this offends tone or POV. The sources use words like this, and why should we be different? The Huguenots and Spanish did regard the Valois régime as sinful, literally. As far as "butchered" is concerned, is there a polite way of describing a massacre? Yes, "killed" is more neutral, but perhaps too neutral–after all, you can be killed by a bus, by an electric shock, by choking on a fishbone, but being woken up first thing in the morning and hacked to pieces is slightly different. Or being ripped apart by baying mobs and thrown into heaps. qp10qp (talk)
    What I meant is that using "sins" in that sentence makes it seem like the article views these acts as sinful. I like "faults" since that makes it sound more like this is referring to how Catherine's opponents viewed them - to me at least.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MOS: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." (Right-aligning them isn't an option since they look nicer with their eyes looking at the text and removing them would be a shame. My advice would be to move them to immediately before the headings) This is done in the "Birth and upbringing", the "Reign of Henry III", and the "Catholic League" sections.
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Clement had no choice but to crown Charles as Holy Roman emperor in return for his help in retaking the city." Shouldn't that be "Holy Roman Emperor"?
    Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In 1536, Henry's older brother, François, fell ill after a game of tennis, contracted a fever, and died." The reference to the game of tennis seems kind of odd to me, because the sentence doesn't explain the game's role in him getting sick. I would either remove this or explain what the game has to do with it.
    Clarified I hope - he got hot and sweaty and caught a chill; no showers then. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He had a glass of water, and some think that may have given him typhoid. The tutor who gave it to him was executed on suspicion of poisoning him, but historians are unanimous in ruling that out. As always, the episode is interesting and would make a good article in its own right (and I am struck by similarities with the death of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales), but the article can't afford to be sidetracked here with any more detail. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks it's clearer now.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Henry's reign also saw the rise of the Guise brothers, Charles, who became a cardinal, and Henry's boyhood friend Francis, who became duke of Guise." Shouldn't that be "Duke of Guise"?
    Not necessarily. But I have changed it. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "From that day, Catherine took a broken lance as her emblem, inscribed with the words "lacrymae hinc, hinc dolor" ("from this come my tears and my pain"), and wore black in memory of Henry." Do you happen to have a picture of this emblem? I think that would be worth replacing one of the portraits.
    I haven't been able to find one. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too bad.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ”In what has been called a coup d'état, the Cardinal of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise—whose niece, Mary, Queen of Scots, had married Francis the year before—seized power the day after Henry II's death and quickly moved themselves into the Louvre with the young couple” This is somewhat WP:WEASELish. Could you mention who called it a coup d’état? If this position is widely accepted among historians, something to the extent of “what many historians consider a coup d’état” would do in my opinion.
    This seems referenced to me, but I have an issue as to what "seized power" means in this context. Maybe "immediately established themselves as Francis's favourites, moving themselves into the Louvre with the young couple, and excluding Catherine". Or similar. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. it's referenced, which I should think is enough. Frieda, 139, says: "The royal party moved into the Louvre Palace on 11 July 1559 and with this simple act the Guises accomplished their coup d'état without spilling a drop of blood. By installing themselves in the best apartments the new regime lost no time in falling upon the spoils of their sudden victory". Knecht, 59, says: "What happened in 1559 was a coup d'état by the Guises. They quite simply seized power while Catherine was grieving the loss of her husband and Montmorency was occupied standing guard over his body. The essential feature of the coup d'état was Montmorency's exclusion from central government". Other sources use the term, but I think a double reference was enough.
    In my opinion, this was a classic bloodless coup d'état, in which one government was ousted by another, using timing and surprise. Authority in France at this time was invested in the king. Since this king was a weak boy, power now passed to whoever controlled him. This was the Guises because Francis was married to their niece. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that if this view is primarily held by these two people, then it would be worth directly attributing it to them in the prose. If this view is widespread among historians, then that should be mentioned. I just think that "has been called" is kind of vague - at least that's my interpretation of WP:AWW.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it "Edict of Saint-Germain", "Edict of Amboise" (in the "Reign of Charles IX" section), "Edict of Pacification", "Edict of Toleration", "Edict of January", but "edict of Amboise" (in the "Huguenots" section) and "edict of Beaulieu"? Shouldn’t there be some kind of consistency in the spelling of edict?
    Just mistakes. I write all in lower case and have to go through a list and edit for consistency, but I forgot to put "edict" on the list. Thanks for pointing this out. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ”On November 25, 1579, she wrote to the king“ Shouldn’t that be "the King", since King is merely an abbreviation for "King of France" in this case? The same thing goes for "The king's actions effectively ended her days of power." and "He called her not only the mother of the king but the mother of the state"
    I disagree. "King" is not an abbreviation of anything. There are two schools of thought on this, each backed by different publishing houses and style guides. I use the capital for King Philip and King Philip of Spain; Philip, King of Spain, and King of Spain (the last two with reluctance); I use lower case for Spanish king, the king, etc. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought there was a universal rule on that, but never mind then.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Spanish ambassador told Philip II that the abscess was about to burst." Maybe there’s something I’m not getting, but what abscess is this referring to?
    metaphor for the political situation. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a note of context, based on the original comments by the ambassador: "Puisque l'abces n'a point crevé comme on s'y attendait, les choses demeurent dans un si mauvais état qu'il sera difficile d'y apporter remède". This was written in May 1588, with the Armada imminent, the Catholic League in control of northern France, and Henry III off self-flagellating. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent spot. Changed. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very well written and referenced. Some points:
    • Yes, these lower case emperors, dauphins etc should be sorted.
    Dauphins are tricky, and the books vary. I have capitalised them now, and changed the source for the Brantôme quote (because different sources capitalise it differently) to come closer to consistency, but it still has "king" and "Dauphin" in proximity. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If possible, the pics should be desized per MoS. Maybe a couple of short one-row galleries between sections would help with the overflow?
      There are no sizes specified on the pics. Yomanganitalk 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Honest, guv. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complicated narrative tends to take over, and Catherine's elusive personality does not really come through, nor is her "black legend" developed after the lead.
    It's difficult. Catherine herself and her times are elusive. I've just been reading Mack Holt's book on the wars of religion, and he starts by saying, "please don't expect me to do more than scratch the surface here". Although the article is long, it is bare-bones stuff for such a long life. On the legend, I tried to indicate in the text where there are differences about her and show the way she was portrayed by the Huguenots. I am, however, planning a separate article on her reputation, mainly based on Sutherland's study of all that. On her personality, I was reticent, because she is contradictory and it would be so easy to lead the reader by emphasising one character trait or another (when she had so many and the sources are so biased). qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did she have no permanent allies, confidantes or sidekicks?
    No. It was family, family, family to her, and she was the big boss in that family, to say the least. She was sustained by a very strong office, though the secretaries did not really step out of the shadows the way they did in England, or the way Sully did under Henry IV. I think the reason is that that it was her role to be the chief executive. You don't have a Cecil because she was, in effect, the Cecil. She did team up with de l'Hôpital in the early compromise policy, but studies have shown that she made all the decisions and that he shouldn't be given the credit for originating the policy. And she got rid of him before long, because she thought him too weak. qp10qp (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I've read this article a fair few times; on user and main space. And its a very fine page. Exemplary. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 12 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:11, 14 April 2008.

    Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

    edit

    This article has had two peer reviews. As a result of the first, in January 2007, it has been entirely reconstructed. Comments from the recent review have also been absorbed, and I believe the article is now in a completed state. It is ready for FAC. Self-nominator: Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't seem to use the Whilhelm Filchner website in the article, if not it should either go to external links or be eliminated from the Sources.
    • It would be nice to source the information currently footnoted to the Otto Nordenskold website to something else. The website gives its sources, but it's probably a marginal source.
    All the links check out with the link checker tool. Sources look good. I'll try to get back for a fuller review later. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See comments about Otto for Filchner (grins). I promise to review later... I've spent the whole morning dealing with FAC stuff! I've got to work on my own articles! (whimpers) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Filchner article is a respectable source. Although it doesn't have in-text citations its bibliography includes Filchner's own book, (and a couple of other decent books). I don't think the Filchner references wuld have any more authority if I cited them elsewhere, though this could be done. PS> I hope I've interpreted your wishes correctly, though I'm not sure I have. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did interpret correctly. Nothing that site is referencing is vital, and the site does give references, so that's all to the good. And it's not being used to reference opinions or stuff like that. So it's an acceptable source, but ... you know me, I'm picky on sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment - you need to close the Peer Review, which is still open. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Stick to either American or British spelling. You have both harbour and organizational in there.
    • Footnotes generally are located after a punctuation mark, not before.

    Wow, that wasn't much. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll alter these when I can find them - it's a long article. Brianboulton (talk)
    OK, I've corrected "organisational" (in fact, the "z" is perfectly acceptable in English spelling, but anything to oblige). I also attended to a couple of footnote violations. If you notice others, could you please give me the ref. number? They're awfully hard to spot. Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you found them all. Another thing, though, in temperatures, there should be a nonbreaking space between the number and the units. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More comments on things other than MOS:

    • What makes [29] a reliable source?
    • Same with [30].
    • Same with [31].

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The first and third are only in the external links. The second is used only to back up the Otto Nordenskiöld info from Huntsford and for a couple of lines on Filchner for which I've added a book source. Yomanganitalk 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—This is just first-class. Congratulations to the authors; this is work that WP can be proud of. Why aren't more nominations like this? I've made a few minor edits at the top. The OED, amazingly, still hasn't reversed it's "iz" "is" spelling options to reflect widespread practice in Br and other varieties: z is still given as first option. But we can safely ignore it, and many people would be happy with the maximised s. If you've changed "organisational" to s, there are still some stray zeds. I haven't looked at the referencing as has Nouser above. TONY (talk)
    I've switched the one change to "is" back. Since both are acceptable in BrEng and I can see that the heading "Return to civilisation" would be constantly "corrected", I think adopting the "iz" spelling will mean a lower incidence of such "corrections" (since we will be drawing from the pool of Brits who don't know the spelling is allowed). Yomanganitalk 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For a compromise, couldn't we at least chance "harbour" to "harbor" then? It just makes me uneasy for both the s-spelling and "harbour" to be in the same article; as you mentioned, there would be no end of "corrections." Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "-iz-" is acceptable spelling in BrEng (we allow both "-is-" and "-iz-"), "harbor" is not. If you are suggesting that the use of "-iz-" spelling would encourage Americans to change "harbour" to "harbor", you may be right, but I think it would be less than the number of alterations made if the title was "Return to civilisation". The titles seem to attract this sort of helpful edit. In animal articles we often see the section title "Behaviour" changed to "Behavior" while the same word in the following sentences is untouched. Of course, it happens the other way round as well ("Behavior" to "Behaviour") but less frequently - probably because there are less Brits. If you are suggesting a shift to AmEng for this article I think you'll be hard pushed to make a case (Bakewell was an American, but even he he pretended to be Canadian to get on board). Yomanganitalk 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to above: I am a Brit, the main though not the only editor of this article. As a Brit writing about a British expedition I naturally use British spelling, and give priority to imperial measurements in conversions. The z-form is perfectly acceptable in British English, though I usually use s. The reason for "z" appearing is most likely because I paste parts of the article from Microsoft Word, which "corrects" my "s" spellings. I believe that there should be consistency in the article, either all "z"'s or all "s"'s, so I'll go through again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - which I have now done, and as far as I can see it's consistent "iz". If anyone finds an uncorrected "is", it's an oversight. Please correct it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support With just a few questions, concerns, quibbles. For full disclosure, I peer reviewed this article and did some copyediting on it (mainly typos).

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Origins section, first sentence: is the had before "lived restlessly" required grammatically?
    In this context it is probably grammatical either with or without "had" (a grammarian would have to arbitrate), but it is more elegant without, so it's gone. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise everything looks good. Happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, great stirring stuff. One possible addition though, at the end, how was the expedition viewed back home? A fiasco? A stirring story of endurance (pun intended)? Did they slip back in quietly or to fanfare? Was it used in propoganda for the war? How has the perception of the expedition changed? It isn't super important but it would help round the story off. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an excellent point. The fact is that the expedition returned in a somewhat piecemeal fashion at a critical time during the war, and wasn't much noticed. There was no general heroes' welcome. Shackleton was occupied with war work until March 1919. and only thereafter could he devote himself to the usual post-expedition tasks such as lecturing and writing his book South. It's all a rather messy and untidy ending - medals were still being awarded to participants as late as 1923. My problem is, the article is already somewhat lengthy and I don't want to add text if I can avoid it, but I think your point is important enough to warrant at least a brief couple of lines in the "Return to civilization" section, and I will do this.

    Brianboulton (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a very short paragraph. It doesn't answer all the questions you raise, but I think the impression of a muted reception in a war-weary country is given. Perhaps that will suffice? Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, it rounds the story off. An article worthy of promotion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 12 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:14, 12 April 2008.

    Peterloo Massacre

    edit

    Project nomination. I realise that it's unusual to nominate an article on behalf of a project, but that's what I would like to do here. On 16 August 1819 cavalry were ordered to charged into a crowd peacefully protesting for parliamentary reform, resulting in the deaths of 15 and injuries to 600–700 men women and children. The event was largely discounted by the authorities, although it has recently been described as Manchester's Tiananmen Square, and one of the British historical events most in need of a proper memorial. This article is the result of the Greater Manchester WikiProject's efforts to provide a fitting and honest account of the events of that day in August.

    We believe that it meets the FA criteria, and we welcome any suggestions for improvements. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Looks very strong and good refs. However, some sentences are a bit repetitive such as
    By the beginning of 1819 the pressure generated by poor social conditions was at its peak, and coupled with the lack of suffrage in northern England had enhanced the appeal of political...

    It is exactly repeated in the Background section, as with several other statements. However, this is a mere problem and simply does not look professional, so not too much of an issue. Also, I did a bit of copy editing, I hope it'll do. I'll read some more later and keep posting my comments.--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply What makes http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/trlout_gfx_en/TRA25555.html a reliable site?

    Funding for Culture24 comes from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) through Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA).

    And from http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/etc/about/TXT51315.html

    Some of their recent awards:

    • Highly Commended - Tourism Website of the Year, for 24 Hour Museum - Tourism ExSEllence Awards 2006
    • Winner - Education, for City Heritage Guides - New Statesman New Media Awards 2005
    • Finalist - Education, for Show Me - 9th Annual Webby Awards 2005, USA
    • Finalist - Children's Learning, for Show Me - BAFTA Interactive Awards 2005
    • Winner - Best Arts, Culture and Heritage Charity - Charity Awards 2004
    • Commended, Educational Initiatives, Museums and Heritage Show Awards for Excellence 2004
    • Finalist, Best E-Services Solution, Best Of The Web Awards, USA, 2004
    • Best E-Services Solution from the Best of the Web Awards, USA, 2003
    • Best Public Information Website at IVCA/Biz Net awards at BAFTA 2002
    • Web Site of the Year, Charity and Public Service Publicity Awards 2002
    • Best Educational Site, BT/New Statesman awards 2002

    Richerman (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Aside from the one or two citation issues above, the prose is excellent and the reflection of the content (shown by the sheer number of copy-edits) is outstanding. Good and appropriate use of images, maps and tables. Meets FA criteria in my opinion. Rudget (review) 11:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments I'd like to support, but I think further work is needed in the following areas:My comments below have all been addressed satisfactorily.

    • The lead is a bit too long and a bit too detailed. For example, since all the figures are given again in the Background section immediately following, I'd say the first paragraph could be shortened to: "...the reform of parliamentary representation through an increase of the franchise" - or words to that effect, and end the para there. I think para 2 could likewise be abbreviated without loss of meaning.
      • Also in the lead, the last sentence is a bit tantalising was it stands. Perhaps it should read "...came second to the Putney Debates..."
    • Backgound
      • Current equivalent for 40 shillings?
      • Not too clear what you mean by "rehearsals"
      • Chronology point: you have Bamford mentioning the date 16 August before you have properly introduced this date into the narrative.
      • The last paragraph could beneficially be made into two, possibly three sentences.
    • Assembly (This is a very long section - could it be split?)
      • The rank of Lieutenant Colonel is usually hyphenated
      • "best dressed" in quotes requires citation
      • Chronology again, in the sentence dealing with casualties. "...a view supported by casualty lists" would be better reading: "a view that would eventually be supported..." etc.
      • It's 12 noon, not 12.00 pm
      • The sentence beginning: "They formed two lines..." is a liittle unclear, needs a bit of tweaking
      • It's odd to describe a field in square yards. Three acres, perhaps better? Only a thought
    • Charge (Another very long section)
      • The note in the big blue quotes needs to be more definitely separated from the main text, perhaps by putting it in a box?
      • Position of apostrophe: it should be women reformers' flags, since "women reformers" is a plural term. In fact "women reformers" is an ambiguous description - it could refer to people who reform women.
      • The word "although" is the wrong link-word for the two halves of the sentence beginning: "Peace was not restored..." A simple "and" would do.
    • Reaction and aftermath (length again)
      • Again the feature quotes slightly disturb the text
      • Numeral 4 should be in words
      • Describing the foundation of the Guardian as a "memorial" to the Peterloo Massacre seems a bit POV-ish. More neutral would be "direct consequence".
    • Cultural References: A bit close to a Trivia section for comfort.

    All-in-all, well presented and highly informative. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply. Thanks for the comments.
    • The lead has now been shortened along the lines suggested, and the Putney Debates added so as to remove the titillation.
    • Chronology issues fixed.
    • I don't believe that Lieutenant Colonel is normally hyphenated by the British Army.
    • 12 pm changed to 12 noon in Assembly.
    • Changed "although" to "and" in Charge.
    • Changed "memorial" to "direct consequence" in Reaction and aftermath.
    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept what you say about Lieutenant Colonel. I assume you'll be dealing with my other points shortly. Forget about the "size" comments if you wish, it was only in my mind that you might subdivide these longer sections, but it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply.
    • I've rejigged the last paragraph of Background to explain the reference to rehearsals. Basically the contingents were being drilled in marching, so that they could be seen to arrive at the meeting in good order.
    • I've put the big blue quotes inside boxes.
    • Tried to clarify the "They formed two lines..." in Assembly.
    • I've changed "women reformer's" to "women reformers'". Hopefully the context will make it clear that it does not refer to a group trying to reform women.
    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with the above. That leaves three points outstanding: "40 shillings", area of the field in square yards, and the "Cultural Refs" section. With regard to 40 shillings I believe this does need some indication of modern equivalence. Does anyone outside Britain even know that 40 shillings was £2 sterling? As to the field area, I personally would give the acreage not the square yards, but it's not a sticking point. I am not happy with a Cultural References section as a matter of principle. The first two paragraphs could be promoted to the Commemoration section. The third paragraph is in my view trivia and I don't think it enhances the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how one would convert 40 shillings to modern units; the value of 40 shillings at Decimal Day would be different to today. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    40 shillings is £2, which is easily convertible to a modern streling value - I don't understand the above comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    40 shillings then is the equivalent of about £1,800 in todays money. I've added that to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supporting, but could you just check that £2 in 1820 was worth £1,800 in todays values? That's a multiplier of 900! - doesn't seem credible, has an extra nought got in?
    Ooops! I misread the conversion; it's the equivalent of about £80 today. Sorry! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point (which on reflection wasn't clear!) was that the value isn't static, but this seems to be resolved. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • Refs 36 and 37 can be combined.
    • Inconsistent page numbers, eg. "p.8", "p. 6."
    • Some dates need linking.
    • Ellipses should be formatted as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipses
    • Some inconsistent number formatting, eg, "2 MPs", "two-week trial", "twenty years", "10 minutes"
    • Non-breaking spaces needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "no. 6", "4 years"
    • "comprised of people from" - "comprising"
    • Logical quotation should be used. Epbr123 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Punctuation belongs outside the quotes in these:
    • and "to consider the propriety of of the 'Unrepresented Inhabitants of Manchester' electing a person to represent them in Parliament."
    • reported that "seven hundred men drilled at Tandle Hill as well as any army regiment would."
    • that "he had had enough of Manchester meetings."
    • as "hot-headed young men who had volunteered into that service from their intense hatred of Radicalism."
    • has written that "it is not fanciful to compare the restricted freedoms of ..."
    • it would "zealously enforce the principles of ..."
    • Support Comments An interesting read on an important event! Thanks for working on this article! I found it well-written and well-illustrated (all images are in the public domain or GFDL). Most of the research looks solid. Here are my comments:
    • This source was published in 1911. Anything in it needs to be verified using other, more reliable sources.
    • Chesterton, G. K. [1917] (2007). "Chapter XVI. Aristocracy and the Discontents", A Short History of England. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0548726000. - another early twentieth-century source - Can this fact, "The assembly was intended by its organisers and participants to be a peaceful meeting", be cited to something more reputable?
    • Is the infobox necessary? It detracts from the image and all of the information in the box is easily accessible in the lead.
    • By the beginning of 1819 the pressure generated by poor social conditions was at its peak - The previous sentence describes poor economic conditions - why is it now "poor social conditions"?
    • Peterloo was a key event in Manchester's history, and led directly to the foundation of the The Manchester Guardian. - Peterloo affected national politics and was a shocking event at the time (hardly local) - this is all explained very well in the article but not in the lead. The lead downplays the significance of the event - could it be revised a bit?
    • Is it possible to get a picture of the only surviving banner?
    • Hunt's carriage arrived at the meeting shortly after 1:00 pm, and he made his way to the hustings. Alongside Hunt on the speakers' stand were John Knight, Joseph Johnson, John Thacker Saxton, Richard Carlile and George Swift. - Is it possible to describe these with little phrases? Richard Carlile was a radical publisher, for example.
    • Could the "witness accounts" be integrated into the article? The separate section is not as elegant as the rest of the article. I would also suggest cutting down the quotations a bit.
    • The "Commemoration" section feels a bit listy at the moment - is there any way to make it flow as well as the rest of the article?
    • There are too many headings for all of the "References" - why "notes", for example? Also, why not combine the "Further reading" and the "Bibliography" into a real bibliography that will help readers coming to the article looking for good source material?

    Nice work - I really enjoyed reading this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am happy to support his article - well done all! Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Thanks for your copyedits and your comments. We'll get onto all of them asap, but if I can just deal with your last point first. Those books listed in the Bibliography are those that have been cited in the article; those in Further reading are additional sources that are relevant, but which weren't used in the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that, but I don't think that is a helpful distinction - the notes make that clear. The "Bibliography" is most helpful to users looking for sources on the topic - breaking them up into two different lists is not at all helpful and rarely done elsewhere. Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think it would make more sense if this read "poor economic conditions" since everything mentioned in the previous sentences is related to economics. Can you explain why the word "social" is being used? Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection, I've come round to your way of thinking. I think the unspoken implication was that poor economic conditions led to poor social conditions, but that case isn't made in the article, so I've made the change. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think about moving the Shelley reference to the "Aftermath and reaction" section? His poem was actually part of the reaction, and discussing the twentieth-century works a little more in terms of their commemoration, if that is what they do (this is hinted at in the article). Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Peterloo was a key event in Manchester's history, and led directly to the foundation of the The Manchester Guardian. - Peterloo affected national politics and was a shocking event at the time (hardly local) - this is all explained very well in the article but not in the lead. The lead downplays the significance of the event - could it be revised a bit?"
    • "It was a national topic for many years afterwards, but I don't think there's any evidence that it changed anything; the whole thing was simply suppressed. The government at that time was afraid, and rightly so, of insurrection. Anyway, I've made a change to the lead to reflect what you're saying. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article itself, it did affect national politics. It did not necessarily promote reform, but see these sentences from the article: This was the first public meeting at which journalists from a number of important, distant newspapers were present and, within a day or so of the event, accounts were published as far away as London, Leeds and Liverpool.[68] The London and national papers shared the horror felt in the Manchester region, and the feeling of indignation throughout the country became intense....The immediate effect of Peterloo was a crackdown on reform. - This has always been my understanding of the event as well from my reading - that it horrified the entire British populace and that the government used it as an excuse to crack down on reformers. Again, the lead still focuses on the Manchester effects, such as the creation of a newspaper. I can't emphasize enough how much this event affected the national imagination. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the other books you used on Peterloo cite this work without caveats? The problem is that historical research was done very differently in the early twentieth century. Although the authors cite their sources, the methods they used for data collection and analysis are very different from those used by historians today. That is why we usually verify anything found in a text that old using a more reliable one. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any Wikipedia guidance on this? My concern is that we're saying a book from 1911 isn't reliable, but 1969 is. The Victoria County History books are used throughout Wikipedia, including other GAs and FAs. I suppose some references to it could be converted to others, but is it strictly necessary? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V#Sources - The concern is that within the field of history, works written before the middle of the twentieth century used substantially different methods are therefore not considered as reliable within that discipline. If the information cannot be verified in more rigorous and reliable sources, one begins to wonder how reliable that information is. That is why I am asking it to be sourced to better sources. FAs need to be sourced to the best research - we want the "best of Wikipedia" to truly be that. This article is very good - let's use the best sources to back it all up 100%. Awadewit (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll find that most histories of the Manchester area use the Victoria History extensively. They do need updating of course, but "better" or "more rigorous and reliable" stuff will be very thin on the ground. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we say "where possible", then? This is also a pretty famous event, with several books written on it alone (see bibliography). I would think that those books would cover all of the necessary information. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (to Awadewitt) Whilst I appreciate the idea that reliable sources should try to use recent reliable sources, I don't see any information in WP:V#Sources that specifically comments on the point that "The concern is that within the field of history, works written before the middle of the twentieth century used substantially different methods are therefore not considered as reliable within that discipline." Sorry for the recursion here, but I'm just wondering if you can give a reliable source for this specific claim, as it does have an impact upon other articles being submitted for GA or FA status if it can be substantiated?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An expanded answer to your question: FromWP:V: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." - First, early twentieth-century history sources are not known for undergoing the same kind of rigorous peer review and fact-checking that current historical scholarship undergoes. Second, the most "appropriate" sources in this "context" is what historians would deem reliable - and that is modern historical sources.
    From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." - Again, I emphasize the problem with fact-checking in older sources - it was not as rigorous as it is now. Second, the most "appropriate" sources for claims made about history is modern historical scholarship - that is what the experts in that field rely on. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the responses. I do accept that what you say is likely to be the case, from my own knowledge of research standards in my own specialist subject, but your sentence: "First, early twentieth-century history sources are not known for undergoing the same kind of rigorous peer review and fact-checking that current historical scholarship undergoes" would seem still be to be a claim that can be verified with reference to suitable sources in the same way that one would require for facts claimed in articles submitted to this FA process, particularly as it it doesn't form part of the policies you quoted, except by some inference and extra unreferenced facts that otherwise could be labelled by some as WP:OR. I know this matter is now a diversion from the excellent article (and excellent review comments which have been made, by the way) but I think the policies for verification, or the inferences one draws from them, can be assessed according to the same rules they are a part of. Whether they need to be is a different question. However, I think this might be continued elsewhere if desired.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed a message on your talk page. Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should be able to take a photo of the banner in the next couple of weeks providing they allow photography in the library. Richerman (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. This is a comprehensive article on a significant event in British (political) history. With reference to the criteria, the prose is engaging; claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge; and, in my opinion, views are presented fairly and without bias. It is a credit to the encyclopedia. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Whether a source is reliable does not depend on the date; rather, on what it is, and what it's being cited for.
      • The Victoria County History is being cited for:
      • The Corn laws raised prices [as they wer intended to], which caused unrest. This is almost subject-specific common knowledge.
      • A letter from Lord Sidmouth to the local authorities. There is every reason to believe the VCH would quote it correctly; this is the sort of thing they got right.
    • On the other hand, any source by Chesterton is polemic; it would be if he were miraculously writing in 1991. it is a reiable source for his opinion only; anything else he may or may not be right on, as suits his convenience. it would and does require a second source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 11 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:14, 12 April 2008.

    USS Siboney (ID-2999)

    edit

    Self nomination. I believe that this article meets FA criteria. It has had a WP:MILHIST peer review (here), a successful GA review (here), and a successful MILHIST A-class review (here). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Check the placement on the last pictures, it's floating over the references on my monitor. (I can still sorta read them but...)
    • The Road to France link shows up dead on the link tool, but worked fine for me. Just an FYI
    • I'm assuming that http://www.wardline.com/page/page/4557563.htm is considered a reliable source since it passed a MILHIST review.
    All other sources look good, and the links check out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added {{-}} before the "References" section. Did that help? — Bellhalla (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it! Thanks.

    Comments

    • I fixed a redundant 'was raided by'
    Thanks. Good catch.
    • I'm not keen on using abbreviations at the first mention, for example: Comdr. We know it stands for Commander but others may not without having to follow the link. Also, Bethlehem Steel Co. should be Bethlehem Steel Company.
    I expanded "Comdr." (which leaves a less-than-ideal "Commander … in command", unfortunately), and I expanded to "Bethlehem Steel Company" at first mention and shortened to "Bethlehem Steel" on the second mention.
    Yes but a Commander does command and a refrigerator, refrigerates etc.
    (My replies interspersed. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Support Thanks --Brad (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "She was the sister ship of USS Orizaba (ID-1536) but the two were not part of a ship class."—not "the two were", but "neither was".
    • Fixed.
    • "New York–Cuba–Spain"—Blue, black, blue; frankly, why do we need to link two of these? Same with "Mexico" below. Looks silly. Save the links for "Lisbon" below, sure.
    • Good point. I've delinked all.
    • Caption: "The first of two lifeboats from torpedoed British transport SS Dwinsk to be rescued by Siboney on 21 June 1918."—This is just a nominal group, so MOS requires no final period.
    • Argh. I thought I'd checked that. Good catch. Fixed.
    • "United Kingdom" linked multiple times? Hello? It's such an obscure entity.
    • It's the forest-for-the-trees, man. I left the link in the lead and de-linked one in the "World War II Army service" section. Were there more than just the two links I found? (I didn't count British ensign, which links to something else.)
    • Because the New York/New Jersey area was usually one of its termini, the ship tended to get reported on more there, especially the 'fun' stuff like the liquor busts and the like. I'm sure it would have had equal coverage in Havana, for example, but not having access to news archives there (and that pesky, not-speaking-Spanish thing) limits what's available.
    Thanks for taking the time to review. (Other comments interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Should "she soon renamed after" be "she was soon renamed after"? The latter flows better to me. Otherwise, an exceptional piece of work. Well sourced, images licensed correctly, prose flows well enough. Meets all the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 20:25, 11 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:14, 12 April 2008.

    The Mummy (1999 film)

    edit

    If you're bored of me throwing video game FACs at you... here's an article about a B-grade film for you to chew on! Be savage and merciless! (I ran through it twice for copyediting, but doubtless there are still issues... but I can't see them.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (Thank you for NOT putting up another video game FAC... I for one appreciate some variety...)

    Link tool shows no problems with the links, and I didn't find any either. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look for one featuring the Mummy himself, since he's not featured in the cast. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Neutral—I went to one section and fixed a number of little things. Prose needs massaging, and fails the requirement for professional formatting in its overlinking.

    • Lots of good links, so why dilute them with a linked "American". Who on earth would need to follow it? Same for common words such as "corpse" and "Earth" and "prison", etc.
    • "the movie eventually transformed into a blockbuster adventure film"—"transformed" is awkward here, for two reasons.
    • "grossed a total of $43 million in 3,210 theaters"—do we need "a total of" (repeated in the very next sentence, too)?
    • Em dash wrongly spaced.
    • "is serving as a captain in a unit of the French Foreign Legion who have voluntarily journeyed"—Is "have" right here? Maybe ", which has"? Remove "stored"?
    • "unbeknownst"—It's not Shakespeare: "unknown".

    And so on ... Tony (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the overlinking, fixed the spacing and redundancy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Uses IMDb. Ultra! 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've sourced, more of the challengeable statements, added the genre, and removed the IMDb link. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why all pics on right side? Track list is pointless in a film article. And expand the making greatly using the refs below. Ultra! 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead para 2 overuses "film". Remove US flag. Ultra! 15:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The track listing has been removed, the paragraph has been reworded and the flag removed. Several of the references below have been added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that Ultra! has been notified on his talk page, and I am waiting for him to respond. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Ultra! 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Criterion three concerns:
      • Image:The mummy awakens99.jpg and Image:Mummymovie1.jpg have no “purpose” explanations and seem to fail to significantly enhance our understanding (WP:NFCC#8) or constitute minimal usage (NFCC#3A). If an article is satisfying “brilliant prose”, there is no need for an image to illustrate plot. Similarly, there is no need to use a non-free image to illustrate the cast when all actors depicted are still living (free versions could be obtained – NFCC#1).
      • Image:Goldsmithmummy.jpg – The license tag explicitly says use is allowed “solely to illustrate the audio recording in question”. This is an article about the film, not the soundtrack. How does seeing the soundtrack significantly increase our knowledge of the film (NFCC#8)? Further, image is redundant to Image:The mummy.jpg, with the only meaningful differences being text indicating the former is a soundtrack and identifying the composer. This information could easily be included in the prose, without the need for a non-free image (NFCC#3A). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the soundtrack image and will touch up the fair use rationales, but I think you are being overly tight on image requirements. By that token, 99% of film articles would have no images for plot or for cast, and yet they do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Usage of images in other articles is not relevant here; we’re evaluating The Mummy, not Dinosaurs or Spartans (Bogey, by the way, is PD). Please explain how the two movie scene images satisfy WP:NFCC#1, #3 and #8. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <Moved non-Mummy question to talk page>
    I'm okay with the one image remaining, as there are no doubt certain aspects of the film's cinematography being displayed, which makes it more than a mere cast shot. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First of all, I applaud the usage of print sources in this film article. In addition, a lot of structure and content are already in place. However, I think that there are still some improvements that could be made to the article, as written below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share Elcobbola's concerns about the usage of the non-free images. The film can provide hundreds or thousands of screen shots to implement into the article, but per WP:NFC, there must be significance demonstrated. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to use secondary sources that directly comment on an aspect of the shot -- either how it is framed, or something contained in the shot that is likely not available with free images. The article has two non-free images showing Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz in scenes that could be as unimportant as the rest of the scenes not shown. Both actors have free images on their biographical articles, so unless there is relevant commentary on their specific appearance (attire, prosthetics, etc), the images don't add anything. The same argument goes for the soundtrack cover, especially when it just repeats the look of the theatrical poster. If the soundtrack is notable enough to be a sub-article, then perhaps the soundtrack cover would be appropriate. However, I doubt that this particular film soundtrack will have much more detail at the present.
    • To continue from above, one non-free image that I think could definitely be used in the article is a frontal shot of the mummy under the "Special effects" section (by the way, "effects" needs to be all lowercase). The existing shot in the Plot section would not suffice since we only see the mummy's backside. I would recommend looking at Fight Club (personal example) to see how significant screen shots can be incorporated.
    • Another issue is to fix quotations per WP:PUNC. If only a fragment of the quote is being used, punctuation should go outside. Here's one example: The actor understood that his character "doesn't take himself too seriously, otherwise the audience can't go on that journey with him." Either re-format to have the whole quote available, or move the punctuation outside of the end quotation mark. This needs to be fixed throughout the article.
    • I also agree with Ultraviolet scissor flame about the usage of IMDb for the awards. You should be able to cite each award by finding their respective websites (which usually has archived wins and nominations) or print sources that recognize the wins.
    • The "Legacy" section should be titled differently because all of the ensuing media are still under the same rights. People didn't see The Mummy and get inspired to put forth their own interpretations. It's basically turned into a franchise.
    • Lastly, for now, I think that there could still be additional resources implemented into this film article. Here is a list of a few I found available:
    Possible references to use

    Sources:

    • Magid, Ron (August 1999). "Raging rags and bones". American Cinematographer. 80 (8): 60–64. On the work by Industrial Light & Magic to digitally create the mummy for Stephen Sommers 1999 feature.
    • Reany, Dan (June 2001). "A Saharan sojourn". American Cinematographer. 82 (6): 72–73. Interview with director Stephen Sommers about The MUMMY and The MUMMY RETURNS. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Larsen, Ernest (July 2000). "The Mummy: traffic in mummies". Jump Cut (43): 12–15, 128.
    • Scott, Mary (27 August 1999). "How The Mummy made money". Screen International (1223): 16. On the marketing campaign for THE MUMMY. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Jones, Alan (July 1999). "Mummy mia!". Film Review: 74–77. Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz talk about their roles in The MUMMY.
    • Spelling, Ian (July 1999). "The Mummy". Starburst (251): 68–62. On the making of The MUMMY
    • Braund, Simon (July 1999). "In person:Rachel Weisz". Empire (121): 72–73. An interview with Rachel Weisz on her role in The MUMMY (1999).
    • Braund, Simon (July 1999). "Equally cursed and blessed". Empire (121): 94–98. A report from the set of The MUMMY where actor Brendan Fraser is interviewed on his role in the film as Rick O'Connell.
    • Salisbury, Mark (July 1999). "How the Mummy lost face". Fangoria (184): 42–45. Nick Dudman talks about doing the makeup for The MUMMY
    • Warren, Bill (June 1999). "This year's Mummy". Fangoria (183): 42–46. Arnold Vosloo talks about his role in The MUMMY
    • Warren, Bill (June 1999). "The curse of the lost Mummies". Fangoria (183): 48–52. On the years of discussion and negotiation which took place at Universal before the 1999 remake of The MUMMY finally went into production
    • Fordham, Joe (June 1999). "The Mummy, resurrected". Cinefantastique. 31 (6): 22–28, 46. On the making of The MUMMY, including interviews with cast and crew
    • Fordham, Joe (June 1999). "The Mummy development hell". Cinefantastique. 31 (6): 29–31. On the long and difficult development of The MUMMY
    • Bonin, Liane (1999-05-07). "That's a Wrap". Entertainment Weekly.
    • "Show Me The Mummy". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-05-14. On the making of The MUMMY
    • "Matter of Corpse". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-05-14.
    • Shay, Estelle (April 1999). "Thoroughly modern Mummy". Cinefex (77): 71–76. On the special effects used in the film, and on the company who made them, Industrial Light & Magic.
    • I may be able to help you find some of the print sources to implement. Let me know if you're interested, and I can provide some content for the article. A couple of final thoughts -- I don't think that the track listing adds anything encyclopedic to the article. If someone is interested in getting the soundtrack, many online stores will have the track listing. Also, is it at all possible to provide any non-American reviews of the film -- British or Australian? It could increase the scope of critical reception. Let me know if you have any questions, and best of luck!
    I've added in a few of the sources you put above, thanks for finding them. I think I've addressed all your concerns except the non-American ones- I was looking for at least a British review, but I haven't found any so far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a review from the British Film Institute here, [32]. The BFI is a reliable source (and has a Royal Charter), [33] GrahamColmTalk 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Dweller
    I've expanded it a paragraph. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there such a word in American English as "novelized"? It's horrid to my delicate Anglo ear (eye) but I acknowledge that it's been a few hundred years since us Brits could get away with telling you lot how to do things.
    Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink locations and date in lead
    • Something awry in sentence "The visual effects..." Try replacing "and" with "who"?
    • "palace guards—If" - caps?

    More to follow, as I find 'em. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I think I've addressed both the date issues in refs and the above issues. I've gone through and removed a couple links. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – The following is a review of the article in question, made by a layman during its reading. I have no experience in FACs, and I have made sure not to read the above comments before writing this; the review's focus is purely that of reading experience (and neutrality). My main line of work is copy-editing, but this has no place here; there were only a few minor errors in the article, which I have fixed myself.
      • The intro is gripping, and manages to capture the reader's interest, providing all the basic information about the film as well as giving interesting facts, like the Egyptian dialogues and the hardships of production.
      • The Plot section is short enough to retain the reader's interest, still managing to adequately set up the context of the film and not to leave any major part of the story out. It gives less weight to the later parts of the film, which are more action-packed.
      • The Cast section gives a brief overview of each character without excessive repetition from the plot summary, as well as casting information of interest for three of the basic characters. It is a necessary part of a film article, but in this case it is not a burden and successfully gets the reader across to the second important section (Production), while giving them a little more knowledge about the characters.
      • The Production section initially describes succinctly yet clearly the complex evolution process of the film's concept, moves on to recount the extraordinary hardships of shooting and describe the huge, expensive sets, and ends with the special effects, which were clearly important for the film and often involved innovative techniques. All three sub-sections are of equal length, and the entire section is not too large in comparison to the rest of the article—it serves to show that the film in question was unique for several different reasons, and this establishes its notability in addition to its box-office success.
      • The Soundtrack section is rather short, as it should be; it gives an idea about what the music is like, and the paragraph about its reception is neutral and gives an overall comparison with the rest of the composer's work. There is an invisible track listing there, but I do not believe it should be added to the article, as it would expand the section unreasonably.
      • The Reception section typically starts with the revenue figures, which show its popularity without any peacock terms. The second paragraph gives reviews reflecting the overall impression of the film; although the third paragraph is more critical of the film, the award nominations of the fourth one restore balance within the section. The reviews are diverse in terms of content and style, and other reviews covering similar points are simply mentioned; most major sources are included.
      • The Adaptation section is of a reasonable length, and serves as the end of the article, indicating a sense of continuation as far as the sequels are concerned. The image here is well-placed, also anchoring the article's end.
      • The "appendix" sections are limited to a bare minimum, which, in my opinion, is a good thing; especially the absence of a See also section removes the risk of irrelevant links.
      • Overall, I am satisfied with the style of the prose, the length of the article and the relative lengths of its sections, and the type and order of the sections. The article's structure is simple and sequential. It retains the reader's interest throughout, without over-analysing anything, but maintaining a connection of the subject with the world, instead of isolating it. In my opinion, this is an interesting and encyclopaedic article about a popular film, and a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Furthermore, I find it hard that this article could be improved much more, which is another reason for it becoming Featured. Personally, I like liking an article about a film I like, and I hope to see this more often.
      • Observations
        • Is there any specific reason why the characters' names are not linked in the plot? They are linked in the Cast section, but, although I do not find it much of a concern, it does seems strange to me that the links are missing from the plot summary, given that there are such articles. In addition, the plot summary is not over-linked, so the two extra links would not constitute a burden.
        • I understand that it is hard to find non-copyrighted images for films, but three images barely sustain a featured article of this size. For most of the page, only text is seen. I therefore characterise the usage of images in this article "adequate".
      • Note: As I have said, I have not read the above comments. If you find that one of my concerns repeats a point which has already been made, please point me to the answer to it so that no repetition will be necessitated. Waltham, The Duke of 04:04, 9 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:14, 12 April 2008.

    Oort cloud

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because, although it is short, there is not much left to say about its topic at present. It has been copyedited, its references have been regularised, and Brightorange has run his script. Serendipodous 10:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Source subbed with journal article. Serendipodous 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources themselves look good (minus a few questions above), they just need some formatting to be consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the references are correct now. Some are blocked here at work will check them at home.Samuel Sol (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Provisional oppose until the prose is fixed by a someone else.

    • First point is easy: the captions that are just nominal groups should not end with a period—the first two are in this category. (MOS)
    • Space after < (MOS)
    • Remove both instances of "situated", which is redundant and ungainly.
    • "believe ... to be" twice in two sentences is laboured.
    • "although some can still have come"—"may"?
    • "Over the course of the age of the Solar System"—No.
    • "for the vast majority of its existence"—"Majority" is odd here; why not "for almost all of its existence"?

    And so on ... Tony (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved, RJH (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments—It has decent material but I think it needs a little more polishing up.
      • I would like to see the lead have a sentence or two on the formation of the Oort cloud.
      • The last paragraph of the Hypothesis section needs referencing.
      • There may be some unexplained jargon: "aphelia", "absolute magnitudes", &c.
        • Wikilinked both, you think an explanation is still needed mate?
    I added a note about absolute magnitude. I think all the other difficult ideas are explained. Serendipodous 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "easily affected by the motions of passing stars or other forces" Is the motion of a star a type of force? Maybe it should say "gravitational interaction"?
    Foxed. Oops. I mean Fixed. Serendipodous 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Solar System' or 'solar system'? Needs to be consistent throughout.
        • I went with 'Solar System', as a matter of consistency, although both are correct
      • The article should explain "1996 PW".
        • I did a small clarification of why it was mentioned, and the following ref (15) deals more with it.
      • The statement that, "The role of Jupiter in protecting the Earth from potentially devastating comet impacts is believed to have played a crucial role in the evolution of life" may not be true. See: http://www.europlanet-eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&I
    Added sentence or two about 2007 findings. Serendipodous 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Just as the moon[']s tidal force" is missing an apostrophe. Is "eliptic plane" missing an "l" or a "c"?
      • "While on the distant outer regions of these orbits..." Is this "while" intended to be in contrast to something, or does it mean "while" the objects are at their apapsis?
        • Still unclear. It should perhaps say "While these objects are in..." or some such.—RJH (talk)
    Fixed. Serendipodous 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Comets" section is one long paragraph.
        • This would be my mistake when formating references. Broke now.
      • "and thus that the" or "and thus the".
      • "Their orbits are such that they are believed to have initially been long period comets but to have been captured by the gravity of the giant planets..." or "They are believed to be long period comets that were captured by the gravity of the giant planets..."
        • Reworded
      • I believe that "It has been suggested" are weasel words.
        • Changed, see if it is better.
    • Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange, that. I thought it was a spelling mistake, but my spellchecker let it pass. Still, my British spellchecker seems to like "dislodge" just as well, so I changed it. Serendipodous 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose—I'm withdrawing my support because another look through the article revealed more problems, some of which may be newly introduced since my prior review, fixes and edits.
        • The statement "one thousand times farther inward" sounds illogical to me. Taken literally, that would be 50 million A.U.
        • Per Tony1 below, there is inconsistent use of the hyphen in "short period" and "long period" throughout the article. Also "long period" is never explained.
        • In the sentence that begins "In 1950 the idea", there are two colons. Are both really necessary?
        • "...gone through one or more cycles..." Orbital cycles?
        • "...the outermost extent of the Sun's gravitational pull" is an invalid assertion. The Sun's gravitation pull does not suddenly truncate like that. It should instead somehow indicate that other gravitational fields become dominant beyond that radius.
        • "It can be subdivided..." Does "It" means the edge of the Solar System or the Oort cloud? This is a minor ambiguity, but I think the text should be perfectly clear and not leave the reader wondering.
        • What is the "...inner part of the Solar System" relative to the Oort cloud? 1,000 A.U.? The orbit of Neptune?
          • What is the "inner Solar System", the "outer Solar System" and the "inner regions of the Solar System"? These are used throughout the text, so I think they should be defined.
        • (about 500 billion with absolute magnitudes less than 10.9) By "less than", does this mean numbers smaller than 10.9, or magnitudes fainter than 10.9? I know what you're trying to say, but this ambiguity should be fixed.
        • What is an "unusual eccentric orbit"? Comets already follow eccentric orbits from "every corner of the sky". So why is this unusual?
        • The "Structure and composition" section says the outer Oort cloud is 3 Earth masses. The "Origin" section says the total mass of the Oort cloud is 3 Earth masses. Yet the inner Oort cloud has 10-100 times as many objects. The text contradicts itself; it should be self-consistent.
        • Is the paragraph that begins, "Jupiter's role in protecting Earth from collision..." even relevant to this article? Why is it here?
        • The sentence "Some scholars theorize..." includes two en-dashes rather than em-dashes.
      • Sorry.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've fixed all your issues. Serendipodous 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All but one. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added wikilinks to "inner planet", "outer planet", "inner solar system" and "outer solar system" when they occur. I've also removed one ambiguous "inner" and replaced it with "charted".Serendipodous 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional oppose: as both above, I don't think the prose is polished enough. I've tried to do a bit of copy-editing of the first few paragraphs but the whole article would greatly benefit from continued work in that direction. I would also like to see FAC-comments on the scientific content from the relevant WikiProjects. I'm not sufficiently versed in the subject to determine whether or not the article is factually correct and comprehensive. Pichpich (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck out my provisional oppose. Prose has improved quite a bit but I won't have time to review the article carefully so I won't "support" per se. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional oppose: Serendipodous, I am still not satisfied with "about 3 Earth masses". We can't say in one part that the outer cloud's mass is unlikely to be more than a few Earth masses (completely unspecific) and the inner cloud's mass is unknown, and then say later that the mass of the cloud (presumably outer and inner) is about 3 Earth masses. The reader will naturally think, how is it that in one part of the article it can be pinned down to a number, and in another part of the article it's so unknown that not even a reasonable range can be given? And that's another thing -- "about 3" does not make clear the extent of our uncertainty. It could mean between 2.9 and 3.1. It could mean between 1 and 5, as you suggest. If it's the latter, then "about 3" is really misleading -- 1 and 5 are nowhere close to 3. That's a little like a 50-year-old claiming to be "about 30" on a dating web site. Much better would be to give a range in which the actual mass of the Oort cloud is quite likely to lie. I think the article is basically very good, and most criticisms have been fixed. I was excited to see Oort cloud as a featured article candidate, and tried to brush up some of the prose to get it there; I hope it does become a featured article. But I think this problem of the mass of the Oort cloud is... not insignificant. Kier07 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I went through the source and added a number. Now anyone who wants to check the mass against the Earth can do it themselves. Serendipodous 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think most of the issues above have been addressed. Serendipodous 08:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support The articles satisfies FA criteria. I have only one comment. The article in one instance states that the Scattered disk is the source of short period comets (SPC). However in other instances it states that the Kuiper belt is the source of the same comets. I think this issue should be clarified. The Scattered disk is the most probable source—only small number of SPC can come from the Kuiper belt. Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comets start in the Kuiper belt, shift to the scattered disc, and then fall into the centaur population. Serendipodous 08:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. See ref [1] (Morbidelli) section 2.4 p. 22. The Kuiper belt can not be the source of the Scattered Disk population of objects. Ruslik (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why is the scattered disc called the scattered disc? Where were the objects scattered from? Serendipodous 08:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neptune scattered them into the present orbits 4.5 billion years ago during the planetary migration. Ruslik (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then Kuiper belt probably needs to be rewritten. Serendipodous 09:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • More samples:
      • "widely-accepted"—No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS.
      • "about half of objects that are scattered travel outward towards the Oort cloud, while"—half of THE objects? It's unclear at the moment.
      • "This explains the near spherical shape"—I think "nearLY" is preferable, yes?
      • Don't like this: "On the other hand, the Hills cloud, being bound more strongly to the Sun, hasn't acquired a spherical shape yet." --> "On the other hand, the Hills cloud, which is bound more strongly to the Sun, has yet to acquire a spherical shape." Ouch.
      • "Short period comets"; there's a hyphen elsewhere in an analogous expression.
      • "those with orbits lasting 200 years or less"—hmmm ... why not "those with orbits of up to 200 years"?

    What worries me is that these are just what my eyes strayed onto, so there are bound to be glitches everywhere. Someone else should be conscripted to go through it. There are good copy-editors in this field; research edit summaries in edit histories of FAs in the field. Tony (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on RJH's review—Just shoving a "Support" in here and providing no evidence of having looked at the article is regrettable. We really need to engage with the material, or even a portion of it, to make this a high-quality process. The nominators and the project deserve it. Please tell us just a little about why you support it, please.

    He did. He had a list of issues which were resolved, so he compressed them into that grey bar. If you want to see his issues, click "show" on the bar.Serendipodous 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony1: look under the hidden gray box. Also see the article history for April 2–3—RJH (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment "only two currently known trans-Neptunian objects, 90377 Sedna and 2000 CR105, are considered possible members of the inner Oort cloud" This needs a source, and what about (87269) 2000 OO67, with an aphelion of greater than 1000 AU? -RunningOnBrains 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OO67 has a very distant aphelion, but a very close perihelion; indeed its perihelion is only 20 AU, which places it near Uranus. Therefore OO67 is not beyond the gravitational reach of Neptune. It is Sedna and CR105's perihelia, rather than their aphelia, that make them potential Oort cloud candidates. Serendipodous 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suport I believe this article passes all criteria to become a FA. People seem to have small issues with the prose, but I believe it is good enough for an FA about a scientific topic. Nergaal (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually read through the whole thing again and the prose has definitely been tightened quite a bit. I can't comment on scientific content but the article's form is quite good. But one thing that should definitely be addressed is the overlinking. Comet is wikilinked waaaay too many times and so are names of planets, solar system, basic words like planet, sun, etc. There are also links of dubious value for context such as links to universities, the link physicist and so on. Nothing really horrible of course, but it should be fixed. 17:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:35, 10 April 2008.

    Red-billed Chough

    edit

    Self nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because there have been major improvements since GA Jimfbleak (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • See also section usually goes before the references
    All links check out with the link checking tool.The link tool said two timed out, but they worked for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have read it dozens of times without that registering - done now, Jimfbleak (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC). Link checker gave zero errors straight off for me. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead needs to be 2-3 paras. The 4 paras currently look rather slim anyway. I'd combine myself but was undecided where to do so so I'll leave it up to you Jim :)
    • I'd stick in a mention of its habitat in the lead too which is missing (?)
    • 86 to 210 thousand individuals - I think 000 reads better than 'thousand' here.
    • Predators include the Peregrine Falcon, Golden Eagle and Eurasian Eagle-owl, and the Common Raven will take nestlings - My preference would be for a "while" after the comma to separate the second clause. I'll ask Tony. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Choughs can also carry external mites, - there are internal mites? why not just in their feathers?
    • These low levels of infestation can be contrasted with those of some other passerine groups; - not exactly sure what is meant here. Do you mean they are comparable?
    • However, the European range has declined and fragmented due to the loss of traditional pastoral farming, persecution and perhaps disturbance, - not exactly sure what is meant by the last word here, habitat disturbance?
    Disturbance is usually a reference to being disturbed at the nest, causing a bird to abandon it, but can also mean disturbance at roosting or feeding sites, resulting in obtaining insufficient food or rest. A big problem for roosting shorebirds and colonial seabirds. It could possibly use explaining here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Caliber and Sabine for the bits they fixed, I've done the others now. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Sod it if Jim won't support mine I won't support his - just joking. I only contributed a tiny bit to this. Sandy/Raul you can stick a "moral" in front my support if anyone feels there is a COI among us birdos...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've tweaked the intro a bit for flocking, let me know if anything else significant missed. I'm still doing my remedial maths lessons (: Jimfbleak (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Some minor issues
      • which is usually in a cave -> would cavity be better ?
      • subject to predation and parasites - > parasitism
      • The Chough, which derived its common name from the Jackdaw -> slight change to suggest that humans give it a common name
      • during the last ice age, was described in 1875 - > missing "and" to read as "and was"
      • with small races having higher frequency calls than large forms -> "smaller"... "larger" forms
      • optimal feeding habitat is short grass -> suggest preferred to optimal
      • they are spotted, not always densely, with various shades of brown and grey on a creamy -> suggest "in" rather than "with"
      • parents share the feeding and nest sanitation duties -> suggest dropping "the"
      • The breeding success of the Chough ....much higher... because ....a lower percentage of nest failures -> not a cause effect explanation
      • areas also link the original montane nuclei -> suggest "nuclei" replacement with "core areas"

    Shyamal (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     
    Raise fire!
    Done Jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, I agree that "elevation" is better than "level" too, and a nice image . Which ssp (:  ? Jimfbleak (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought of cliff-face as the right word but got lost in the meantime, but thats how having more eyes and minds help. The image is drawn from a Spanish bird, but I have stylized a few curves. A chough call would be a good thing to add. Shyamal (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing GFDL I can find, but the RSPB external link includes a recording of the call. I don't know if its possible to link it with the appropriate section, since you're not supposed to have ext links referenced in the body of the article Jimfbleak (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The BOU official name is Chough,[36], and a quick check through the reference titles, where a species name is given, has Chough (10), Cornish Chough (2) and Red-billed Chough (4). Its not a big deal though, if you prefer Red-billed, I'm quite happy with that.Jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also favour Red-billed Chough. I understand that the qualifier is not needed within Britain where the other species is absent. Shyamal (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it's done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—1a. Have a look at the recent Emperor Penguin promotion to see the standard of prose we expect.

    • Please look at the relationships between the clauses in your writing. The opener is: "The Red-billed Chough or Chough (pronounced /ˈtʃʌf/ chuff), Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, is a bird in the crow family, one of only two species in the genus Pyrrhocorax." So is it the RBC or the crow family that is one of only two species ...?
    • Sigh ... no hyphen after "-ly"—"widely-spread".
    • "cliff face"—no hyphen necessary, I think.
    • "which have led to a population decline and range fragmentation in Europe"—remove "a"?
    • This is too short for a paragraph and too long and winding for a sentence: ""Chough" was originally an alternative onomatopoeic name for the Jackdaw, Corvus monedula, based on its call, and the similar red-billed species, formerly particularly common in Cornwall, became known initially as "Cornish Chough" and then just "Chough", the name transferring from one species to the other." I'm dizzy. Then another parastub after it.
    • "with two isolated populations in the Ethiopian Highlands"—from the map, it looks as though Spain is also isolated thus.
    • Range: no space after the en dash.
    • "and mainly between 2,400 and 3,000 metres (7,950– 9,840 ft) in the Himalayas, although in the latter range it reaches 6,000 metres (19,650 ft) in the summer"—Range means mountain range? Confusing as you have numerical ranges here. "Latter" is inelegant if you can avoid it. Reword? "Mainly" is illogical, since there's an "although" clashing with it.

    Please don't just correct these glitches. The whole text needs attention by fresh eyes. Tony (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All above done. I've rolled up the two short paras in taxonomy as you indicated, even though they don't appear to be particularly closely linked. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008
    Apologies, after posting the above, I realised that in the course of tab-switching I failed to save some of the changes - done now Jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through the whole of the rest of the text again, trimming and chopping extensively. Please let let me know what else needs needs doing to address your concerns. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:29, 8 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:35, 10 April 2008.

    Lord of the Universe

    edit

    Self-nomination. This is a WP:GA-rated article which has had a peer review, about a documentary film which won a Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award in 1974. I'll do my best to address comments as they come up in this FAC discussion. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise the links check out and the sources look fine to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Experimental Television Center was formed as an outgrowth of Binghamton University, contains a wealth of information, and I see no reason not to consider it a WP:RS, more information is here. I will take a look at reformatting the info/cite for the Library of the University of California Santa Cruz, thanks for pointing that out. `Cirt (talk)
    Okies, thanks. Sometimes it's hard to find stuff on webpages. Stuck that and I'll be happy to strike the other when it's straightened out. I don't see any reason that it's not reliable, it just needs some tweaking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked the wording a bit, in response to this comment by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), from "Reviewers" to "Sources". Cirt (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Interesting article. I was planning on giving it a thorough review, but something's come up. Still, it'd be silly of me not to post what I'd looked at so far:
      • Perhaps give the prose another quick another pass? For example, the very first sentence:

        Lord of the Universe is a 1974 satirical documentary film about Guru Maharaj Ji, now known by his given name, Prem Rawat, at an event in November 1973 at the Houston Astrodome called "Millennium '73".

        The use of "now" is generally to be avoided for future-proofing purposes. I also understand the need to make mention of Prem Rawat's former name, but in having that statement right in the middle there knocks off the focus of the sentence. I also suggest incorporating the fact that this is a made-for-television documentary into the first couple of sentences; it's not altogether clear at first.
      • The infobox states that the documentary was preceded by The World's Largest TV Studio and followed by Gerald Ford's America. The article body states that these were merely films by the same production company. Is this relevant information to include? If it's ultimately agreed that it is, I'd still remove these films from the infobox, as they're not part of a specific series.
      • "The documentary received mostly positive reviews" is uncited. While likely correct, this kind of statement is one which is often-challenged in film articles.

    Sorry I couldn't find the time to finish that. Maybe if the FAC drags on past Monday. All the best, Steve T • C 14:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Replies
      • Lord of the Universe is a 1974 satirical documentary film about Guru Maharaj Ji, now known by his given name, Prem Rawat, at an event in November 1973 at the Houston Astrodome called "Millennium '73". -- Adjusted this wording a bit, in response to above comment, also moved a sentence up a bit in the intro about the national broadcast on PBS. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the entries of The World's Largest TV Studio and Gerald Ford's America from the infobox. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The documentary received mostly positive reviews" -- I removed this wording. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Image:Lord of the Universe vhs back.jpg appears to violate WP:NFCC#3A, which states “Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.” It also violates NFCC#3B (it is not low resolution) and NFCC#8, as it does not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding. Why is an image that is nothing but text over a gradient background needed? The article contains a content summary, which eliminates the need for the top third of the image. The middle third is reviews, which are covered in the reception section (we don’t need an image to understand it was reviewed) and the bottom third is copyright and unnecessary TVTV info. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: I removed that second image. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken, thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note

    Epbr123 (talk · contribs) made some MOS changes to the article, and has stated I think the MOS issues are now fixed. Thank you so much for your help, Epbr123! Cirt (talk) 00:41, 10 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:35, 10 April 2008.

    Walter de Coventre

    edit
    Notified Deacon of Pndapetzim as principal author.
    previous FAC (20:27, 31 March 2008)

    Nominator. Co-nom with User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. I reviewed this at Peer Review, and supported it at FAC. It received, on the previous nomination, several comments on its prose, relatively late in the cycle. Malleus Fatuarum was responding to those as the FAC was being closed, and the resulting wave of changes seems to have died down. Since the previous FAC dealt by and large with text no longer in the article, and it still seems a good article on substance, it should be reviewed on its present text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Articlestats:

    Malleus Fatuarum 37
    Deacon of Pndapetzim 27
    Pmanderson 14

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Suggested optional tweaks:

    Lead:

    "Sometime before June 1361, the cathedral chapter of Dunblane elected him to be the new Bishop of Dunblane". (He'd hardly be elected as the old one).
    "After his return to Scotland, Walter was a bishop for 10 years."? or possibly
    After his return to Scotland, Walter was Bishop for 10 years.

    Education:

    "he was D. U. J., Doctor of both Laws,"
    Doctor of Canon and Civil Law does not capitalise "Laws" or use periods.
    ""he was a DUJ (Doctor of both laws"), ?

    Benefices:

    "The names of these benefices, parish or office, are not known."
    This may be mixing up the singular and plural. "The names of these benefices, and the parish or office, are not known."?

    Return to Scotland and episcopal election:

    "Above is a 19th-century map of the diocese of Dunblane"
    "Above is" is redundant

    Early episcopate:

    I thought Mairead was 'Marion' or 'Mary' rather than 'Mariota'. The chanteuse Mairead NicAonghais is 'Maggie MacInnes' for some reason.

    Footnotes:

    Footnote 11 lacks a final period.
    Footnotes 44-6 and 49 need to indicate a page name as well as the publisher.

    Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I thought Mairead was 'Marion' or 'Mary' rather than 'Mariota'. The chanteuse Mairead NicAonghais is 'Maggie MacInnes' for some reason.
        • Scottish Gaelic names in the late medieval period, when Gaelic literacy has gone and most of the sources aren't usually fluent Gaelic-speakers, are terribly difficult. Names written Mariota in Latin are usually thought to represent Mairead, as in Mairead inghean Eachann written in the Moray Registrum as (accusative) Mariotam filiam Athyn. I wouldn't expect any rules, sometimes its just random, like "Archibald" being used Gilleaspaig. Goodness knows what "Marjorie" stands for. It certainly wasn't the real name of Robert Bruce's mother, who was called "Marthok" by John Barbour (oc then was the same as modern ag, a diminutive suffix, so the name looks like "little Martha" or "little Mary" or "little Margaret"). Muireadhach turns up as a different name is every other source, Maurice, Murdac, Murdoch, Murthak, Murethach, etc. But Mariota seems in Scotland (does the name exist outside of Scotland?) to be used only as a Latinization of Mairead, itself a Gaelicization of Mary.
        • It may be simpler to view this as translation; the same person had different names in different languages, just as bread or wine does. Queen Philippa was Philip or Phelip in English, as Wace shows (see the Oxford Book of Christian Names). Should we use the Gaelic, the Latin, or the Scots form in twenty-first century English? Or should we do what contemporaries would have done, and translate to Mary? (In any case, does some explanation belong in the article, prob. in a footnote?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may be mixing up the singular and plural. "The names of these benefices, and the parish or office, are not known."?
      • Doctor of Canon and Civil Law does not capitalise "Laws" or use periods.
        • As PMAnderson said, this is a proper noun.
      • Footnotes 44-6 and 49 need to indicate a page name as well as the publisher
    • Reply
    Notes:
    I'd make Note 44 something like: "1367, 27 September, Scone, Parliament: Parliamentary Records" RPS. Date accessed: 2 March 2008; Watt, Dictionary, p. 115.</ref> as I have been spanked before for not providing a web page name.
    References: "The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707 On-line database prepared by the Scottish Parliament Project of the University of Saint Andrews. Cited as RPS, with date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)"
    I am tempted to make some unfunny remark about COI, but this is either an error or yet another by-way of MOS with which I am unfamiliar. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Implemented your note suggestion. Thanks! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Parts of this article, particularly at the top, are not well-written. Why? Much of it is worthy.

    • "Following his arrival back in Scotland, as Dean of Aberdeen Cathedral, Walter quickly became involved in high level ecclesiastical and political affairs, with the Scottish church and the Earl of Mar respectively." Ouch. "his return to Scotland"? (and somehow reword the second occurrence of this, further into the para). Should the comma after Scotland remain (it's confusing)? "Soon" is better than "quickly", yes? Hyphenate "high level". in the Scottish church? Shift the comma after "affairs" to after "Mar".
    • Build a reconstruction?
    • "Such men often acquired university education through their family resources, through the patronage of more substantial nobles, or through networking in the church, particularly by gaining patronage from the pope."—Is the last phrase related to the previous point or the previous two points?
    • Clumsy: "He died either in 1371 or in 1372."—"He died in either 1371 or 1372."
    • "Above is a 19th-century map of "—"Above" in a caption? Tony (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I think that all of these points have been dealt with now.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such men often acquired university education through their family resources, through the patronage of more substantial nobles, or through networking in the church, particularly by gaining patronage from the pope.
      • If the throughs were omitted, this would indeed be ambiguous; but the parallellism defines the structure.
      • Rewording in any case to end or through church influence, particularly support from the pope and his court. The apposition should leave the structure beyond reasonable doubt, and this removes the repetition of patronage in two somewhat distinct senses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • in either 1371 or 1372 is a useful new idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above is (now removed) was another deleterious side-effect of the MOS caption follies. If it appears that only full sentences are safe from having their periods removed (which would, in this case, be barbarism), captions will be full sentences, sensible or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 6 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:35, 10 April 2008.

    Maximian

    edit

    Self-nomination. I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think that it's now more or less up to Featured Article standard. Comments welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Oppose

    Resolved issues --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Too many copy issues at the moment, I'm afraid. It needs a close critical copy-edit by someone new to the text, both for style and content. Here are a few examples:

    • Typo: stablished > established
    • Two "at XXX's behest" and too many "imperials" in the intro.
    • "Through his daughters Fausta and Flavia, Maximian was grandfather or great-grandfather to every reigning emperor from 337 to 363." Is this important? It's less than thirty years.
    • "Making him somewhat younger than Diocletian." How much younger?
    • "Details regarding his parentage are limited by the vagueness of the sources. The only precise statement made in ancient sources is that Maximian's parents were shopkeepers near Sirmium." How about ""The sources are vague about Maximian's parents, saying only that they were shopkeepers near Sirmium."?
    • The sources are vague about Maximian's parentage. The only precise statement made in ancient sources is that Maximian's parents were shopkeepers near Sirmium.[10] Otherwise, there are only vague allusions to Illyricum as his patria... Still wordy. How about "The ancient sources are vague about Maximian's parents and the only precise statement is that they were shopkeepers near Sirmium.[10] Otherwise, there are only vague allusions to Illyricum as his patria..."? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's now: "Little is known about Maximian's parentage, and the only precise statement made in ancient sources is that his parents were shopkeepers near Sirmium.", thanks to Factotem. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although a rustic, Maximian was a man of great energy and firm, aggressive character." Rather pejorative? Not all rustics are bumpkins :)
    • It's been corrected to "A rustic, Maximian was a man of great energy, firm aggressive character, and with a temperament that made him unlikely to rebel." by Factotem. I was aiming for a contrast between advantageous factors and disadvantageous factors, but it turned out to make the false implication that rustics lack in energy. (Just the opposite!) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His ambitions were limited to the sphere of military action, and was unlikely to conflict with Diocletian in matters of politics." Concordance: "was" > "were".
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the issues you've raised. I'm afraid I don't know any copy-editors. The LOCE isn't much help either. Once, I left a petition for a copy-edit for, what, eight months before they eventually made it disappear during a bureaucratic re-shuffling. I'm entirely willing to make any necessary changes. I'll try my best to provide a "close critical copy-edit", and I'll imagine myself as "someone new to the text". Beyond that, I have no control. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know. It's a nightmare trying to find a copy-editor,. You might try an urgent request at WP:MHL#Requests for copy-editing. Things to look for are wordiness and brevity (replace some of the countless "approximately"s with "about", "predominantly" with "mostly", hack out empty words). Here are a few more examples:
    • From levels of around 390,000 in 285 the army was expanded to a new total of approximately 581,000. (Wordy) > "The army expanded to about 581,000 from its strength in 285 of 390,000."
    • The compilers; policy of codification was radical in the decentralized traditions of Roman jurisprudence. !?
    • Proconsuls, for example, were often both courts of first instance and recipients of appeals > "Proconsuls, for example, were often judges of first instance and appeal." (A proconsul is not a court, plus redundancy.)
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're reading the wrong article, Roger.;) I'll make those corrections. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! Well, at breakfast time, with the dog bouncing about, one Roman emperor looks very much like another :))) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Remarkably well-cited and referenced. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support I've made a start on tidying up some of the prose. Feel free to revert. --FactotEm (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken it up to and including the section on Campaigns in 286 and 287, but this section is confusing - I've dropped a note on the article talk page about it. That's all I have time for now - I'll try and come back to it again tomorrow. --FactotEm (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you so much! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. I've done all I can do now, and there is of course no guarantee that my CE skills are up to scratch. In terms of content, the only question I have now is whether the sources permit the addition of a legacy section, of the sort that appears in the article on Diocletian. --FactotEm (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, no. I don't think there's much material. Where historians discuss the long-term changes made in this period, they attribute them to Diocletian. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Just a couple of final comments then - in the Leisure and retirement section, the sentence "Had the date of the abdication been set at the meeting as 305, it would have given Maximian one more moment of glory as officiator over the Secular Games scheduled for 304." jars with "On May 1, 305, Diocletian and Maximian retired together..." that starts the next para. Also in the final para., and following on from the previous comments about the succession in the talk page, Licinius still pops up ("Although he led the ceremony that proclaimed Licinius Caesar..."). --FactotEm (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made the final fixes. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues I had have been addressed with comendable speed. Changed to support. --FactotEm (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • See also sections usually go before the footnotes
    All other sources look good, and the links check out with the link checking tool. I'll try to get back later and do a fuller review. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Oppose for now, mainly due to wordiness and some places where I'm unsure of the meaning. I'll be happy to switch to support when these have been addressed, and some more copyediting has been done. Switching to support, due to the wonderful copyedit by Roger and Dulcem. Wonderful article!
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early career section, the introduction of the fact that Maximian was six years younger than Diocletian is jarring in this context. I'd consider putting it in a footnote.
    • Same section, consider "appointing him Caesar" instead of "granting him the Caesarship" it flows better to my mind.
    • Same section, last sentence, Some speculate... historians? Or just gossip?
    • Personality section, first sentence. Something seems off here, perhaps reword to "Maximian was a man of great energy, with a firm aggressive character that was unlikely to rebel."?
    • I think your correction seems to imply that his "character" was "unlikely to rebel", rather than that he his "character" made him "unlikely to rebel". I've split the sentence and changed it to "Maximian was a man of great energy and firm aggressive character. His temperament made him unlikely to rebel." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section, next sentence, perhaps "These characteristics would appeal to Dioceletian as ..." the last part of this sentence is awkward too, but can't think of a suggestion to reword it.
    • The last sentence is very wordy, consider cutting some of the verbiage down. Perhaps "Lactantius records charges that Maxiamian defiled senator's daughters and that while traveling he took young virgins to satisfy his unending lust, but Lactantius' hostility towards pagans discredits his statements."
    • Appointment to Caesar section ... try Appointment as Caesar?
    • Same section, first paragraph. The tone of this paragraph is a bit over the top ("Conflict boiled", "Diocletian needed a lieutenant" etc.) Consider rewording some of this.
    • Carausius section, second paragraph, second sentence is awkward, consider rewording perhaps "He would confront raiders only after their bases were plundered, with the sums recovered never being accounted for." although I'm not really happy with that phrasing either.
    • Same section and paragraph. Did Carausius eliminate the loyalists in the legions that defected or did he eliminate all the loyalists in Britain? Context is unclear.
    • Maximian appointed section, first paragraph, the two sentences starting with "This suggestion has not won much support..." They might be combined to make the flow better, but I'm not sure what point the second sentence is trying to make. The however implies that there is some connection between the two statements, but I'm not seeing it. It may be because there is not any evidence given for why it is clear that Diocletian expected Maximian to act with independence. Might be best to just cut the second sentence, as the following sentence says much the same thing.
    • Joint campaign section, the fourth sentence, the phrase "Maximian made a southern entry into Germany" sounds odd and is a strange way to describe an invasion. Perhaps "Maximian invaded Germany from the south."
    I did some copyediting, mainly to cut down wordiness, but I'm sure there are more spots I missed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hidden the above issues as they are resolved. I'd still like to see another copyedit, so leaving the oppose until Roger (who does a good job) has time. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and to address the issues of the sources/accuracy, I didn't see anything glaringly wrong. While I'm not a trained ancient historian, the time frame is one of my interests, so I am at least familiar with the main subject matter. It might be a bit light on current journals, but it's very NPOV and sound in the scholarship it is ussing, at least as far as I can tell. No fringe theories, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to support, after the copyedit by Dulcem and Roger. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I only have access to a rather limited inter-library loan service and don't have access to any journals, electronic or otherwise. That said, if you have access to anything that could improve the article, and would be willing to e-mail it to me, I would gladly work its content into the article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, here's what I said

    Nope, not entirely. I'm not happy with: (1) the choppiness of some sections; (2) the copy habit of telling people what you're going to say before you say it and (3) lack of clarity in places. Rather than doing a copy-edit by proxy (long lists of things to fix, which are then duly fixed), I'll give it a copy edit myself starting either this afternoon/evening or tomorrow morning. this'll probably take 24 hours or so to complete. I'm light on sources for this period though so it will style only. Fair enough? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    It looks like tomorrow morning. I have a fair number of other commitments at the moment :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I really like this. I've gone ahead and copy edited the article, although I think it was already in pretty good shape after Roger went through it. My remaining concern is that there are some places where the passive voice obfuscates the sources of certain beliefs about Maximian. Some examples (my print out is from before Roger and I copy edited things, so some of these may have been changed):
      • "Some historians speculate that Maximian and Diocletian arranged their eventual roles before Diocletian's rise to power . . . ."
        • "Maximian's swift appointment by Diocletian as Caesar is taken by the writer Stephen Williams and historian Timothy Barnes to mean that the two men were longterm allies, that their respective roles were pre-agreed and that Maximian had probably supported Diocletian during his campaign against Carinus (r. 283–285) but there is no direct evidence for this."
      • "It has been postulated that she was born from an earlier marriage between Eutropia and Afranius Hannibalianus."
        • Attributed.
      • "Some suggest that less flattering reasons were also influential . . . . "
        • Attributed.
      • "Some historians state that Diocletian, like childless emperors before him, adopted Maximian as his filius Augusti . . . . "
        • Attributed.
      • "It has been suggested that the rebels were not merely peasants, but combatants for Gallic political autonomy . . . ."
        • Attributed.
      • "The emperors Probus and Carinus had begun work on fortifications along the so-called Saxon Shore . . . ." (So-called by whom)
        • Dropped the "so-called".
      • "Diocletian could not have been present at Maximian's appointment, causing some to suggest that Maximian usurped the title . . . . "
        • Attributed.
      • "It has been surmised that the ceremonies were arranged to demonstrate Diocletian's continuing support for his faltering colleage."
        • Attributed.
      • "Maximian was more aggressive in his relationship with the Senate than Constantius, and is alleged to have terrorized the istitution . . . ."
        • Attributed.
    • In all of these cases, I want to know who is doing the alleging, surmising, postulating, suggesting, etc. If these sentences are recast in the active voice so as to attribute their sources, I'll happily support. — Dulcem (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I'd like to see Roger given enough time to finish his copy edit, of course, but I'm happy with the article. — Dulcem (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't finished copy-editing it yet. It'll take a day or two more, I think. I'm posing questions myself as I go so it's not just a matter of shunting words around unfortunately :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've finished it now. (Please check it for my typos :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:42, 8 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:35, 10 April 2008.

    El Señor Presidente

    edit
    previous FAC withdrawn
    peer review

    I am nominating this article on behalf of Mfreud, Katekonyk, Eecono, and Jbmurray, who have been working tirelessly on this article as part of the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project, an educational assignment. The students and their professor began the semester with this one-line article and they have created one of the best Spanish-language literature articles on Wikipedia in the past few months. Focusing on achieving FA status, they have worked to create a comprehensive, reliably-sourced, and well-written article and they have succeeded. They look forward to the reviewers' constructive criticism. Awadewit (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1(a) "Well-written" ...Pass.
    1(b) "Comprehensive" ...Pass
    1(c) Well sourced ....Pass
    1(d) I think it is neutral. I don't see any problems...Pass
    1(e) "Stable" No issues...Pass
    2(a) Lead is OK...Pass
    2(b) Layout seems to follow guidelines...Pass
    2(c) MoS citations OK...Pass
    3 Images I think are OK. ...Pass
    4 Doesn't seem too detailed and good overall coverage. OK length....Pass
    I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As Awadewit notes, I've been a major contributor to this article. But I'd like to acknowledge that the research and the legwork has been done by Mfreud, Katekonyk, Eecono. Moreover, everyone involved in this has put in a tremendous amount of effort. The Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project would like to extend particular thanks to The FA-Team for their tireless help and encouragement, with editors who until starting on this article had never before edited on wikipedia. They've produced something that is, I think, really solid. Undoubtedly the best source of information on this important novel to be found anywhere on the internet; and most likely the most comprehensive account of it to be found anywhere in English. This article is a real service to the community, and to anyone interested in Latin American literature, and in significant novels of the twentieth-century as a whole. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've been following this project since its early beginning and I've got nothing but praise for the students responsible for this article who wrote this rock-solid piece (that clearly satifies criteria) starting from scratch, for the editors of other MMM articles which are all going to be GAs and possibly FAs and for their professor Jbmurray who also put a lot of effort into this and ultimately made it all possible. Thank you for donating so much time to making this site better Acer (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I'm so excited and impressed to see this article at this stage (FAC) in such a short period of time. ¡Felicidades! Perhaps there is hope for an academia/Wikipedia relationship after all? As a nerdy academic librarian, I truly hope so. :) This has my full support for work ethic alone, but one note on the prose: there is a small problem with run-on and/or overly long sentences here and there. A few examples would be A landmark text in Latin American literature, El Señor Presidente explores the nature of political dictatorship and its effects on society and makes early use of a literary technique that would come to be known as magic realism. in the lead and Though El Señor Presidente was written in France and is set in an unnamed Latin American country, governed by an unnamed President at some time in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, as critic Jack Himelblau explains, "Asturias [...] wrote his novel primarily with his compatriots in mind, who, undoubtedly, had lived through the tyranny of Estrada Cabrera from 1898 to 1920." in the first section. In need of another quick copy-edit, perhaps? I trust the FA Team knows what to do. Other than that, fantastic job, everyone; I truly hope to see a few of the other project's articles here in the coming week. María (habla conmigo) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maria, the FA-Team is a stretched a bit thin at the moment. If you could possibly take the time to read through the article and identify these sentences on the talk page or fix them yourself, we would be ever so grateful! Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reworked the above two sentences and hopefully it sounds better. Thanks for pointing them out.--Katekonyk (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just cut a couple of these redlinks. The others look as though they could conceivably become articles at some point: there is for instance an (incomplete) French Wikipedia page on the Prix du Meilleur livre étranger; and the directors and actors look, if not massively important, arguably notable enough for an article; likewise Losada. But we could cut some of these if that should turn out to be the consensus. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I've fixed the one instance of this that I could find. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Brilliant work. Maxim(talk) 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not a fan of listing every citation in both the notes section and the references section. In many of the FAs I've seen, it is customary to only include general references in the References section (i.e. books and major journal articles completely devoted to the subject), while listing newspaper articles, minor journal articles, and citations for books in which the article subject is mentioned but not the main focus, only within the notes section. For an excellent example of what I'm talking about, please look at the notes and references sections of the Emma Goldman article. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, there are lots of different conventions. I'm opening to hearing other thoughts, pro and con. I should say I personally much prefer this way of presenting things (well, I think I prefer even more using the "Harvnb" templates the way we have at Mario Vargas Llosa, for instance, but it's the same rough idea), but then that's what I'm used to: it essentially mimics most academic styles (MLA, author-date) in the Humanities and Social Sciences. But as I say, speaking for myself I am certainly open to other perspectives. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question - in the first sentence "...by Guatemalan Nobel Prize-winning writer..." should there be a comma after 'Guatemalan'? It kind of sounds like the Nobel Prize is Guatemalan. --maclean 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has now been fixed (albeit not with a comma, but by changing the order). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image issues
    • Oppose: Multiple criterion three concerns not resolved since previous FAC:
      • Why are two book covers used? WP:NFCC#3A requires “Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary”. If the first edition version is particularly important (per talk page comments), why is that not used. Why is Image:El senor presidente.gif necessary in the presence of the other?
      • Image:Asturias.jpg – how does seeing the author significantly contribute to our understanding (NFCC#8) of this novel? What understanding would be lost without it (i.e. how would the article be “impoverished”, per the FUR). Importance to the novel and importance to our understanding are two distinct notions. The former alone is not sufficient to employ FU images.
      • Image:Juan jose arevalo1.jpg how does the image of Arévalo help us to understand (significantly, or at all, for that matter - NFCC#8 and NFCC#3A) his democracy or its/his influence on the novel? It appears to be used solely as eye candy. It certainly does not fulfill its purpose of “contrast[ing] the leader who restricted the publication”. Where is the contrast? An image tells us nothing of political, social, philosophical, etc. views. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, obviously at the previous FAC there wasn't much time to go into these issues. And you'll see that the permissions have been fixed since then. But I also asked a series of questions about your objections on the article talk page. Frankly, if you were to take a very strict criterion, I'm not sure how any image on almost any literature article (or indeed 97% of wikipedia's other articles) "significantly contribute[s]" to our understanding of that work. Why include a book cover at all? If that's your position, then so be it, of course.
    I'd have thought, however, that being able to visualize these figures is of some help for understanding the text. It helps us root our reading of the text in the real world events to which they refer (in rather the complex way that the article itself details), as well as helping visualize some key aspects of the novel's context and production.
    But yes, I'd be hard put to say that these images are essential. But then I'd be hard put to say an image of (say) Arévalo on Arévalo's own page is essential. Why do we tend to think that even biographical articles need images?
    These are genuine questions, and I'd be interested in your responses.
    Regarding the two covers: one is of the English (the first US translation, if not necessary the first edition cover); the other is of the first edition of the definitive text in Spanish. Like any other translated book, in some sense this is a doubled work. I'd have thought that if one cover was appropriate, then so are two. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note what the U.S. Copyright Office says about Fair Use which includes this factor: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." A promo image of a book's cover would seem to benefit both author and publisher, and is unlikely to negatively affect the potential market value of the book. But maybe it would? Anyway, the link is provided for the benefit of the whole. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Impact on profitability is but one of 10 criteria for inclusion (there are more, if you count sub-criteria), all of which must be satisfied. Wiki policy is deliberately more restrictive than U.S. Fair Use law. We are not considering law; these are policy concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    @jbmurray: Please remember that these criteria are only applicable to non-free images. Free and “free enough” images have no such thresholds. Responses here need to focus on the images in this article and their adherence to policy, or lack thereof. I appreciate the desire to understand applicability to other Wiki articles, but that is a discussion we’d need to have elsewhere (and I’d be happy to do so, by the way). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to support Jbmurray's reasoning on the book covers. Unless there must be an aesthetic discussion of the book cover (which Elcobbola denied in a previous discussion), I see these as two important versions of the book and worth highlighting - remember this article is about the book, therefore visually telling the history of the book is educational. I think that the other two portraits add value to the article - they are of important figures in the book's history. Whether that value is significant or not is debatable - what is the exact definition of "significant" in this context? Awadewit (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What educational value is provided by two book covers? Altering a cover's artwork for a translated version is neither rare nor profound. If you're going to claim the importance of the visual progression, then there would be an need for the aesthetic discussion. I understand that the original version has particular significance. What, then, does the English version tell us about the novel? What story is told? Why was that image chosen, why was the old one discarded, what does the new one represent? If there is indeed importance to seeing the cover evolution (which neither the article nor FURs discuss), that would seem to indicate that the article is not comprehensive. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent:) ЭLСОВВОLД, apologies if I seem to be sparking off a more general discussion. In part I am, I suppose. But I should say that this is the first FAC I've really followed, so I ask you for a little patience if I seem to be seeking that you reinvent the wheel on my behalf. Again, it does seem to me that a strict interpretation of the notion of "significant contribution to our understanding" would mean that articles on books were on the whole devoid of (non-free) images. For the sake of time, for the moment, let me just address the cover image. Despite the above, there does seem to be a precedent that (at least) one book cover is justified for such an article. As this is a translated book, and as this is the English wikipedia, and as therefore all references to the text are to the translation, the cover that we've put in the top right hand corner is of the translation. It's the earliest translation cover we can find, of a reprint of the first US edition. (NB the infobox is serially confusing as it mainly details the first [Mexican] publication, which inter alia seems to suggest therefore at first glance that this is a Mexican novel; but let's stick to images just at the moment, and deal with the constraints of the infobox template elsewhere, if necessary.) However, given that this is a translated book, it was first published in Spanish. It would seem appropriate therefore to include an image of the Spanish publication. Or at least as appropriate as it is to include an image of the translation cover. So we have an image of that cover. What's more, as the novel has a slightly complicated publication history, we have an image of the first edition of the definitive text. (As detailed in the article itself.) OK, then, just a word or two about the other images. What would really make sense would be to have an image of Estrada Cabrera. There was such an image on the page earlier, but that got deleted. Honestly, I have no idea why, as surely it has to be out of copyright. (It was a photographic image, and the chappie's been dead for over eighty years now.) We had a discussion about that here. Your opinions would be most welcome on that matter. Many thanks, and apologies for the bother. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bola, this does seem to be a subjective and unnecessarily strict interpretation of policy. It seems incredibly reasonable to think that a photo of the author is much more than mere "eye candy". Wrad (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the author was eye candy. Please read my comments critically. I've asked questions based in policy. Your comment makes an assertion without providing the underlying reasoning. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the inclusion of these images. Merely saying something seems reasonable is insufficient. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what you said: "Image:Asturias.jpg – how does seeing the author significantly contribute to our understanding (NFCC#8) of this novel? What understanding would be lost without it (i.e. how would the article be “impoverished”, per the FUR). Importance to the novel and importance to our understanding are two distinct notions. The former alone is not sufficient to employ FU images." I fail to see how you can say an image of the author is unimportant to the novel. He wrote the novel! He's more important to the novel than any other person on earth. This is what he looks like. This seems very important to me. Wrad (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And "eye candy" is where in that quote, exactly? Importance to the novel is not a criterion. Importance to our understanding is. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is important to understanding the novel and who wrote it. You don't. This is all very subjective. One man's trash is anther man's treasure. I think your interpretation of the usefulness of the image is unnecessarily strict. You'll probably say that I need to provide some kind of evidence. I think it is ridiculous to even think that an image of the author is unimportant to understanding the novel. It shows us who the guy is. Wrad (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm going to have to with Wrad here - I think we can say that an image of the author of the novel under discussion significantly increases understanding. If it doesn't, then no fair-use portrait ever increases understanding, unless it is of someone with a distinctive physical attribute. In my opinion, that is much too restrictive. Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I misquoted you, Elcobola. I'm just not as familiar with the fine print of images as you are, so I didn't see any distinction between "eye candy" and the other claims you made. Wrad (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem; it happens. I write rather deliberately, so I really push for folks to read carefully. It may aid the discussion to note, for example, that I have not asserted that the images need to be removed or even that they are in unambiguous violation of policy. I have a particular interpretation and have simply posed questions which, if answered to my satisfaction, would resolve the concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) That seems to be hyperbole. Fair Use portraits are absolutely acceptable in articles about the subject of the portrait; I am, after all, not debating use in Miguel Ángel Asturias. We can ignore the “significantly” verbiage for the moment; why is seeing that image important to me, the reader, in terms of understanding the novel? Yes, it illustrates the author; so what? This is an article about the man’s work, not the man. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, as a literary critic, I find it very important to know as much as I can about the author in order to understand his works. This includes his physical appearance. People coming from other viewpoints may not see that as significant, but literary critics would. Wrad (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (← ec) There is a long history of (occasionally heated) debate on how strict Wikipedia's non-free content criteria should be, and hence how strictly the current criteria should be interpreted. It is therefore important to approach the subject calmly and flexibly, and acknowledge differing viewpoints may be equally valid. ElCobbola raises entirely reasonably questions about three types of non-free image that occur in this article: book covers, the author, and a person related to the novel's publication. Jbmurray raises sensible queries about the interpretation of the non-free content criteria for articles about novels.

    I would like to make two general observations, and then discuss them in this case.

    1. Subject to the the five pillars, policies and guidelines are intended to reflect consensus. Pillar five, as expressed in WP:IAR, reminds us that the main goal is improving the encyclopedia. Of course, no article may contain copyright violations (Pillar three), but stricter criteria only exist to the extent that they benefit the encyclopedia and are supported by consensus. I am a strong believer in such stricter criteria, but they must be interpreted in the light of consensus, so it is relevant to consider what the consensus interpretation is for articles on novels.
    2. One of the most subjective of the criteria is NFCC#8 on "significance". Here I want to note that the criterion recommends that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" [my emphasis]. For articles on novels, this is not the same as saying it should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the novel", as the topic of an article on a novel covers more than the novel itself: context, authorship, publication, reception all play an important role. Also, not only does "significance" require interpretation, but also "readers" does: does this mean "more than one reader", "many readers", "most readers" or "all readers"? The solution to these ambiguities is not wikilawyering, but consensus.

    So, how do we combine these observations here? I believe there is consensus that almost all articles on books (or any other publication, such as a film or computer game) can include at least one non-free fair use cover image. Why is there such consensus? There are multiple reasons one could put forward: it surely helps many readers recognise the topic of the article if they see a familiar book cover; it also provides insight into how the book was marketed and perceived. If such reasons support one image, they may support more than one image, provided the justification is correspondingly stronger.

    I am less sure what the consensus is about non-free images of authors, but I do believe it improves the encyclopedia for this article to have an image of the author: the image is clearly fair-use, and putting a face to the name will enhance the experience of the article for many readers. I don't see any case for the image of Juan Jose Arevalo. If no such case can be made, I suggest seeking a free alternative, or removing the image. Geometry guy 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Being one of the principle editors/contributors to this page, I will try my best to explain the reasoning behind the image of Juan Jose Arevalo. I readily admit that I am new to Wikipedia, this is my first experiance editing anything on the internet and as such it follows that I feel completely overwhelmed by this current discussion. That said, as an undergraduate university student, who actively uses wikipedia for reference checks of people, novels and historial events, I find images extremly valuable. Many people, especially in such a digital age, are very visual learners. As such, I find images of the book cover important for quick recognition that I have found the right source to consult. Images for me personally, help me identify with the text and place the text in context. For many people the saying "putting a face to the name" is a very helpful memory tool as it helps the reader learn and retain information. For this reason we have included an image of the author, the book cover and also Jose Juan Alvero. I understand that my reasoning for including these photos may not align with the rules of Wikipedia but I think at the end of the day what should be included in the article are things that are going to help the reader and I find an article of almost all text does not. I personally place a lot of importance of images and I am more likely to stay interested in the presented information if it is infused with visual aids, such as photos of real people discussed in the article that have been related to the novel. Inserting a photo of Asturias when discussing the background/inspiration for the novel and including images of Jose Alvearo when speaking about how he is realed to Asturia's depiction of the President I find to be a very powerful source of explaination. In no words, this image gives the reader a visual connection to the real-life dictator often assoicated with the portrayal of Asturias's president. I know this is all just my opinion and I don't know if this helps clarify this issue but I have given it a shot. I am at a loss as to what I can do to solve this issue. I'm sorry these issues were not satisfactorily resolved since last time. If you consult the archives of the talk page you will find a detailed discussion and attempt to resolve these issues. We did not by any means ignore them but I guess did not have the right kind of experianced help with images that we needed to resolve these issues. For that reason I do hope ЭLСОВВОLД, that you will reconsider your opposition to our article. I think that your points are fair and valid and if these issues have not been properly adressed they certainly should be. At the same time I don't feel that I or the other editors that have tried to resolve these image issues are perhaps capable of fixing them correctly. At that I ask that if you have some spare time we would really appreciate some help solving the issues that you find should keep this article from reaching FA Status. --Mfreud (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Confounding. Either I'm confounded or there are several confounding issues with the little pictures. Can we have all the images we want as long as they have no potential copy right issues, correct? In other words, there is an issue of copyright / fair use and no issue about the appropriateness of images, correct? That is my understanding. If one has an artistic streak, drawing a portrait from a montage of sources (not just one:not a copy) would create an original image free of copyright concerns. This could not be done (so simply) with the book cover. On the other hand, is there an objection to the images per se regardless of ownership rights? I don't see why. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright isn't the issue being discussed. Wikipedia policy is. Apparently there is a big difference, although you're right that there is no copyvio going on here. Wrad (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
    • G guy makes a good case on Arevalo. Mfreud, don't be frustrated; this is an area few of us understand well. Cobbola, can't the two book covers be solved by researching and discussing the images on the book covers? Why two different images for the different translations? What do they represent? Why wasn't the same image used on each the translation. And why on Earth was it published in Argentina, anyway? Wouldn't a discussion of the actual covers allow both covers to be used because then the images would significantly increase our understanding ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point out that this topic, called "history of the book", is vastly understudied. The chances that there is research on it for a particular text are slim. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sandy: A discussion along those lines is precisely what I'd like to see to support the use of both images. One cover is indeed appropriate, as has been said, to facilitate identification; two covers, however, need the support of prose identifying and discussing the importance/significance/etc. of the differences/alterations/etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the other principle contributors and I have combed the archives of university and city libraries as well as the internet for neutral reliable sources that pertained to this novel numerous times and I have also consulted research librarians on how to find the more rare and obscure literature, reviews and general information on El Senor Presidente on several occasions and we have not been able to find any discussion of the reasoning behind the images on the book covers. Im not sure that a discussion of the images on the book covers could be well sourced. I do have an intermediate level of Spanish but even within those search peramiters I have not been able to find any discussion of the images on the book covers. I can see how this would be very helpful to have but I am unsure that such a scholarly or neutral study has been done as this book, though well known, has not lately topped best-seller lists the way novels such as Harry Potter have of late. Is there anything that I can do then to try to resolve this issue? Or should I leave it to yourself, SandyGeorgia, and other more experianced editors like elcobbola who have identified the problem and are able to work out an acheiveable solution? Please let us know so we can work to resolve this issues as soon as possible.--Mfreud (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This gets to principle problem; the absence of such scholarship is indicative of the relative unimportance of the covers. As G-Guy said, there's Wiki consensus (with which I agree) that one cover is acceptable for aforementioned reasons. If one wants to include two covers, however, NFCC#3A and #8 come into play. The result is that each cover must do more than just identify the subject. As there's no reliable information supporting the enhanced roles, so to speak, I don't see the case for both. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Small point: I would like to point out that just because there isn't research on something doesn't mean it isn't important. For a long time, there wasn't any significant research on women novelists in the eighteenth century - they weren't viewed as important as their male colleagues until feminist literary criticism. Now that kind of imabalance is being rectified, but much work remains to be done. Scholarship is an ongoing process - there is still much work to do. We should be careful before we deem something "unimportant" because it hasn't been studied.
    "Relatively unimportant" is not "unimportant". Sexism is a quite a different issue and, I think, an inappropriate analogue. Is there really a reasonable expectation that the book covers will be discussed? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is every expectation that book covers will be discussed in the future. Why wouldn't they be? They are an integral part of the book. History of the book is one of those fields that is wide open - there is a lot of scholarship to do there. In children's literature, for example, a lot of work is being on picturebooks and pop-up books. The Bible has attracted a lot of attention on this front. Note that these are the obvious choices to begin with. Even more importantly, why wouldn't Jbmurray start to put together something based on the ideas in his blog post, slowly building to a conference paper, then a journal article, and then a book? The definitive work on Latin American publishing techniques? Nothing should be ruled out. :) We are not in the business of predicting the future - of predicting what scholarship will and will not be done. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Larger point: I find the arguments for including the two covers convincing (as I outlined above). I don't think we have to have to scholarship saying the images are important - I think we have to have reasonable arguments. Several of those have been provided and many of us have agreed with them. As has been pointed out numerous times, fair use rationales are subjective. More people agree with retaining the book covers and the author portraits and have provided cogent reasons for doing so than oppose getting rid of them. At some point, Raul654 is going to have decide which argument is more convincing. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments thus far are really only WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR. The latter is fine, but it needs the accompaniment of sound reasoning (i.e. not WP:ILIKEIT) regarding the detriment to Wikipedia in its absence. The importance of literature is in the words of the author, not the materials that bind them and the images thereon. Saying the third edition is the “most important” refers to prose therein, not a cover. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments are better than this - you just don't find them convincing. That's fine. However, don't accuse the rest of us of making irrational arguments (ILIKEIT). Moreover, the importance of literature goes way beyond the words of the author (interesting the author is even mentioned!). Since there is a whole field that studies the topic of "materials that bind them and the images thereon" (I spent a whole semester studying nothing but this once), this is most obviously false. (Remember how Barbauld helped start a revolution in children's literature by demanding that her children's books be printed in large-type with wide margins? The typography was a key change in Lessons for Children.) Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Barbauld's contribution was sourced. Show me a source discussing the impact of the various covers. Existence in academia does not objective importance make. I had the displeasure of reading a doctoral thesis on the use of barbed wire in South Dakota in the 1800s. Not important. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But as I pointed out before, sometimes things are important, but no work has been done on them. And this is the first time I've heard that we have to have to sourced reasons for fair use. That is much too stringent in my opinion. Very few images would be included then. (Having grown up in Nebraska, I could go on for hours about the benefits and drawbacks of the introduction of barbed wire in the 19th century - I'm not fascinated by the topic, but it is actually important. See, there were farmers and cowmen...) Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Tangent: I also vote for the huge importance of barbed wire, from the American West to the Holocaust and beyond. And check out the impressive collection of barbed wire in Oklahoma City's Museum of the American West. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    And with that, the tangent ends. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As time seems to be an issue, how’s this for an idea (it may be cheating a bit and I’m not sure whether Sandy or Raul will approve, but I can always strike or delete): remove the questionable images for the time being so the article can promote with certainty that it is in compliance with policy. We can then continue this discussion on the talk page, without the specter of time, and re-add images when/if we reach consensus, agreement, etc or, perhaps, find alternatives. I don’t mind one way or another; I suggest this only as, again, the need for expediency has been mentioned several times. There is, also, the implication that the images are needed to make the article complete, which would make this idea a non-starter. I understand that position as well. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you are the only person who thinks the book covers and the author image don't conform to policy, though. What is consensus at this stage? Do you have to agree to make it consensus? I get confused sometimes - does every, single person have to agree to make it a consensus? Is consensus actually unanimity? It might be helpful to explain this to the newbies here, too. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I don't have to agree. Consensus pertains to the validity of an argument, not the volume of people on a given side of it. I don't think valid responses have been provided; no one has even really directly answered the questions I've posed. That is, however, as you said, something for Raul/Sandy to decide. I would point out that respondents are either involved in MMM or FAT and are, consequently and in my opinion, not entirely unbiased. Arguments against my position would carry much more weight if they, among other things, came from third parties. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a bit of a tangent, but talking about directly answering questions... I'd be very pleased if you could address one I asked above. Here it is again: What would really make sense would be to have an image of Estrada Cabrera. There was such an image on the page earlier, but that got deleted. Honestly, I have no idea why, as surely it has to be out of copyright. (It was a photographic image, and the chappie's been dead for over eighty years now.) We had a discussion about that here. Your opinions would be most welcome on that matter. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The problem is not necessarily that the arguments offered haven't been valid - the problem is that you don't find the arguments offered valid and other people do. I also take a little offense at the "not unbiased" remark. Please explain how our "bias" (whatever it might be) is getting in the way of analyzing the fair-use claims. I have carefully considered what you have to say - I believe you are right concerning the image of Juan José Arévalo, so I have not argued for that one. However, I am not convinced regarding the book covers or the author image. I have offered arguments above, endorsed other arguments, and been happy to see other people provide even more. If you are not really granting any weight to our arguments because of who we are, the editors of the article and the FA-Team should leave this discussion immediately - there is no point in continuing it. I'm sorry that you don't think the editors of this article and the FA-Team are capable of stepping back and carefully considering the merits of your proposal. I think that the discussion here actually contradicts your assertion of "bias" - we have all tried our best to understand your position and provide arguments against it. That you don't agree that the arguments provided are valid is a different matter. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I've offered an argument which seems to have no objections and don't see any point in continuing a debate about something that seems to be resolved already. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for a lack of precision on my part and any resulting offense. “Not entirely unbiased” was, apparently, not soft enough. Actual COI and the appearance of COI are both troublesome; I have high regard for the FAT folks and make no assertion of the former. I do, however, given the nature of the project, believe that the latter exists. I brought up the issue not because I am discounting arguments (I’m not), but because it’s a consideration when determining consensus, which is what we were actually discussing. Intimate knowledge of and close participation in a project can cause one to apply too much importance to certain aspects. We’re not writing to literary scholars or historians; we’re writing to the general populace. When fair use is involved (i.e. policy mandated minimal use), we need to keep considerations of importance pertinent to the layman. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "close participation in a project" can cause myopia, but I don't see that happening here - can you provide evidence of that? Furthermore, I find your arguments confusing. First you want arguments from scholars about why the book covers are important and now you want arguments focused on desires and needs of the layperson? I think this layperson argument is a dangerous one to take - yes, it is important to consider the needs and desires of readers, but not the needs and desires of the ignorant. The point of the article is to inform the reader, both through the images and the text. We shouldn't let the readers tell us how to inform them, should we? Shouldn't we use what we know to construct the best article we can? Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I said “can cause”, not “is causing”; there’s no need to provide evidence for something which I haven’t stated is occurring. I didn’t ask for scholarly arguments, I said that such would be adequate evidence that there is some importance to both covers above and beyond simple identification. If there’s been an argument presented here that addresses that issue, I’ve apparently missed it. These are the arguments thus far:
    • Awadewit has said “telling the history of the book is educational”. Where is the telling of this story? What is the story?
    • G-guy has said there might be a case if “justification is correspondingly stronger”. Where’s the justification? Both images need this justification when two are present. If you have one cover meant to identify and one meant to illustrate something significant, you only really need the latter as it too can identify (two birds, one stone). Use of two covers requires that each goes above and beyond identification.
    • jbmurray has offered “if one cover was appropriate, then so are two” (which is patently incorrect per NFCC#3A) and that “it is [appropriate] to include an image of the Spanish publication”. The latter is fine, so why then is the English version needed?
    We’re here to build a free encyclopedia within the framework of a predefined policy. You’re implicitly employing IAR, but, again, not directly addressing the question of how removal of one of the images would be a detriment to the article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I'll try to capture all of the questions at once; if I miss something, pls ping. From where I'm sitting, my choices are simple. I'm concerned, I'm not sure the arguments presented so far generate consensus relative to the policy, but that is partly because I just don't follow our image policy as closely as I do others. Raul has spoken on this issue, but what he said is open to interpretation (User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts). Elcobbola raises a practical solution. Since images are a weak area for me, if you all don't reach a compromise, I'll have to toss this FAC over to Raul, which could mean a significant delay, considering how busy he is. So it really comes down to whether you want to wait it out at FAC or reach a compromise now and resolve it later on talk. Once this is resolved, the article can be promoted, but I don't want to make a decision on Image policy that may set a precedent, so if it goes that way, I'll have to ask Raul, as director, to make the decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The MMM team is almost at the end of our semester of school. Once that happens, we will no longer be editing on wikipedia. For that reason, if the images are the only issue keeping us from FA status, elcobbla should delete them, as he does not feel that they help the general populace, the audience to which we are creating this article for. Perhaps then the discussion can move to the talk page and if the FA team feels like working out this issues with elcobbla then they can do so from there. Is that a workable solution to this issue?--Mfreud (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really 'cause it causes an uncomfortable precedent; such issues have to be bashed out and the consensus view prevails. If Raul654 (talk · contribs) needs to take this on, so be it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How’s this, I’ll strike the author image concern per G-guy’s reasoning. It also doesn’t seem there is much dispute that Arevalo should go. Can we go ahead and remove him? That would leave just the two covers issue; only one of which needs to be removed. Would removing one for the time being (so this can pass) and continuing on the talk page be a reasonable course of action? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree that it would.--Mfreud (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should finish it here - dragging it out the talk page will be worse. 1) The book was originally published in Spanish, thus a Spanish cover is important. The edition pictured here is the definitive Spanish edition. 2) This is the English Wikipedia and most readers will encounter the text in English. In fact, the infobox, which everyone seems so fond of, even includes a field for "translator" and "date of English translation". For English readers, the translation of the text into English is an important event in its history and worth noting visually as well. English readers are more likely to encounter the book in its English translation, so having a visual representation of the English translation makes sense - that is what they are most likely to see. (Was this argument already presented, I forget). Book covers are an important visual marker of the history of the book, the topic of the article, whether any scholarship has yet been published on them. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Allright ... unfortunately (for the students), the long-term precedent on this will outlast their class timing issue, so unless something changes in the next 24 hours or so, I'll ask Raul to look in on this one. I know how busy he is, so I hate to bother him, but will ping him tomorrow if nothing changes: I'm just too weak on Image policy to set this precedent without his input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've deleted Arévalo. I have for the moment hidden the second book cover. (As some kind of temporary compromise. My actions here are strongly influenced by Mfreud's expressed views. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) Don't worry: the class timing issue is about the nomination date, not the completion of the FAC.

    Anyway, I'm sorry I've not been keeping up with this discussion especially as it seems my previous contribution has been helpful. It does contain a suggestion about the two-book-covers issue: the question is, why does the inclusion of at least one book cover have consensus support? I've given my own analysis, and other comments have illuminated this further. My point is that if one understands why the inclusion of a book cover is considered reasonable for articles on novels, then one can ask whether the arguments apply to the inclusion of a second book cover.

    As I suggested, the case for the second cover has to be stronger per NFCC 3A, but I don't see why it has to be qualitatively different. In particular, I disagreed with ElCobbola's proposal that "two covers... need the support of prose identifying and discussing the importance/significance/etc. of the differences/alterations/etc." but did not have time to comment before. It seems to me that this is a made-up rule: why does the case for the second book cover have to be made in the article? It would be great if the article could discuss book covers, but there are not usually reliable sources for this, so the case for inclusion should instead be made on the talk page or at a forum like this one. And, actually, in this case, I think Awadewit has made a rather strong arguments that both book covers are needed in this example to fulfil the role that one book cover usually supplies. Geometry guy 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone disagree that Arevalo is hard to justify? Starting there might be easy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree we should ditch it. Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Me too. Instead, as noted before, it would be great to have an image of Manuel Estrada Cabrera. I've spent most of my evening looking into this, without conclusive success. There must be images in the public domain here (anything published before 1909 is public domain in the US). I've left some notes on the talk page. Maybe those with access to printed sources can find the information that is not available on the internet. Geometry guy 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I tried to say this before, but for some reason my comment didn't take... Wikipedia hates me right now, evertthing's slow.) Double ditto. Both to ditch Arévalo, and if at all possible to have a pic of Estrada. In fact, I've just deleted Arévalo from the article --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment nice work. I recommend removing the disputed images. Although I agree with a lot the reasoning for keeping the images, I wouldn't let that stand in the way of the first class project FA in history. The pro and con arguments discussed in this debate concern one of the biggest internal debates on WP, and has been discussed literally thousands of times by thousands of editors. There isn't any right or wrong, so the discussions can last as long as the participants want. On the other hand, WP's discussions (strangley) engender a lot of passion, so keep at it if you want. Again, I would grab that FA while you can. If you never edit wikipedia again, you'll be one of our best groups of editors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I write this, the article contains 3 (low-res) fair-use images - the book cover, the author, and a picture of a film poster. All of these are clearly justifiable from the text, and from a cursory read here I don't see anyone objecting to these uses. The other controversial image(s) seem to have been removed. I don't see any reason why this cannot be promoted. Raul654 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it appears the images were removed just after I posted to you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 10 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:03, 9 April 2008.

    Priestley Riots

    edit

    This is a little article on an interesting late-eighteenth century religious riot. There is not much scholarship on the topic. Interestingly, most of what is published seems to rely on a single article. However, I have done what I could to flesh out the research. I believe the article is a good summary of the available research (and that it meets all of the other FA criteria, of course!). Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Sources look good, links (what there are) check out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a fuller review. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support An excellent account of an important episode in British history. I've put a couple of nit-picks on the article's discussion page. GrahamColmTalk 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, excellent as always. A few minor questions, though, to satisfy my own curiosity:

    • "One man was killed" - do we know if this was a rioter or a constable?
    • The rioters "were occupied in sacking the house when the constables arrived on the scene. After a savage struggle the constables were disarmed, with the loss of one dead and several injured. According to one account many of the rioters had been indiscriminately sworn in as constables and proved unreliable." (74) - What do you think? I wasn't totally sure, which is why I didn't say. Do you think we can be more specific? Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it was a constable, from the phrasing; but it is probably best to leave the text as it is. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any idea what they did with Lady Carhampton's furniture or why they removed it?
    • They put in the yard, basically, because she was a relative of the king - the king bit is in the article. Should I make it more explicit that the rioters were implicitly a "Church-and-King" mob? Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support although I have one picky wording issue

    • Aftermath and trials section, second paragraph. This sentence "If a concerted effort had been made by the elite of Birmingham to attack the Dissenters, it was more than likely the work of Benjamin Spencer, a local minister, Joseph Carles, a justice of the peace and landowner, and John Brooke, an attorney, coroner, and under-sheriff." seems to be lacking something to me, the If at the start implies something more than the second phrase. I think I see what you're trying to say, but it was unclear to me at first what was meant until I reread the sentence a few times. Perhaps "If the elite of Birmingham really had intended to attack the dissenters, the leaders were Spencer, Carles and Brooke" (with fill in data as needed). Although it seems rather weasely still.
    Very nice article on an interesting but little recorded subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence is supposed to sound uncertain, since the sources are all uncertain. I think the verb is correct - it is supposed to be in the past subjunctive. Awadewit (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, it was picky (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Excellent read, well-written and fascinating. I've made a few points on the talk page, none crucial. Well, I'm glad to see you've thrown boring old literature aside at last and become a historian. qp10qp (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've played around with it - I hope the references will strech to cover my changes... Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've added Marilyn, long one of my all-time academic heroes!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Who wouldn't love Marilyn? :) Awadewit (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've made a bunch of copy-editing changes, with queries included in edit summaries and also hidden at times in the text itself. A couple of times I've had to make (un)educated guesses about meaning, so I may have got things wrong. Feel free to revert where that is the case.
    One little issue is that the first paragraph of the "Historical context" appears to confuse events in Birmingham with national and/or London disturbances. Perhaps, as per Johnbod, a brief paragraph on the national situation could preface the discussion of Birmingham.
    In 1714 and 1715, the townspeople, as part of a "Church-and-King" mob, attacked Dissenters (protestants who did not conform to the Church of England) during the London trial of Henry Sacheverell, and in 1751 and 1759 Quakers and Methodists were assaulted. During the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots in 1780, large crowds assembled in Birmingham but did not cause the same amount of destruction as those in London. - Perhaps you could suggest a rewriting of these sentences? These disturbances occurred in Birmingham, but were the outgrowth of and connected to events in London. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see now. You know, what's probably simplest (if you don't want a prefatory paragraph about the national situation might be simply to cut the phrase "but did not cause the same amount of destruction as those in London." A phrase that does, after all, rather undercut the point of the paragraph as a whole. Another way of doing it might be "During the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots in 1780, the destruction was concentrated in London but in Birmingham, too, large crowds assembled." I think the problem was that at first reading (and second, to be honest), "those in London" seemed to refer to the riots mentioned in the previous sentence, which therefore implied that the paragraph as a whole was mainly discussing disturbances in the capital, rather than (as the point seemed to be) the way in which Birmingham had established a particular name for itself as a hotbed of conflict. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to make this more Birmingham-centric. Hopefully the new heading will help, too. Awadewit (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, I find the analysis rather confusing. At times, the disturbances are presented as political: supporters of the French Revolution versus conservatives. At times they are presented as religious: Anglicans versus Dissenters (and/or Catholics; note the "no popery" cries!). And there's also a suggestion that class issues are particularly important.
    All of these issues were part of the riots - this is a very confusing time in British history. How would you suggest I make these issues clearer? Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, for a start, the lead oversimplifies by framing things as "the rioters' main targets were religious Dissenters." Again, it doesn't strike me that Rose would agree. And again, that's the only source I've looked at, but I looked at it precisely because I was confused by the article itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, and I note that you present this article (above) as being about a "religious riot." I know that's not part of the article, but I think it reflects the article's leaning. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The riot is most often presented as a religious riot - that is why I presented it that way. I take pains to do so by saying it in terms of who it attacked and its motivation, though, in the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt, all three issues are at work, and in confusing and at times contradictory ways. And I am aware of the injunctions against Original Research. But it might be good to deal with the contradictions, if only to comment on them.
    First, we shouldn't assume a riot is going to "make sense" - that people were rational actors in it. Second, I'm not sure if we can write in the article: "there are contradictory explanations of the rioters' motivations" unless someone has already said that - that is a pretty strong evaluation of the material. Wikipedia usually leaves it up to the reader to discover these things (for better or for worse). I'll look again at my sources, but I am not hopeful. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Complex historiographical, philosophical, and above all political questions loom when we come to the question as to whether riots "make sense" or rioters are "rational actors."  ;) But I take it that our task (fanstasy though it may be) is in part to make sense. But without imposing a sense that is too rigid. It does seem to me that the article as a whole tends to stress religious differences. Whereas Rose, for instance (the one article I downloaded, and by the way I'm a little confused as to why you took out the JSTOR links; I realize they won't help everyone, but they help som) rather deciseively concludes that the conflict was essentially about "latent class hatred," for which the "coming together of old religioius animositives and new social and political grievances" was merely "fortuitous" (84)... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LINKSTOAVOID - JSTOR is unavailable to most readers. (I'll to get the rest of this later today.) Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rose offers several theories at the end of his article, before finally settling on "latent class hatred" (I'm not sure how decisive this really is). Unfortunately, the "balance of the evidence" in his own article does not really support that and other sources argue for other reasons, too - that is part of the problem. Rose himself cites the overlap between class and religion, anyway, so this is part of the problem. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most obviously, for instance, there's the fact that the banquet is led by an Anglican.
    History is not neat. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and his (her?) analysis would seem to be borne out by this. Although whether you want to go along with Rose or not, it would seem worth noting the discrepancy. (You do after all note as "bizarre" the anti-Catholic slogans; yet these two support the notion that religion is not really at issue, or at least not in terms of Anglicans vs. Dissenters in the way in which the article lead suggests.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that I know that Lunar Society members were often associated with and hung out with Dissenters, so Keir's attendance does not seem strange. The fact that he was part of this group is very significant - it would seem much odder if he weren't. How to make this clear, without giving a long history of the Lunar Society? Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More generally, the class analysis is rather inconsistent. It's not mentioned in the Lead. Then the "Background" first suggests simmering divisions between two fractions of the elite, previously united in their fear of the plebeians, before going on to suggest a fairly clear division between upper class Anglicans and their working class (now) followers on the one hand, against a Dissenting industrial middle class. Finally, the "Aftermath" puts the matter in terms of a gentry (well, previously "gentlemen") who have "no qualms" raising a mob against "revolutionaries.
    I gave less prominence to the class argument because it receives less prominence in what little scholarship there is. The other problem is that class in British society at this time is so difficult to describe. Not all of the authors I use agree that there is a "middle class", for example (this is a great historiographical debate in eighteenth-century studies - when and how did the middle class emerge). Yet another way of looking at it: Dissenters in Birmingham could be considered as part of an "elite" intellectually and economically but not socially or culturally. Thus, they could be categorized as part of the elite in some contexts (e.g. as part of public library boards) and sometimes not. Any advice on how to handle these difficult matters would be gratefully appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See above on Rose, and also the interpolation I made to the article itself, that he describes the Dissenters as "prominent among" "an inner elite of magnates" (70). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rose's own article does not particularly emphasize class until the end - that is what is so odd. The evidence he provides can be used to argue several different theses (and is used by others to do so). Since so many Dissenters were attacked and responded as a group to the riots, which is acknowledged in all of the scholarship, we must try to explain that to the reader.
    Of course, again, the sources may be inconsistent. But it would be worth commenting on that fact, rather than reproducing it.
    Hope this helps. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Confusing stuff, history! Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially the 1790s - why do I even bother?! Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Because that's what makes it interesting? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments in edit history:

    • do we have the name of the hotel?
    I've just noticed that, confusingly, Rose gives the hotel either two or three names: the Birmingham Hotel (72); the Hotel on Temple Row (72, but surely that's not its name, then?); and the Royal Hotel (81). Rose also capitalizes "Hotel" in all other instances, which I find odd. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have had a reason for using one over the others - perhaps it was in another source. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all of the other sources. I'll check the ones I do have. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the primary sources refer to it as "the Hotel" or "the Hotel in Temple-Row". Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there should be something on class issues and/or a divided elite in the lead, in that this is apparently important in the body of the article
    • this concluding paragraphs ignores the class issues earlier mentioned

    Thanks for the copy editing and helpful comments! I appreciate it! Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:03, 9 April 2008.

    Cyclone Elita

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because some people told me to do it. I wrote it, with some help by Miss Madeline, and I believe it's another great tropical cyclone article. I would dare you to prove me wrong, but chances are you would find some things that the article could be improved upon. So, I dare you to prove me wrong, so I know what else can be done to the article. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Well, it won't be me proving you wrong. Links work. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll try to find the time to do an in depth reading of the prose and such soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Very slight oppose I'll be happy to support when these pesky questions are answered, they are mainly things that just don't make sense to me at the moment.

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a non-n-dash i see in the title of the 2003-04 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season? (teasing mostly, by the way).
    • For the geographically challenged folks amongst us (i.e. most folks) you might say where Elita moved ashore on 31 Jan
    • Lead, first paragraph, the sentences starting "Elita weakened ... " You say it moved ashore, and then the next sentence says "The cyclone intensified again after reaching waters, ..." I got lost somewhere here. Did it make landfall three times? I suspect you'll have to give actual landmasses here for folks to understand what's going on. Also, the 'after reaching waters' seems to be missing something between reaching and waters, perhaps "open"?
    • Isn't it the Seychelles?
    • Storm history, first paragraph, second sentence. Not being a meterologist, what does "Located within an area of moderate wind shear, the convection persisted around a mid- to low-level circulation." mean? The second phrase is what's throwing me.
    • When did the Mozambique National Institute of Meteorology advise people to prepare for the storm?
    All in all a very nice article. My main concerns are probably linked to not being a cyclone fan, so I have a bit of a lack of context for all the details. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, not sure about the article title, but I hope that's not too much of a problem. I clarified the lede (yea, that was a bit confusing). I'll take your word for it that its the Seychelles. The wind shear reference is a bit hazy, so I'll just remove it. The link doesn't specify when the Mozambique National Institute of Meteorology advised people to prepare, as, unfortunately, the news story came several days after the storm affected the nation. Thanks for the look-through. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Our article on Seychelles doesn't ever say the in front. Better check with an MOS-maven on that one. It sounds better to me as the Seychelles, but that may not be correct. And I'm teasing about the dash in the title, not much you can do about it here except pipe the link which seems a bit extreme. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there's already been a discussion on whether to have "the" in the title or not on the Seychelles talk page, but they agreed not to. I think/hope I got the rest of your very slight objections. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Got them all. Switching to support now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worthy of featured quality at the moment, though I still have a few comments:
    • The Aftermath section a whole bunch of figures I find slightly overwhelming
    • It's made up of just 4 sections. The featured article criteria say:

    It follows the style guidelines, including:a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming

    --Phoenix-wiki 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cut down on some of the stats in the aftermath. Regarding the featured article criteria, having five individual sections (including see also and refs, or just 3 for content) should not be a problem. The content is evenly divided in the same way as most of the other featured tropical cyclone articles do. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah okay, it's a great article, I support making it an FA then...--Phoenix-wiki 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Had a good read through with an eye to copyediting. Not much needed doing, I rephrased a couple of sentences, fixed a spelling error. The prose is very good. The refs are from a variety of sources, all formatted consistently. Lots of nbsps everywhere. Images are all properly licensed. Very good job. Woody (talk) 22:51, 5 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:03, 9 April 2008.

    Nguyen Ngoc Tho

    edit

    An article about a person who served as the Prime Minister of South Vietnam for three months, under a military junta. It is quite short, since his previous career was as a figurehead, when he had little power. It was copyedited by Awadewit (talk · contribs) during the GA review, so it should be pretty solid as far as the English goes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Sources and link look good. No formatting errors that I could see. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, this will be good when someone fresh to it sifts through the prose. I picked up these random examples at the top.
      • My pet hate, "in order to", is in the lead. Why not just "to"?
      • "Tho was not allowed to take part in policy decisions and was once slapped on Nhu's orders." Huh? Bend over?
      • Logic problem in the "since": "Tho oversaw South Vietnam's failed agrarian land redistribution and reform policy, and was accused of a lack of vigour in implementing the program since he was a large landowner." At least explicate it.
      • "Tho was also noted for his faithful support of ..."—Haven't told us anything he was "noted" for already, so why "also"?
      • "... the French backed State of Vietnam under the puppet Emperor Bao Dai. Under the ..." Hyphen missing; "under" × 2. TONY (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I did all of these except the "bend over" because I don't know what you mean. He was actually slapped in the face by Nhu's bodyguard. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, cleaned that up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose—A few morsels have been fixed since my comment, but what about the rest? I provided only samples. There are obvious, messy glitches. **Take the second caption: "The brothers of Ngo Dinh Diem (pictured), had more power than Tho." There's only one person in the pic. Why the comma before "had"? Why is "pictured" in italics? Who are the brothers of Ngo Dinh Diem? Ahem ...
      • "Tho was charged with overseeing South Vietnam's land reform program, as the minister of agrarian reform, Nguyen Van Thoi, answered to him."—Is that "as" a "because"? If so, I'm unsure of the causality.
      • MOS breach: "... Tho paid tribute, saying "thanks to the Almighty for having given the country a leader whose genius was outweighed only by his virtue."[6] When a quote starts within a WP sentence, the final period comes after the closing quotes. Check throughout.
      • " Buddhists had claimed that it was the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (also known as Kuanyin) that had performed a miracle."—"that ... that is ungainly, and should the second one be "who"?
      • ... a "barbecue",[13], Tho refused to ...—messy punctuation.


    Comment on reviews above—Supports that say "great article, no problems here", and "The article looks good to me" are doing no service to the reputation of this process. Please engage critically with the text, which is clearly not well written. Demonstrate you've actually read the text, please. TONY (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not talking about Criterion 1a alone; reviewers are free to engage on the basis of any one or more of the criteria. I can't see that those reviewers have even read the article. It's just "votish"—a paper shoved in a ballot box—to write "great article", unless it really is great, or hard to find imperfections. That is plainly not the case here. We need more than that from our reviewers. TONY (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update Did a round of copyedit. hopefully we have made some progress. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "Nhu once ordered his bodyguard to slap Tho in the face." - should this appear in the lead...?
    • Is there any info about him before 1930?
    • "Following the withdrawal of France from Indochina following the Battle of Dien Bien Phu " - "following" repetition. Perhaps "Following the post-Battle of Dien Bien Phu withdrawl of France from Indochina" (doesn't sound great either, but yeah, see what you get...)
    • "Despite his the importance of his title," - rmv "his"
    • "because he felt teh vice president" - typo :)
    • "calling Tho "unimpressive"" - change "Tho" to "him" for a bit more variety
    • "The committee concluded that the Vietcong" - wlink VC here as it's the first time you mention it
    • "for the Hue incident" - rmv "Hue"; it's clear you're talking about it
    • "The body of Diem" (image caption) needs the word "dead" somewhere there (or something similar that has the same meaning)
    • "it took years of training were required to become a Catholic priest" --> "it took years of training to become a Catholic priest" OR "years of training were required to become a Catholic priest"
    • "In privately" --> "In private" (start of the Prime minister section)
    • "was also called in question" - in --> into
    • Just realised this at the end of the article...no infobox? Is this common?

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as the slap goes, it is quite an illustration that I think should be there. For pre-1930, Jones, the book which is the most detailed about the 1963-64 upheavals in VN (400 pages all on one year's events) only has that much about Tho, and 1963-64 was when he was acutally relevant. I've maxed out the info in those sources. This guy was pretty obscure and had little power, except for the three lawless months from Nov 63 to Jan 64. I've fixed all those typos and very obvious things that I should have noticed. Infoboxes aren't compulsory because there was no wikiproject convention to use them :) The only useful things that it would include are his DOB, date of office and religion, which are all in the lead already. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. OK, that's fine. I prefer infoboxes, but I won't hold you to it; I see your point. Good luck, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:39, 9 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:39, 6 April 2008.

    Hanford Site

    edit

    Self-nomination. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    All links checked out fine with the tool. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, - Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has already received thorough attention from two of the most detail-oriented editors I know. I just read it carefully, and am very impressed with the current version. I do have a few concerns:
      • A paragraph of the lead should be devoted to the current state and use of the site. The present lead almost suggests that nothing is done there at all anymore; the last sentence seems out of place without further detail. Specifically, the presence of the Columbia Generating Station and the inactive B-Reactor should be included in the lead, and maybe the Nat'l Monument.
        done, and quite nicely. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The reactor went critical in late September and, after overcoming nuclear poisoning, produced its first plutonium on November 6, 1944." To the non-technical reader, this reads as though it's a "bad thing," but I suspect this is actually what was intended. Can it be in a more reader-friendly way?
        done Seems I wasn't quite right, but this could benefit from someone more familiar with the technology. Not enough to hold back from FA. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This strikes me as a particularly notable sentence, perhaps worthy of a quote box: "Until news arrived of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, fewer than one percent of Hanford's workers knew they were working on a nuclear weapons project."
        done -- if there's anything to be done here, it's certainly not required for FA. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Examples of the scale of the problem are:" I think this bullet list should be converted to prose, and needn't call itself out as "examples of the scale." If it's written right, the reader will grasp that it reflects the scale without prompting.
        done -- again, nice job. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the cleanup efforts are all, or mostly, administered under several Superfund programs. It seems to me that Superfund is a fairly well-known entity, and this should be spelled out in the cleanup section.
        done -- sounds like my understanding was inaccurate. It would be nice to have this stuff spelled out in a little more detail, but not necessary for FA. It's not "major facts and details", so does not violate the "comprehensivness" criterion. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The B-Reactor article has a proposed merge into this article. It would be good if a decision could be made on that before bringing this one to FA, in the interests of stability. (Probably not a huge concern if this does not get done, but it would be good.)
        done -- I'll watch this too, but agree that it will not likely impact this article. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -Pete (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the very helpful comments, Pete.
      • I expanded the last paragraph of the lead regarding current activities and added a link to the Columbia Generating Station. (B-Reactor is already in the first paragraph.)
      • As far as I understand it, the nuclear poisoning was indeed a "bad thing," so the non-technical reader is getting the right impression. This info was in the article before I came along, and I don't know enough about it to improve the wording, unfortunately. The wikilink to nuclear poison helps a little bit but not much. I agree this should be made more clear, but I'm not qualified to do it.
      • I'm not a big fan of quote boxes myself, but of course the article belongs to us all, so I say go for it if you like the idea.
      • I converted the bullets in the last section to prose.
      • I'm not an expert on this, but I think USDOE, not Superfund, pays for most of the Hanford cleanup. It's true that some of the cleanup efforts are funded and regulated under Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Ac, aka CERCLA). However, there are other regulatory acts in play, including the Resource Convervation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the WA state hazardous waste law. I believe Superfund pays for some of the EPA's activities, but most of the cleanup is managed by the US Department of Energy and funded under the USDOE budget. The largest cleanup challenge (treatment and storage of tank waste) is managed by the USDOE and overseen by the Washington Dept of Ecology under RCRA. In my view, representing Hanford as a "Superfund" site is inaccurate, as there are some pretty key differences between Hanford and other Superfund sites. EPA calls it a Superfund site in some documents, but it's more accurate to think of the cleanup as occuring under the "Tri-Party Agreement," which is a multi-agency, federal-state partnership, with the bulk of the money coming from USDOE.
      • I don't expect the B-reactor merge to go through, so I don't think it will affect stability, but I will post a comment about it and ask for more feedback before removing the merge tag.
    Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. All my concerns were met quickly and thoroughly. The specifics VanTucky noted should be addressed (though I don't know that the ~50 miles figure needs a citation), but I'm confident they will be. I'll do a little searching, but if Google doesn't have these figures I doubt I'll find them. Anyway -- great job! -Pete (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Overall it looks great, but I marked several sentences that contained exact figures and stats to be cited in Geography, Cold War expansion, and Plutonium production with {{fact}} tags. Please remedy these, and otherwise I'm in support. Thanks for your work so far, VanTucky 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a quick look at some of these fact tags, several of them have a citation one or two sentences later that covers the previous facts. Do you want a footnote after each sentence, or can one footnote cover several adjacent sentences?Northwesterner1 (talk)`
    I would generally say it's better to overcite. It does lead to a "cluttered" look, which is unfortunate, but with evolving articles, adjacent sentences often get split up. To ensure good sourcing going forward, better to attribute every controversial claim and every specific figure that is supported by a text. (On a not-terribly-related note, I'd like to get the formatting changed to eliminate the brackets caused by the ref tag. That would do wonders to reduce the cluttered look of heavily-cited articles.) -Pete (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Done. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was slow in responding. Pete is spot on. Anytime you make a specific claim of exact figures, statistics and measurements (other than the completely obvious) you should have an immediately following citation. Many times this means duplicating references, but it's important that readers see that these numbers are attributed to a specific source. Thanks for your work, VanTucky 19:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • Support for an excellently researched and written article. I have a couple of very minor suggestions/questions:
      • roughly equivalent to half the total area of Rhode Island. Should something go before roughly?
      • has been hired to construct the Vit Plant Is Vit Plant and accepted term, or are we being lazy?
      • bellwether trial to test Is it possible to find a link for bellwether? I had to look the meaning up.

    Well done. GrahamColmTalk 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In response, I wikilinked bellweather and replaced Vit Plant with vitrification plant. Good catches. Not sure about Rhode Island. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Overall, a very good article. Some issues I noticed:
    • The relevance of the see also link to Kennewick Man is not made clear within this article. If there is a significant connection, it should show up in the prose; if there isn't one, then there is no need for the see also link.
    • Comment: I think this gets it backwards. Items are not supposed to be included in the "see also" section or template if they are linked within the article. In this case, the reason is simple: there's a good deal more info on the extended human history of the region at the Kennewick Man article. If the reader's confused as to why it's there, all s/he has to do is click on the link, and the reason for the connection will become clear. I don't think the link is necessary for FA but I do think it improves the article, and I'd rather see it restored. -Pete (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first part of the "Manhattan Project" section refers to "The contract" being awarded to the Met Lab, but no prior mention of what contract it was referring to. "A contract" might be an acceptable replacement, or the earlier section about interest in plutonium could be reworded to reflect the government's role as a research contractor.
    • Unreferenced sentence at the end of the first paragraph in "Construction begins"
    • "Plutonium processing canyon": this term is introduced several paragraphs before it is explained.
    • From the final paragraph of "Plutonium production": the Trinity bomb was not "dropped".
    • The first sentence from "Scientific innovations" mentions the "compressed time frame of the Manhattan Project". Compressed relative to what?
    • That section is titled "Scientific innovations", but the innovations mentioned are technical innovations, rather than scientific in the traditional sense. This section, which deals with the design of the reactors and refinement process, would also make more sense before the "Plutonium production" section.
    • From "Decommissioning": "radioactivity to decay": Does radioactivity decay? I understand that, mathematically, the level of radioactivity decays as radioactive material undergoes the physical process of radioactive decay, but this phrase seems to conflate the two in this context.
    • That sections mentions historians advocating a B-reactor museum, but none of the people mentioned on the cited website ([37]) are identified as historians.
    • Second paragraph of "Cleanup era" is unreferenced.
    • Fourth paragraph of "Cleanup era" is repetitive with respective to "difficult problem" of dealing with high-level waste. The two sentences that mention it could probably be consolidated.

    --ragesoss (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the review. I've addressed most of these points with edits in the article, as noted below; where I disagree, I provide an explanation.
    • In my view, Kennewick Man is not particularly important for this article to note, and I've removed the see also link.
    • I've clarified the contract reference by reversing the order of two sentences and adding the qualifier "research contract."
    • I've added a footnote to the first sentence of the Construction begins section.
    • I believe "plutonium processing canyon" as it first appears in the Construction begins section is sufficiently clear. The reader understands that three very large plutonium-processing facilities were built. That's all the reader really needs to know in a section about site construction. To provide a full explanation at this point would disrupt the narrative and would introduce other problems. The term is explained in more detail in the next section Plutonium production, where we learn what actually happens in the canyons. The alternative is to say something in the first instance like "plutonium-processing buildings," "plutonium-processing facilities," or "chemical separation plants," but I prefer the more precise term and don't believe it places an undue burden on the reader.
    • I've changed the "bomb dropped" wording to "bomb detonated over."
    • I'm not sure how to address your concern about the "compressed time frame" language. All the alternatives I can think of, "short time frame," "accelerated time frame," etc., raise the same question: Short relative to what? I believe the meaning is clear from the context--compressed relative to the time frame that would normally be used for a massive engineering project on this scale--but I welcome specific ideas for fixing this sentence.
    • I've changed "scientific innovations" to "technological innovations." I have left the section where it is, below Plutonium production, as in fact several of the innovations listed here occured after the nuclear facilities were operational and plutonium was first produced. In the early years of the site, the construction, production, and technology were all mixed up; they figured things out as they went along. Sometimes the technology was in place before the production, sometimes in the middle, sometimes afterward. I think this section works best where it is.
    • I've changed "radioactivity to decay" to "radioactive materials to decay." Good catch.
    • I've added a second footnote to the B Reactor museum sentence that references specific historians involved in the effort.
    • I've added a footnote to the second paragraph of Cleanup era.
    • I've consolidated the repetitive sentences you noted in the fourth paragraph of Cleanup era.
    Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great! Regarding compressed vs. short vs. accelerated time frame, I think short is the best option. The other two are action words that imply a previous uncompressed or unaccelerated state. I don't think it's fair to assume anything about the 'normal' time frame for a project like this, since the scale of coordinated effort in the Manhattan Project was unprecedented. Support. [note: that !vote was from ragesoss. -Pete (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]

    Support—good stuff indeed.

    Thanks for the support. The radioactive waste is mixed solid and liquid waste. I've seen it quoted in scientific articles as cubic metres, and I assumed that was because of the solid component, although it may also be quoted sometimes in litres. I've always seen the US measurement quoted as gallons. I'm American, and unfortunately I'm a bit ignorant on the finer points of the metric system. I'll defer to others. I share your concern about "Construction begins," but it was the best I could come up with. "Construction" doesn't work because the site facilities were built over so many years (and in fact the vitrification plant is a big construction project today). The nuclear reactors themselves were built over a period of decades. Only the first three were built in the WWII period discussed in that section. I thought about "Early construction" but decided in the end that "Construction begins" was the best. I'm open to changes.Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: numerous little glitches that need attention before promotion, see my edit summaries, and I removed an external jump from the text that apparently no one caught. I found several errors in the citations and missing publishers; all sources need publishers. Also, pls review Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists for punctuation on bullet lists (they may be correct, I'm not certain). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking it over. I will double-check the publishers as well as the punctuation for bullet lists. However, I would like to restore the external jump you moved. WP:EL says, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." The link was in a photo caption, which is not the body of the article. It's rather more like an infobox. Further, WP:EL is a style guideline that should be treated with the occasional exception. Linking to a virtual tour in the caption with the map is extremely useful, much more so than providing a link in the external links section. As the link is within parens and within the caption box, it is clearly set aside as peripheral material and does not interfere with the flow of the body of the article. You assume that apparently no other editors caught it, but it's very possible they saw it and liked it. Please reconsider. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see Pete's beat me to it on the ref formatting. Thanks, Pete! Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I disagree with external links in these situations, but I won't object or hold up the FAC if you reinstate it (yes, it's only a guideline). Please do finish reviewing the citations, and check whether the bulleted lists are punctuated correctly (I'm not certain). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewing the links, it looks like most of the "missing publisher" problems are just inconsistent formatting: using the "last" field instead of "publisher" in {{cite web}}, for instance. Potential larger issues with refs. 22, 30, and 53. Any others I should be looking at closely? -Pete (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I did check WP:MOS, and made a couple tweaks to the two bullet lists to bring their punctuation into compliance. -Pete (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also 37; problem is, when you see that many on a spotcheck, you may need to run through all of them. I think the bullet lists are OK now, but I find the MoS wording a bit unclear, so will leave it to you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'm confused on that one. Seems clear to me that the City of Richland is the publisher, the formatting may be incorrect but I think all the information is there. What deeper problem do you see with ref. 37? -Pete (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I can confirm NWer's theory in my case…I noticed that unusual EL a long time ago, and thought it was appropriate in this case. Still think so. This article has had a lot of eyes on it since that was added, so I think it's safe to leave it that way. -Pete (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <outdent>The NRHP dead link looks like a temporary server problem rather than a problem with this particular link. I've tried to log on just now from other articles with NRHP links, and they don't work either. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thought so, but I can't resolve the contradiction in the date (was it 1992 or 1996)? And the source needs a lastaccessdate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's back online now, so I'll try to check the specifics and slap an accessdate on there. The page says that it frequently gets overloaded, and an upgrade is planned. Anyway -- am I correct in saying that attention to refs. 16 and 38 for this issue, and 22, 30, and 53 for publisher issues, are what remain of you concerns, SG? Anything else? -Pete (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, I got on, checked the date, 1992, and it's correct. I added the access date while I was doing that. The source does not seem to confirm the "NRHP site 92000245" part of the citation, or I'm just not seeing it. Did that come from elsewhere? Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The number's not without basis, it refers to the site at the apparently independent site [38]. I'd say it stands to reason that number originates with the NHRP program, though I can't prove it. (Hard to imagine an independent organization implementing an extensive system of unique identifiers on its own.) -Pete (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's everything, although we edit conflicted a few times, so I hope we didn't get anything crossed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, everyone, for the help. I will go back through the changes and try to see if anything went buggy due to edit conflicts. I will also add the page Pete found as a second citation for the NRHP footnotes. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pete is right about the number. When I finally clicked on "State and Name with Database Details" at the NRHP site, it returned the number, which is 92000245. It's necessary to do two searches to find all of the details in the citation, but I think that's OK. Finetooth (talk) 19:36, 6 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:39, 6 April 2008.

    Nahuatl

    edit

    Self-nominator: User:Maunus I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has recently passed peerreview and GA nomination and several reviewers expressed that it was ready for the FA process. Also because I will be fully available to adress reviewers concerns within the next 4 days. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: to my reading this is an outstanding article on the core dialect of an important and historic family of languages. I am very impressed with the way a great deal of content is provided — informing linguists, but in language a casual reader can follow. Solid, but relatively available, sources are provided. Personally, I think this entry already stands as an example of the best we are looking to achieve at Wiki. I'm keen to see the FAC process push the boundary further, if possible, with a willing and capable editor (Maunus) standing by. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd like to request that you put a sample passage and translation into the article, though I don't believe this is required for the FAC to pass. HansHermans (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. It had been on my to do list for awhile. I hope it is to your liking.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm going to support this article's nomination, but I have some preliminary questions and suggestions:
      • MoS √: One thing that usually catches my attention is punctuation before citations. Since the article mostly follows that style, it should be consistent. I fixed those I found. Some of the citations don't have page numbers, is that on purpose?
      • Examples √: I noticed that the examples in the Grammar section are from Classical Nahuatl, which you contrast with the modern spoken varieties. Would be nice to get an idea of what's going on with spoken Nahuatl today with examples. Also the part about oligosynthesis could use a citation.
      • Syntax √: There is little information under that section besides word order. I suggest renaming the "Syntax" heading to "Word order" unless you're planning to write more about syntax. You already cover some morphosyntax under Nouns and Verbs. The information on word order is also somewhat confusing in that I came out with the impression that the language can have a free word order, or is SVO, or VSO/VOS. Does this vary by language/dialect, or is there one pattern that is more common than others? The information about "omnipredicativity" could use elaboration, perhaps illustrating with an example from the language.
      • Phonology √ : Probably needs an overview of the most common phonological processes. You might want to consider separating vowels and consonants into subsections and briefly explain some sounds that stick out, including allophony. A vowel chart would be a nice visual addition.
      • I don't remember seeing something, but I suggest announcing the nomination on WP:Lang. Someone could probably help create a png image of the vowel chart.

    Excellent work. — Zerida ☥ 05:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, those are all very good suggestions. I will not be able to apply them during the weekend, but monday and tuesday I will get to work on it. I have made citations to whole books or article when the entire topic of the book illustrates a particular statement, or to a page number when referring to specific statements or passages in a work. Can you be more precise in what you mean with "get an idea of whats going on with the spoken nahuatl today" - I have tried to make such differences clear, especially in the phonology section, particularly since the differences in grammar is an enormously complex topic. (Although I do mention some differences and present one example from a modern dialect with a novel grammatical category)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If we make a .png-version vowel chart we need a published chart to base it on. Without one, it would be a pure guesstimate.
    Peter Isotalo 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, a vowel chart would not be maximally useful since we are dealing with a group of languages and not a single language. The precise realisation of vowels in classical nahuatl we cannot know, and it differs widely in all of the modern dialects. We have to stick to very general phonology and leave phonetics for the articles that deal with the specific varieties (e.g. Tetelcingo Nahuatl). ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I agree it wouldn't be very useful. Thanks for clarifying that; I have struck out comments/questions that have been addressed. It sounds to me like Nahuatl is in a situation similar to that of the Berber languages. From reading the article, I didn't get the sense that there was one particular modern variety that was more standard, or more socially elevated than others. BTW, to answer your question, I think the Grammar section should contain more examples from the modern spoken varieties. Right now there is one from Isthmus-Mecayapan Nahuat. I didn't mean that you should write extensive comparative linguistics; only to add a few more examples from at least one of the documented spoken languages since we already have an article on Classical Nahuatl grammar. If you plan on expanding Syntax, perhaps you could use more modern examples there. — Zerida ☥ 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, I will do that.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded the section on syntax. I have also added a section describing the many changes introduced in modern nahuatl varieties by contact with Spanish - this also constitutes a large part of the literature so it was a needed section, it has several examples from modern varieties. I stroke the oligosynthesis paragraph - whorfs claims were never published and only exist in a microfilmed manuscript in the library of Chicago -The idea never had any impact whatsoever, I don't think it is notable. I am still thinking about what to do with the phonology section.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The section is looking better and more informative. Again crossed off points now addressed. With regard to omnipredicativity, the idea that a noun a can function as a full predicative sentence is interesting and unusual--I think a sentence where e.g. an NP carries verbal affixes, or some other way, would help others appreciate this concept better. Looking forward to seeing what you decide to do with phonology. — Zerida ☥ 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given the phonology section a go and I am fairly content with it. I haven't divided the a sections into separate sections on consonants and vowels - I don't think theres enough material to warrant it: nahuatl has a quite small phoneme inventory and almost no major phonological complexities (except for phenomena in modern dialects which are beyond the scope here). The section on omnipredicativity I don't know how well turned out - I would need you to tell me if its intelligible. The thing is that it is actually extremely complex and shouldn't take too much space in the already long article. If it is intelligible and informative as it is that is good, if not we'll have to work on it a bit more.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing examples regarding omnipredicativity What an interesting and unusual language. I suggest setting these examples off the main text like you do with your other examples. The phonology section requires a little bit of copyediting, and I think you forgot your citations (an FA criterion). I'm unclear as to why the process /j/ → [ʃ] is an example of devoicing--it sounds like there's more going on here than simple change in voice quality. Also, please note that aspiration usually has a more specific meaning in references in English; i.e. a type of secondary articulation. Is this based on a source? If not, I suggest sticking to lenition for this process as well, assuming the consonants in question become [h] based on your description. Please avoid statements that could potentially be interpreted as weasel words; e.g., "in certain kinds of syllables..." without being more specific. An FA is not a work in progress, so statements like these are subject to more scrutiny (though no need to feel rushed; FA reviews can take time). — Zerida ☥ 04:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided references for the pghonology section. I have provided a specific reference for the devoicing of /j/ to [ʃ] - which is the way it is described in most grammars (because the allophone occurs in all voiceless environments). I have often in english texts seen an /h/ sound with little or no friction described as "aspiration". I don't see how "certain kinds of syllables" could be seen as weasel words - there is simply no way I can be more specific - the kinds of syllables that are affected can vary from dialect to dialect - the only thing that is general is that only some syllables are lost and that which are lost is governed by some phonological rules. I don't see how i can be more specific here, or why I need to - if you have a better wording in mind I urge you to put it in. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment re Weasling. Most weasles are negative qualifiers, not all negative qualifiers are weasles. I think there are two issues with weasles. They are a problem when used to inject POV by undermining assertions of a contrary opinion. They are also a problem when used to disguise lack of research.
    • POV weasle: The US Defense Department claimed alleged progress in the "war on terror" in a recent press release.
    • Fudging weasle: Some studies on climate change suggest man-made factors increasingly stand out against known background cycles and random factors. [only two direct studies cited and no meta studies]
    I expect there are other species of weasle and we should be ever vigilant to ensure their extinction.
    In the current case, I think this is a fine example of a valid searching challenge from Zerida, and a humble not guilty adequately explained by Maunus. Congratulations to both. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I think the article is comprehensive and the prose is excellent. I learned quite a bit about Nahuatl, and now hope to see an article on Nahuatl phonology on Wikipedia. I edited out the part about aspiration, which seemed a bit iffy to me in the absence of a citation, but it's not necessary to specify a name for this process. I hope this is OK. As these are minor details, and the article meets FA critera, I feel comfortable enough to support. — Zerida ☥ 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: just noting a few misc. and minor points that could be tweaked, while the FA review is just getting underway in earnest:
      • Lead section: "...dialect spoken by the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan becoming a prestige language throughout Mesoamerica in this period." Does "throughout Mesoamerica" need to be qualified here?
      • History section: it's initially stated that proto-Nahuatl speakers came into Mesoam. "around AD 500", but in the next para the Pochutec are placed in coastal Oaxaca "possibly as early as AD 400." Not necessarily incompatible approximations I s'pose, but maybe cld be tweaked so it doesn't sound contradictory.
      • Next sentence: "...Nahuan speakers quickly rose to power in central Mexico." The phrase "rose to power" prob. implies some sort of actual hegemony, but I'm not sure that (most of) the sources on this period (ca. 7thC) are really stating this. Perhaps reword?
      • While on this topic of the early-mid Classic period discussed in this section, it might be appropriate to have a sentence or two on Teotihuacan. I realise history is not the main focus of the article, but I think the unresolved Q. as to Teo's linguistic affiliations is an important-enough topic to be mentioned, if we are trying to set the scene for Nahuatl's presence and spread in this region. In note #15 the reference to the hypothesis (eg Dakin & Wichmann's) of Nahuatl in Teo is a veiled one. Without going too much into it, it could be useful to at least note more explicitly. What do you think?
      • Geog. dist. section: Citation for the statement that Pochutec died out in the 1930s is given as Boaz (1917). Seems to be a mismatch in the dates here, pls check.
    Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, on all accounts CJLLW. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now adressed your concerns CJJLW. I hope it is better.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://www.public.iastate.edu/errors/inactive.html gives me a page error
        dead external link now removed- it wasn't that important
      • Current ref 20 (See Jackson (2000) has a bald link at the very end. You should format it with the name of the site at least.
        Link now converted to bona fide citation/reference, also converted/formatted one more ext link in a footnote (I think that's all of 'em).
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates
    That guideline might be a reasonable sentiment, however the "cite x" family of templates are not entirely consistent within themselves, at present. In particular, {{cite news}} formats the publ. date to the end of the citation, instead of immediately following the author. In any case {{citation}} is not used in the bibliography section where I think formatting consistency would be important. It's used only once or twice in the footnotes. I think, this should not be a show-stopper?
    • I'm not opposing at all (I honestly don't know enough about languages to review an article on them). I've just been told that mixing the two can at times lead to odd errors. I've never seen them, but Sandy said something about it once. It's an advisory note (grins), nothing more. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments, have addressed these in the article and in replies to the points above; pls re-review. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportComment The article needs more copyediting, and the History section begs for maps showing a birds-eye view of the distribution of languages or dialects at major time points. Many people reading this article will need to consult a map to follow the text. --Una Smith (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the map which I had removed at an earlier point with the intention to reinsert it later (I then forgot about it).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead mentions "Central Mexico"; where exactly is that? --Una Smith (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    it is a not uncommon way to describe the area containing Valley of Mexico and the surrounding valleys. (mexico being originally only the name of Mexico city)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Out of four editors who have had suggestions for improvement three four are now supporting - the fourth (HansHermans) has not been back, in fact his comment here is his most recent edit (I have placed this message on his user page). CJJLW is probably reluctant to support or fails the article since he is another major contributor to it. AlastairHaines did not have any comments except praise (he may also feel that as a peerreviewer he shouldn refrain from supporting, I don't know).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: there are a lot of little fixes needed still, see my edit summaries. It may help to ask User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check. There's a faulty dash in the infobox that I can't locate; I asked Gimmetrow to have a look. There is a lot going on visually in this article, with about six different font faces in use (the normal one, bolding, italics, something different in sources and then two more at Nahuatl#Sample_text); are that many different font styles necessary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dash fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All fonts and formatting used in the article is present in other language FA's.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that the fact that other articles have done it is a good reason for having six different fontfaces in an article, which is visually distracting and may not be good page design, but MoS doesn't seem to deal with this. Page numbers are handled inconsistently (example, ^ Lockhart (1992), pp. 327–329 and ^ Lockhart (1992), pp.330–335), I came across some WP:DASH and WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, and there are some missing language icons; these things won't prevent promotion, but should be cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 6 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 15:47, 5 April 2008.

    Emperor Penguin

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets criteria. It is comprehensive, all images are properly licenced, references formatted and the prose has been looked at by a few other editors. Fire away and I'll attempt to address concerns. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The Williams reference is inconsistently formatted. You use "Williams p. 13" once and othertimes you use "Williams (The Penguins) p. 3". (oops. fixed)
      Otherwise, the link checker tool said that the Photographs site had connection issues, but I connected fine to it. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured it was an oversight (grins). There, struck! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I gave the article a copyedit before the FAC and believe that all the issues I had have been addressed. It's a good article that is comprehensive and well-written. Good job, Casliber. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I made some minor edits as well as referencing and correcting some material earlier. I have a comment though - He found the species had reached depths of 265 m (869 ft). He also noted a maximum dive period of 18 minutes.[32] Later research revealed a small female had dived to a depth of 535 m (1,755 ft) - While there is something human about being impressed by records, ecologically speaking it is informative to know that average depth dived. In most instances even though they can, once or twice, get down to x, most of them usually feed at y. One depth is mentioned later on, but averages should be posted along with maximum depths. Otherwise grand stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Good point. I have put something in on average dives) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral support I did the GA review, so I have a potential COI. Suffice it to say that the article is much improved, and RCS has done a good job picking up odd bits and pieces. I commend this article. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment A few minor points before I support:
      • Ridgen's Penguin (A. ridgeni) is an extinct species of the Late Pliocene... - do we care? This article is about the Emperor Penguin. You need to tie this in to the more general discussion of Aptenodytes' place in the evolutionary timeline.
        tweaked the fossil bit -Personally I think it is relevant as due to its relatedness and age, I reworded it to flow better from previous. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The raising and exposing the undersides of its flippers increases its body surface... - do you mean raising its flippers or raising the underside of its flippers. How does exposing something increase body surface? Do you mean it increases the body surface exposed to the air?
        I mean raising the flippers and exposing the undersides --> increases surface area and heat loss. I will look to clarify
        I still found this a little unclear, so I've reworded it. Please change it if it is wrong. Yomanganitalk 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        that's fine now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Victoria Land with 21,708 pairs - quick, one pair is leaving, change the total...no...wait...they are coming back...no...leaving. A little too precise, don't you think?
        Yeah, tricky this one. I am presuming that particular population had a comprehensive census done at the time, and that differing levels of accuracy relate to different levels of study of them all around the antarctic. Given that MOS prefers precise over vague, I think I will leave as is until further info arises. I haven't got a date for it unfortunately, nor do I feel comfortable rounding either up or down as populations can grow or shrink.
        I'm sure the MOS will forgive a "more than 21,000" or "around 21,000—22,000"; the current level of precision for a survey for which we don't know the date or details strikes me as a little ridiculous. Yomanganitalk 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay okay....duly approximated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Emperor Penguin searches for prey in the open water of the Southern Ocean or in ice-free areas of open water one is a subset of the other at the moment.
        changed to "The Emperor Penguin searches for prey in the open water of the Southern Ocean, either in ice-free areas of open water or tidal cracks in pack ice." which explains it better.
      • The primary aquatic mammal predators... - does that mean there are aquatic non-mammalian predators that you haven't told us about?
        Nope - changed to emphasises they are both mammalian as a statement then colon then listed 'em.
      • Before copulation, one bird bows deeply to its mate, its bill pointed close to the ground, and its mate then does the same - I added the "then" in there, otherwise we could have "the pair bow to each other, their bills pointed close to the ground" which would be better if that is the case.
      • The caption: The egg of the Emperor Penguin. It is 12x8cm and vaguely pear-shaped disagrees with the text. Is it pear-shaped or vaguely pear-shaped (vaguely as far as I'm concerned) and the formatting of the dimensions is different.
      Depends on how strictly or loosely one interprets the term 'pear-shaped', but anyway I put all mine in one basket.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The male incubates the egg in his brood pouch - brood pouch? Might be worth mentioning that in the Description section as its not a common feature (I don't think I have one. Sob.).
        I am baffled by this too - there is absolutely nothing in any description about a pouch or patch as such, and the egg (or chick) is balanced on the parents' feet. I can only presume it means cosily enveloped in folds of nice warm skin but it doesn't specifically spell this out. I will keep looking though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • introduced predators (this is more relevant to the other species of penguin than it is the Emperor) - bit of a cop out. If it isn't relevant don't mention it, if it is then explain what those introduced predators are. Dogs? Yomanganitalk 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Many penguin species in NZ or subantarctic islands have been affected by mustelids, rats and Wekas introduced outside their normal range....actually as I write this I realise it needs rewroding or removing as it is somewhat tenuous in its relevancy....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: This is really close to done, a fine article.
      • I'm still confused about the period between hatching and fledging. The diagram says that the cycle of parents going back to the sea "repeats 6 more times" but the article text does not mention how many times the cycle repeats (is it always 6?). Actually the article text doesn't say that anything happens between the males' first return and the chicks huddling 45-50 day after hatching, so the story could be clarified.
        OK - I've not seen anything about 6 elsewhere but the parents alternate foraging and brooding from the chicks' hatching until some time in the créche period when both parents will go fetch food together.
      • Numbers about the size of huddles/crèches are contradictory. One section says the maximum is several hundred birds, another says several thousand. Or... is there a difference between a crèche and a huddle?
      • The IUCN says the population is 270,000–350,000 birds, which is quite different from the 400,000–450,000 figure given in the article. If there is disagreement over population estimates, this should be stated (preferably with reasons for the disagreement).
    and I've fixed the hyphens in refs. Jimfbleak (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The "cultural" section seems like very choppy writing indicative of a merged list of trivia. The first sentence is really awkward:
    Apsley Cherry-Garrard, the Antarctic explorer, said: "Take it all in all, I do not believe anybody on Earth has a worse time than an Emperor Penguin"., and the species' unique life cycle has made it a popular subject for documentaries.-Wafulz (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede the first sentence is awkward and have reworded it. However, the other references are highly notable and have a common theme which I am trying to highlight. I have rearranged more thematically to read less listily. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments a few minor points to be examined
      • The dorsal parts are black and are clearly defined -> avoid multiple "are" and prefer use of "delineated"
        (I pondered on delineated when I originally wrote it so am glad someone else likes it. done)
      • dive for up to 18 minutes to a depth of 535 m -> stay underwater for up to (time) and dive to a (depth) of
        done
      • an unusual haemoglobin [missing "structure"/modification ]
        done
      • has been found in late Pliocene deposits about three million years old in New Zealand -> fossil records from the late Pliocene (3 mya) in New Zealand
        done
      • Adaptation to cold/pressure - "Adaptations" refers to nouns - adaptation suggests action
        done
      • almost exclusively in the Antarctic between the 66º and 77º south latitudes - "exclusively" refers to the latitude range or Antarctica ?
        the latter numbers and latitude qualify the former. I'll think about whether it can be reworded but am happy as is.
      • this allows it to function with very low oxygen levels - it - refers to bird or the Haemoglobin molecules?
        the bird - done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later research revealed a small female had dived to a depth of 535 m -missing a "that"
        I feel it flows slightly better as is, and the 'that' would be optional. If you feel it really makes a difference you're welcome to add it
      • exerts pressure with both its upward and downward strokes while swimming - obtains "forward thrust" on both strokes - rather than pressure ?
        This is a tough one. It is obvious to me and I think most succinctly stated as is. Something like "Actively thrusts on both its upward and downward strokes..." could be ok. Not sure. I will run with consensus I guess.
      • Courtship and reproduction -> Breeding - there is information on chick feeding as well in this section :)
        Ahaa, hoisted by my own self-imposed WP:bird MOS petard...done
      • spending its time balanced on its parent's feet and sheltered by its pouch. - whose pouch ?

    Shyamal (talk) 14:40, 3 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 15:47, 5 April 2008.

    Augustine of Canterbury

    edit

    Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Probably the closest FAs to this subject for comparision are Asser and Gregory of Nazianzus, who both are close in time frame and both are religious figures. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fix 1a, please. I looked only at the lead, and found rather a lot to improve:
    • An idle "also".
    • "was converted"—remove "was"?
    • "and went on to convert numbers of the king's followers"—"numbers" is odd here. How many? Use a better word.
    • "and went to"—"and proceeded to"?
    • "and get them to"—persuade?
    • "native born priests"—something missing?
    • "after having arranged"—remove "after" (especially as there's another "after" to come).

    Can you find someone else who's unfamiliar with the text to sift through the whole article? TONY (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I, but had Mike Christie go through and copyedit it. I'll be glad to have anyone else do so also. I'll try to go through and cut more fluff out (I know its there, I write fluffily!) Thanks Tony. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Had another go at tweaking the prose, mainly cutting (although I did find a citation for the missing fact so that's out of there now) To be fair, Mike didn't do much with the lead, but I welcome other comments and concerns. I took care of most of the above (Except the proceeded to which had already left the article, at least I couldn't find an occurance of the word there.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Camments:
    Firstly, needs a paragraph or section on sources. Mike Christie will be aware of the full details of why I think this is needed on these articles, but for instance, in this article, there are two clear and distinct sources of info. Gregory's letters and Bede's history (which partially uses these letters). Bede is for instance a virulent Britonophobe and monastic supremicist, two things which have significant impacts on the parts of his narrative this article is most reliant upon. It's obviously too late for this now, and hasn't been established as an FA criterion, de iure or de facto.
    I'll try to work a short section in. I have Goffart, and will mine him for some stuff. Also picked up Clancy's From Memory to Written Word, which I havent' had time to really read yet. It may have something. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably better you don't spend too much time doing that at this stage ... might take a while to get right, and so safer to leave it perhaps. Don't worry about it for this, I'm just gonna add such a comment on all FAC's of this type I comment for the time being. Maybe in the future I'll use it as a reason to oppose, but like I said hasn't been established as an FA criterion, de iure or de facto. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, there is inconsistant application of UK v US spelling systems, e.g. behaviour and baptised, but organize, recognize, etc
    Working on this, which is complicated by the fact that I'm a Yank. (This is going to make all those English bishops I'm working on SOOO much fun!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Brits are flexible enough to allow -ize or -ise, but I suppose the use should be consistent. Yomanganitalk 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Augustine was prior of Gregory's monastery in Rome when in ...
    Perhaps there should be more specificness about which monastery this is here.
    I've tried to keep the lead down to a managable size, do you think it's really necessary detail to include the name of the monastery in the lead? I think I already caught the important part, that it was Gregory's own monastery. The name is given in the body of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the monastery should be named. I understand though you have a variety of concerns to juggle, many of which contradict each other. Such is the FA process! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Celtic Christianity was based around monasteries instead of bishoprics.
    Celtic Christianity is quite a controversial term. Most Celticists wouldn't use it. If the church of the Celtic world had any unifying features, it was probably the role of Britannia as the source of Christianity. Monastic v bishop wise, that is also a little controversial. There has been some revisionism regarding the monasticization of Irish Christianity in recent works .... arguing this was a recent development around the time of Augustine rather than an ancient one. Ireland, Scotland and the more highland parts of England and Wales were not part of the Roman Empire and hence had no ancient bishoprics ... but it is clear that bishops were very important in the British/Brythonic territories, perhaps just as important as elsewhere in the old Roman Empire. Now references to this whole discussion aren't necessary here, just maybe ease up in the use of such terms. :) As far as I can tell, the Irish church has nothing to do with Augustine or any of these events, so why not just use the uncontroversial "British Church" whenever you feel you're about to say "Celtic Church"?
    Will change it over. It's a sound criticism, but wasn't sure what the current fad of the moment was on the naming of the "native church". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is mentioned in the sources on why Pope Gregory chose a monk to head the mission. Pope Gregory once wrote to Æthelberht complimenting Augustine's knowledge of Scripture, so Augustine was evidently well educated. Other qualifications included administrative ability, for Gregory was the abbot of St Anthony as well as being pope, which left the day to day running of the abbey to Augustine, the prior.
    Just F(Y)I, Gregory was a monk and probably had contempt for the spirituality of less fundamentalist Christian service people, such as priests. This was a real age of monasticism. Bede, you can tell from many of his side comments, shares Gregory's probable prejudices.
    I can try to fit that in, if you'd like and you have a source for it. Nothing I have (besides Bede which I'm trying to avoid using too much because he's primary) says that much about Gregory, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No biggie. This would come in source analysis, but as above that probably should be left. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, by 601, Gregory was writing to both Æthelberht and Bertha, calling the king his son and referring to the grace the king had received. The grace the pope was referring to would have been the grace of baptism.
    You probably don't need "also" here. Perhaps it is sufficient to say Gregory referred to his baptism, rather than "waste a sentence" discussing "grace", which is a technical term most people won't understand the meaning of or would find confusing. "His son" maybe should be in quote-marks, and I would suggest if possible document quotation might be appropriate here.
    Good suggestion, we've struggled with this concept. My main concern is that Gregory doesn't outright say he was baptized, or at least according to the source I'm using here. The exact quote that Brooks (the source) uses from the letter is "to preserve the grace he had recieved." Maybe I should just quote that, something like "By 601, Gregory was writing to AEthelberht, calling the king his son and telling him to "preserve the grace he had received".(ref goes here) While Gregory doesn't explicitly mention baptism, grace in this context is a theological term that usually means the grace of baptism."? That work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would use "referring to his baptism" and put the quote in the footnote, with the explanation (which should not be controversial). Be clear when possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Took a swing at this. Let me know if this was what you had in mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The last sentence of paragraph 4 in the Arrival and first efforts needs reworked a little for length. In para 5, there are two "however"s, which I'm sure some reviewers would disapprove of.
    Reworded both. Let me know if the new wording works for you?
    In 604, Augustine founded two more episcopates in England.
    Prolly change episcopate to bishopric; I at least tend to encounter this term meaning "episcopal reign" rather than "episcopal see". I have done this.
    I tend to overuse the word bishopric because of my subject matter. Episcopates was probably an attempt to vary wording a bit. Fine with the change though. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Additional work" section the word "recovered" is used. This is an English translation, so you should probably name the Latin word in question.
    Would if I had it. Unfortunately, I don't own the Latin original of Bede (I really didn't ever intend to study this early of a period. Bede's useless for Anglo-Norman studies, it's pure chance I kept my Penguin edition of Bede all these years). Be happy to have you supply it! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A Latin version is online here. The ref used is not specific enough to help me find it. I assume this word occurs in i.25 or i. 26, but this is not enough to be sure what word another person is thinking of even if I had a clue. (This is more reason btw for the Latin word to be there, and/or a ref. :) ). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking at my translation of Bede, it is in chapter 33, the first sentence. The Latin (in all it's Bedeish glory) is "AT Augustinus, ubi in regia ciuitate sedem episcopalem, ut praediximus, accepit, recuperauit in ea, regio fultus adminiculo, ecclesiam, quam inibi antiquo Romanorum fidelium opere factam fuisse didicerat, et eam in nomine sancti Saluatoris Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi sacrauit, atque ibidem sibi habitationem statuit et cunctis successoribus suis." which, I believe means the word we're looking for is recuperauit, if my very rusty Latin is correct. The translation Sherley-Price gives is "Having been granted his episcopal see in the royal capital, as already recorded, Augustine proceeded with the king's help to repair a church which he was informed had been built long ago by Roman Christians." This site from Notre Dame gives possible meanings of recover. I'll work this into a footnote somehow. Thanks for the Latin! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an attempt at this, look it over and tell me if this is acceptable? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The last paragraph has some rather awkward wordings that caused me some trouble following the meaning. E.g. summoned the British bishops to meet with Augustine in 603, and Augustine met with them twice. The first time the bishops asked to confer with their people before returning. During the first meeting, yeah? Both meetings in 603? Bede says this disrespect caused the bishops refusal to recognize Augustine as archbishop. Presumably refusal is refused. I've attempted a reworking of this. Revert me if you disapprove.
    Looks good to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Augustine is claimed as the founder of The King's School, Canterbury, which would make it the world's oldest school; but the first documentary records of the school date from the 16th century Made me smile. :)
    Yeah, that one came in from someone else, and I managed to source it to the school's website, but (as you can tell) I take it with a rather large grain of salt. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    exact contents of these books is unknown
    Verb and noun number are not in line.
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the death and legacy section, is Augustine really that important? I guess you can easily find sources saying he is, but in fairness he may just be seen as the pawn of the Pope, the Franks and the King of Kent. No biggie though.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think of Augustine as a symbol as much as anything. He certainly occupies enough space in Bede. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The Deacon's comments on sources have come up before, as he says; I think he's advocating something stronger than I feel is necessary, but I'll support his suggestion that a little more clarification on what the primary sources are would be helpful. On spelling, I'd suggest standardizing to British spelling, because of the subject; I have spent too much time on both sides of the Atlantic to be a reliable help here. I like Deacon's suggestion to use "British Church". However, none of these prevent me from supporting; I did a review on the talk page and Ealdgyth has fixed everything I found there. I think this is FA-quality as it stands. Mike Christie (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have access (yet) to the article. My local college library limits their JSTOR access to EHR and the like. Speculum isn't among the ones they subscribe to. The University of Illinois library probably has the full access, and they are an hour away, but I've been swamped this winter with RL work, as well as the weather is crappy for the drive, so I haven't made it there yet. I have this HUGE stack of articles to get while I'm there, and I'm sure the Wood article is in it, but I'd greatly appreciate a copy. My email is set up. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the article. I've incorporated bits and pieces into the article. It mainly reinforced data already there, but did add a bit more on why the Frankish kingdoms would have helped the mission, and a bit more about the date of AEthelberht's conversion. Now hopefully i haven't broken anything serious in it...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments. I have no specialist knowledge of the subject matter, so my comments are mainly quibbles about style, etc.

    • Lead
      • Para. 1 Although is misspelt.
    Fixed
      • Para. 2 “Gregory sent more missionaries in 601, along with letters encouraging the missionaries and gifts…” Repetition of “missionaries” is awkward, and punctuation suspect.
    Reworded, hopefully this is better
    Yes, better
    • Background to the mission
      • Sentence beginning “Other distinguishing characteristics…” doesn’t feel quite right. Could do with an “Its” at the beginning? And were they the only ones who calculated an Easter date, or did they just do it differently?
    Reworded, let me know if this is clearer? (They just calculated it differently. They were a lot like Wikipedia, the various churches got all worked up over how you calculated Easter, it was a big deal. And the haircut.)
    Yes, clearer
      • Last sentence of first para seems independent of time. I assume you’re talking about the period between the Anglo-Saxon invasion and Augustine’s arrival, but it needs to be clearer.
    Reworded, let me know if this works better. It let me work in the bit about place names though, so I'm happy!
    Yes, better
      • We say River Humber. I’ve no problems with American spelling or turns of phrase in articles written by Americans, but place names should have their normal British form. If I were writing an article about New York I’d say Hudson River, not River Hudson.
    Fixed. It was to a disamb page anyway, so two fixes in one!
      • Does Scripture need a capital S in last para? (If so you could link it to a [fairly worthless] article)
    Was a chicken and changed it to Bible, which I'm pretty sure should be capitalized.
    And should be linked (unless someone finds a lost Jane Austen novel called "Bible")
    Linked it, but if Tony yelps about overlinking, I'm siccing him on you. (grins)
    • Arrival
      • Last sentence of 1st para: “..there is no reason to doubt this date but there is no other evidence for it” Isn’t the lack of any evidence a reason for doubt?
    This gets to the problem of survival of sources. The chronicler who recorded it might have been working from a earlier manuscript that hasn't survived to this day. Or from a letter/etc that didn't survive. Because somewhere someone has probably uncritically taken the date given by Thomas of Elmham as truth, it needs to be stated that some medieval chronicler gave a date but point out that there is no other earlier evidence to support or oppose it. Did that make sense? (Must be nice to work in modern history, where everything is so well documented!)
    Just change but to "although", and it's fixed.
      • Last sentence of 3rd paragraph seems negative, not related to the narrative, and interrupts the flow. You haven’t previously referred to assertions that there might have been attempts at conversion of the pagans.
    This stupid sentence has given me more trouble... anyway, moved it up to the background section, where it (now) seems to fit better.
    Yes, OK now
    • Additional work
      • “…had come to Britain in with the 601 mission..” Isn’t the “in” superfluous?
    Fixed
      • 2nd para: I think a comma needs deleting, after the words “second meeting” just before note 38
    Fixed
      • Next sentence, perhaps commas either side of however?
    Fixed
    • Further success
      • “turned out to be” sounds a bit unscholarly
    Changed to "revealed to be"
      • “world’s oldest existing school”, perhaps?
    Took your suggestion
      • “Establishing a school would have been a high priority for Augustine..” I don’t like the subjunctive, especially when unsupported (who says it would have been a high priority?). The second part of the sentence jumps to 27 years after Augustine’s death.
    Reworded a bit. Is that better?
    Yes, better
    • Death

    The second sentence seems isolated from the content at present. Seems to need an “Although” in front, and union with the following sentence: “…beyond Kent, his mission had…”

    Took your suggestion (although I left out the "had") Let me know if that works?
    Yes, works well

    I found the article extremely informative and after attention to the above will have no problem in supporting it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added just after: Can you clarify something for me? The infobox is headed Saint Augustine of Canterbury, but "Saint" is missing from the article title. The infobox refers to "veneration" but not "canonisation". Did he not make it to the Premier League? There's almost nothing in the article about whatever state of sainthood he achieved, or when he achieved it. Surely there should be? And shouldn't the infobox conform with the article heading? Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Augustine's sainthood predates the formal process of canonization. Before it was set up, becoming a saint basically meant you had a bunch of folks loudly saying "So-and-so is a saint" and if enough people believed them, so-and-so was a saint and got a shrine, etc. He's in almost every saint book I have. (I say almost because I'm too lazy to get up and check every one to make sure it is every one). As to why he isn't under Saint Augustine of Canterbury, you'll have to ask someone more versed in the naming guidelines. I routinely mess that up, so I just go with the flow on the issue. If you want, I can switch out the Saint Archbishop infobox for the plain archbishop of Canterbury (or ABC) box. The veneration in the saint box is exactly right for his status, since he was never formally canonized, we don't fill in the fields that would give the dates for beatification and canonization, leaving just where he is venerated. (Saint's aren't worshiped, they are venerated). Did that help? Or are my early morning un-caffeinated ramblings not making sense? (I'll get to the concerns above in a little bit after the caffeine) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that in simple terms, the wiki standard is not to use honorifics/titles at the start of article titles (and for some types of style, they are not used in leading article text either). So saints shouldn't in general be at a title beginning Saint (or St or St.), monarchs don't include King or Queen in the article title (e.g. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs)
    I can add in a bit about his sainthood being pre-formal canonization process if you'd like. I must say though, that his sainthood is rather.. bland, I guess. He's just a bland kinda guy, never really one to get much excited about. He's mainly important as a symbol, it seems. Never really does anything exciting (He's no Wilfrid, that's for sure) rarely puts his foot wrong (except with the native bishops), everything seems to just work out for him. Vanilla.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't do any further writing. Just make the infobox match the article title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)
    I believe the current compromise is to use styles in infoboxes, not in article text, so it is correct to use Saint in the infobox, but not in the article title per my previous comment. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, then I'm happy. I'm supporting, it's a fascinating article and I enjoyed reviewing it. Now back to the ice. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks David for the clarification. I'm so hopeless on this sort of thing... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put up two suggestions [39] [40] (and reverted myself). I prefer the former, but it looks a little garish with the purple around it. The problem with the current image, if you look at the original, is that it's been blown up, hence the blurring. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I slightly prefer the former too, even with the garishness issues, because it looks more medieval. But I think the second one looks better on the page and will have less concerns about copyright. (I can't read the page the first one is stated to have come from, so not sure if it's safe for use or not). Anyone else have an opinion? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first SlimVirgin version is much superior to the others. What exactly is the copyright issue related to this, and not the others? They are all given identical PD descriptions on Commons. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell how old the image is, i.e. when the image was painted. Orthodox icons (which this looks to be) are pretty much painted in the same style and have been for thousands of years. The second image looks like a 16th or 17th century engraving, and thus is almost assuredly out of copyright. The first one, while it is a very slight chance, just might be a modern icon. It's hard to tell when I can't read the website the image came from. Like I said, it's a slight concern and not very likely, but (being a photographer) I like to be very sure of my images, I don't like abusing copyright. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You were right to be cautious, Ealdgyth. This page suggests the first image is under copyright — if you scroll down you'll see it on the right-hand side. Aidan Hart seems to be saying he is the artist, so we should probably remove it from the Commons. SlimVirgin talk|edits 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was the English writing on the icon that subconciously said something to me. I think I've seen a few others of those pictures used around. Fun. I'll drop a note to User:Durova, she's good at this sort of thing. As is User:Elcobbola. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aidan Hart has informed me by email that you can use any of his icon images provided you credit his name and website somewhere. the website address is http://www.aidanharticons.com Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have no clue how to feed that through the system... Eclobbola? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a FA issue, surely, so I wouldn't bother now. But could be worth pursuing at some future date. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed; just upload to the Commons and forward the email to the OTRS folks (attribution requirement is fine assuming Hart is allowing derivative works, commercial use, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Comment. I'm almost ready to support; this is good. I did a copy edit, so I hope my changes helped remove redundant language and tighten stuff up here and there. One thing I noticed was that "Saint", "St." and "St" were used interchangeably; I've tried to standardize to "St", although perhaps one of the other two forms should be preferred. My remaining concerns are:
    • "Augustine is claimed as the founder of the King's School, Canterbury . . . ." Can we remove the passive and say who claims him as the founder of that school? Is the place itself?
    • The first paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section repeats the word mission and missionary over and over. Can we try to use some synonyms or pronouns to break up the repetitiveness?
    If these two issues are addressed, I'll happily support. — Dulcem (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the copyedit, I greatly appreciate it! After I get some caffeine I'll be happy to fix those issue, they are good points. (I just need to wake up before serious editing or who knows what I'll break). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, both concerns addressed. And in the second, I managed to get rid of another passive! Yay! Thanks again for the copyedit, it helped a bunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to help! I've switched to support. Thanks for writing a great article. :) — Dulcem (talk) 15:12, 5 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 15:47, 5 April 2008.

    Catherine de' Medici's building projects

    edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has been tricky, in some ways, because it is largely about buildings that were never completed or which have since been knocked down. It has received a thorough review (someone called the peer review "exemplary") both at its peer review and on the article's talk page (many thanks to User: Carcharoth, User: Awadewit, User: D. Recorder, and User: Scartol for investing their time and care). qp10qp (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • (Just a suggestion) Might you put the notes and references into two columns to make it a bit easier to read.
    Link tool shows no problems with the links, and I didn't find any either. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notes and refs in two columns. qp10qp (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankee! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Provisional support. Lovely article, and nice things about the writing, but it needs a little fixing from time to time. I easily found these in the lead, and the rest is similar.

    • "wasn't"—see MOS.
    Fixed. This is the only thing of this type that I can find. No idea how it slipped through. qp10qp (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During the same period, however, religious civil war gripped the country and brought the prestige of the monarchy to a dangerously low ebb." Second "however" in a short space, this time differently placed in the clause complex. There's another soon after. Why not "Ironically, during the same .."?
    Fixed the "however" cluster". Checked for others. qp10qp (talk)
    Reordered sentence. qp10qp (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know you've heard this a thousand times before, but I can't act on "the rest is similar". I've redrafted this many times and tried to write an elegant prose which is at the same time, for a complex subject, relatively simple to read. If problems remain in the prose, I am blind to them, I'm afraid. qp10qp (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Even so, I have just gone through the article looking for any potential miscues similar to the last one on your list. I have made a few changes (please have a glance at the diffs), but the majority of the sentences are simply constructed, and, in my opinion, should present no problem. qp10qp (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to start with the influence of the death of Henry II on Catherine's works, deal with sculpture, and then proceed through individual architects. Montceaux does rather stand out, I admit, but I think it goes well before the section on the Tuileries, because the architect, de l'Orme, was the same. And since it was given to Catherine by Henry, I thought it would provide a transition between the memorial work and the residential work. Many thanks for taking the trouble to read and review the article. qp10qp (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Lovely article! An exhaustively researched, well-written and well-illustrated article. A pleasure to read! My only question is: Why is the poem in italics? Is it that way in the original? Awadewit (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed that now. Danny was going round putting poetry in italics, and I must have thought I'd missed a policy. I now realise it's something to do with how he likes things to look on Veropedia. qp10qp (talk)
    That's annoying - if that is not how it is printed, why change it? I'll email him. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I did it, not Danny. I had seen him do it elsewhere, as on Anne of Denmark [41], and followed suit. qp10qp (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Really, really, nice work. Tight and engaging writing, fine illustrations (though I would left-align the effigies and Resurrection fragments images), faultless referencing, and well, just great overall. As a trivial matter should Catherine de' Medici be linked in the body text rather than in just an image caption? Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did have them left aligned, but someone at peer review said they were excrescing their sections. I'd like to have those images at the left top of sections, but I don't think they moor there very well on some screens. Many thanks for taking the trouble to read and comment. Catherine now linked appropriately. qp10qp (talk) 01:27, 5 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:03, 4 April 2008.

    Paul Stastny

    edit

    Paul Stastny, son of Peter Stastny, is a sophomore NHLer playing for the Colorado Avalanche. The article, is a very comprehensive overview of his personal life, pre-NHL career and current times, and in my humble, biased opinion, worthy for FA status. I'm the copyeditor; User:Serte is the main writer, however, he asked me to take a look over it and I think we've agreed to nominate this. Maxim(talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Serte here. I'd like to thank Maxim for the help and let's hear your comments.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment Good article, very thorough for a second year player. Have a few suggestions for it:

    • Stastny's international totals should be in a table under Career statistics, as has been done on most other NHL player articles.
    • In Style of play, it mentions Matt Carle praising Stastny's play. It would be a good idea to explain who Carle is, as he is not well known even within the hockey world.
    • The opening mentions that he is Peter Šťastný's son, but Paul's name notably doesn't include diacritics. It would be a good idea to explain why Paul doesn't have diacritics in his name, even in the form of a footnote.
    • As mentioned earlier at a review of the article, if there is any way to find another image of Stastny would help the article a lot. Granted that is a difficult task, but it would make the article less drab. While not really necesary, it will help. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support All my issues resolved
    • I have sent a mail to a user on Flickr with many good images of Stastny, who has licensed his images under CC-BY-NC-SA and asked if he could change it to CC-BY-SA which would allow them to be used on wikipedia. --Krm500 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has replied and will gladly upload higher resolution of the images and with wikipedia compatible license. He really liked the article too ;) --Krm500 (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a note about the diacritics, for the Carle bit, I don't think it's a necessary bit, and it fit in awkwardly with the rest of the section, as for the international stats I haven't been able to find them. I've searched NHL.com, tsn.ca, hockeydb.com, avalanche.nhl.com and some random Google hits. If you can find them, that'll be great. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maxim, he has International stats in his NHL profile for the World Championship. (Not for the Viking Cup because that's a junior competition). I guess that can be added.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, gotta read more carefully. I've added them in. Maxim(talk) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something is off in the formatting for current ref 23 (Denver Pioneers 2005-2006 Men's Hockey Schedule: Results) I'm not sure where the m.html in the front of the title came from. I tried to fix it but the quick fix I tried didn't work, and I don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable mucking about too much and breaking things.
    All other links checked out fine with the tool. Sources looked good. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was a problem with a space between ,m and .html... or something similar. Ref 17 also had the same problem.;-) BTW, I replied to your comments at the Plante FAC. Maxim(talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • PDF sources should be labeled.
    • The image caption doesn't require a full-stop.
    • "the 3-0 win" - dash
    • Non-breaking spaces needed, eg. "34 games", "15 goals"
    • that "... his game isn't flashy and eye-popping as much as it is heady, intuitive and efficient." - logical quotation needed
    • Ref authors are inconsistently formatted. Epbr123 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Comments I ran through the article and it looks pretty good. I do have some comments/suggestions:

      • "He stayed there for two seasons, winning the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Championship in his first season" – maybe it's me, but this seems awkwardly phrased. Any chance you could split it into something like "He led his team to the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Championship in his first season. He played another year before leaving." Sorry, I'm not that good with wording, or else I would have corrected it myself.
        • Fixed.
      • "Paul Stastny comes from a noted hockey family." – "noted"? I understand what you mean, but this word would confuse other readers.
        • Reworded. Tough to express this in good English...
      • I think you should include details about Stastny's playing style in the lead.
        • Done.
      • "Peter and Anton were the first of the three brothers" – You listed both Peter and Anton, but then said "first of the three brothers"
        • Fixed.
      • Time frame of the defection? I can only assume it was the late 1970s, early 1980s. Also, could you explain why they defected? I do know there was some anti-Communism activism led by Havel at the time, but I don't recall there being any major political turmoil at the time.
        • Fixed.
      • Random trivia nut, here. Could you mention the first three brothers to play for the same NHL team at the same time? It doesn't need to be in the text; you can incorporate this in a footnote.
      • "Peter and Paul Stastny currently rank fourth all-time in total scoring by a father-son combination in the NHL." seems a bit detached; you go from the three brothers directly to Paul's NHL stats.
        • Fixed.
      • I suggest you move any mention of Yan Stastny from the first para of "Early years" to somewhere in the second paragraph. You mention Paul's admiration for his brother's work ethic. Could you elaborate? The admiration might be more relevant if you establish some sort of context: i.e. Paul admired his older brother and tried to emulate his hard work in hockey.
        • Removed, no context...
      • Could you move the Stastny's stats in the first line of "Pre-NHL" to the end of the paragraph? It would be more suited if you wrote about his career with the Lancers and summed it up with his two-year stats.
      • Are the hockey year links necessary? Some of them seem unnecessary.
        • They're usually used in all hockey articles, it provides context. You're not as familiar with the article, so you might better than me at picking them out
      • Duhatschek's comment: what symmetry? what would unsymmetrical development be?
        • Fixed.
      • Second para of "Colorado Avalanche": seems best to remove "strong chemistry" and elaborate how he became closely tied with Hejduk (who rocks!)
        • Fixed
      • "At the start of the season Wojtek Wolski..." – woah, long sentence.
        • Yowch. Fixed.
      • As mentioned in my edit summary here, the prose is weak in paragraph three of "Colorado Avalanche". This needs to be looked at.
        • Fixed.
      • With the regular season almost over, it might be appropriate to update the article. The most recent info is about a February 22 game against the Coyotes. Nishkid64(Make articles, not love) 05:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Out of curiosity, was there any reason why Paul Stastny's last name doesn't include the same diacritics seen in his father's name? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My concerns have been properly address. Excellent article, Maxim and Serte! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—very well-written. Nice. TONY (talk) 10:29, 3 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:03, 4 April 2008.

    Retiarius

    edit

    I've expanded this article quite a bit over the past month or so. When I started researching this Roman gladiator type, I was mostly interested in how the retiarius used his net as a weapon. I found that information and then some! At any rate, I feel the article is featured quality or at least very close; I am leaving it to you to tell me whether I am right! Any comments and criticisms are greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *CommentSupport interesting topic. You need to be aware of and limit repetition, yet make sure ambiguity isn't introduced. This can be tricky. e.g. the first 3 sentrences of para 2 of lead all start :The retiarius... - see if you can introduce some variation here. Back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd link "Imperial period" in History and role section. tweaked so linked at first mention

    *.. that those retiarii who fought in tunics may have constituted an even more despised subtype (retiarii tunicati) who were viewed not as legitimate fighters but as arena clowns. - is "despised" the right word here? Maybe just "lowly-regarded"?

    Comment. Most of the original source material is quoted in the article. It is really quite scathing. It would appear that there are many details lacking in the historical record (not in the article). Modern expert commentators, familiar with all surviving material, find no controversy over this. It was a macho kind of culture. I'll tell you a secret, Australians sometimes laugh at American footballers wearing protective helmets and shoulder pads. Perhaps tunicati were despised as a cultural variation on a similar theme. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, sounds good to me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am pondering quotations in the History and role section - the quotations indented break the prose nicely, but for consistency there is another by Suetonius not indented, and is punctuated by commentary. I am unsure how to proceed for consistency or flow...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There are a lot of quality refinements of vocabulary selection, and suggestions for smoothing the text in the comments above. As for content, what matters most to me is a comprehensive survey of primary sources. I checked several secondary sources, and they were unanimous in noting the limited material associated with retiarii. All quoted exactly the same passages cited in the current form of the Wiki entry.
    I really like the entry. It has a that "classical scholarship" feel about it. It's NPOV and RS, but has a touch of bringing the ancient world to life. It does this without being overly technical and dry, or prententious and dubious. Imo very nice, very Wiki. Thanks heaps to the editor. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the content looks good. Prose is a very common issue in FAC debates and I think a little prose massaging is the main step before supporting in this FAC. I'll look some more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments so far. I've got a printout of the article and a long bus ride ahead of me today; I'll go over it once more. :) — Dulcem (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the lead still needs citations. This can be fixed fairly easily so I have made my point a comment not an oppose, however I personally don't think I can support until this is fixed. Incidentally, increasing image size might make image detail a little easier to see. SGGH speak! 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • per WP:LEAD and WP:CITE, lead sections only need citations in extraordinary circumstances, as they are overviews of content in the body that is cited. Is there some particularly contentious claim in the lead that is not cited in the body? If not then it doesn't need cites. VanTucky 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    All other links checked out fine with the tool. All sources looked good and all refs looked good to me. I'll try to get back in a bit and review it more in depth. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Slight oppose for now, mainly because of the missing citations on the quotations. I'll be happy to support when the concerns below are addressed.

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • History and role section, third sentence of the first paragraph seems awkward to me, especially the part about "Rare gladiator fights were ..." Consider changing it to something along the lines of "Very rarely gladiator fights were staged over water; the reasons for this are unknown but they may have inspired the concept of a gladiator based on a fisherman."
    • Same section, third paragraph, the sentence starting with "The reaction of the emperor Caligula ...", the quotation in that sentence needs a citation directly on the quotation per WP:Cite
    • Same section and paragraph, next sentence is awkward. Consider "It is likely that this was not a standard competition..." or "This was likely not a standard competition..."
    • Same section, the fourth or fifth paragraph (I can't tell because of the block quotes) the sentence starting "It is unusual to see a gladiator depicted this way in a satire..." the quotation in this sentence needs a citation.
    All in a all a very nice article. I enjoyed reading it and found it easy to read and understand. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies:
    • I've implemented your suggested prose changes.
    • I'm not sure why the quotes are a problem. The direct quote from Suetonius and the following paraphrase both come from the same source, so the source citation "Suetonius XXX" serves for both. As for the quote about "It is unusual to see . . . ", everything from this point to the end of the paragraph is from Cerutti and Richardson 593, and shares the same source citation. — Dulcem (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, in academia, (and this is reflected in Wikipedia's guidelines) you always directly attribute quotations, whether by saying " "So-and-so said "blah" " or by using a footnote/reference right at the end of the citation. I won't oppose if other folks don't feel it is necessary, but WP:Cite#When quoting someone does recommend putting the right at the quotation. If the consensus of other FAC reviewers is that it's not required, I'll bow to consensus on this though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's all the same to me, so I've gone ahead and changed it. Is that what you had in mind? — Dulcem (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks great, happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Great article! This is a very interesting topic, and greatly deserves to be one of Wikipedia's finest. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writing needs work In all cases, I know what is meant, but it's not what the article says.
      • First line The retarius... was a class of Roman gladitors..... No, he wasn't. He was a gladiator.
      • particularly the absence of a helmet to mask and dehumanise him. I presume this is based on the notes to Juvenal cited, but the claim that dehumanization is masculine requires more than a single source cited at another point in the article.
      • Rare gladiator fights were staged over water for unknown reasons. Please reread your source; this is doubtful. The use of water to simulate naval warfare is quite commonly mentioned in the primary sources; if Junkelman argues that the reasons were unknown, his reasoning should be presented (as his, not consensus). If this is his silence, find a better source.
      • With some difficulty, I have forced a break before Juvenal's second satire. Perhaps all that matter relating to Juvenal II and VIII should be a subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. The retiarius was a gladiator and it was a class of gladiator. Both statements are correct.
        • The effeminacy issue is something raised in numerous sources based on Suetonius, Juvenal, and Seneca. Duncan, Braund, and Cerutti and Richardson all mention this, and I can find many other sources to support the connection. I think the argument is that to Roman eyes, less armor = more effeminate. The lack of a dehumanizing helmet fits in with the lowly status, not necessarily the effeminacy, though. Are you arguing that the effeminacy bit of the lead be broken out from the sentence in which it is now?
          • You may be attempting to squeeze too much into a single sentence. The present text implies that helmets dehumanize, which makes secutores less feminine. If you mean that helmets dehumanize and also, for other reasons, add status, please divide the sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I misread Junkelmann; this has been fixed. Good catch.
        • I'm not sure why the <br> tags are needed. The article displays and prints fine for me without them. (?) — Dulcem (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think both points are resolved already, however, both struck me when copy-editing earlier.
    Firstly, I think retiarius is indeed primarily used as a collective noun for the class of gladiator. Latin does not use articles to distinguish between reference to a generic individual or to the class as a whole. Personally, I prefer the current form of the first sentence, using a generic "singular" in English. The best of many alternatives, imo, would be, "Retarius (literally net man) was a type of gladiator." However, it too rigidly follows the "first word of article = title of article" and is too faithful to the Latin. The most idiomatic English expression should almost always take preference over rigid rule-keeping (again imo).
    Secondly, the whole effeminacy thing troubled me at first reading, sounded so much like a potential "gender agenda". However, a little reference checking and research confirmed this is absolutely standard interpretation of the original sources, predating any modern gender debate. Of course, all that is being claimed is that the Roman sources perceived gender in these terms, which is absolutely fascinating and bang on my personal research field. Conclusion: thanks heaps for teaching me something I didn't know, but that I really should know. It helps me "get into Roman shoes", what did they consider manly? It was a very big deal to them.
    My high school motto was veritate et virtute. In the culture of the language used, virtute (manliness) included kitting up and trading blows toe-to-toe — working hard not smart. I doubt very much virtute, as understood by native speakers, would be taught any more. But I digress. Thanks again for a thought-provoking article, standing the test of scrutiny of sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the attempt by PMAnderson to reconcile his own objection (this diff), but I agree with Alastair. Saying "the retiarius was a gladiator" is true, but so is "Spartacus was a gladiator". Here there is potential for confusion between a single individual who happens to be a gladiator who has the name retiarius and a class of gladiators with that name. Including the word "class" makes it less ambiguous. Also, I disagree that English does not allow for a construction such as "the retiarius was a class of gladiator". Just check this Google Books search for many, many examples of works that describe them thus. Here's a similar search for retiarius type. I don't understand PMAnderson's objection to this wording. — Dulcem (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To say (as most of these do) that "the retarii were a class" would be unexceptionable; so would be using retarius and class in the same paragraph, which is what is actually being searched for. But a retarius is not a class; he is a person. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see; you object to the singular noun retiarius matching with the collective noun class. I still think it's important to phrase the opening sentence in some way that gets across that this article describes a class of gladiator rather than a single individual. But I think I'm happy with your proposed compromise. I may still attempt to squeeze in the word "class" somewhere in the lead section. Not sure where just yet . . . . — Dulcem (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Language In Australian English it is usually acceptable to phrase a generic statement in any of the following ways:
    • A batsman seeks to score runs without losing his wicket.
    • Batsmen seek to score runs without losing their wickets.
    • The batsman seeks to score runs without losing his wicket.
    The last form is normally the most abstract and formal. The first two seem to be pretty equally popular.
    It is also worth considering usage where one "type" (genre or class) is contrasted with another.
    • Batsmen score runs for their team, while bowlers restrict the opponents' score.
    • A batsman scores runs, while a bowler restricts the opponents' score.
    • The batsman scores runs for the team, while the bowler limits the opponents' score.
    The first two options are again natural, while the last is somewhat more formal because of its abstracting "feel". Interestingly, definite and indefinite article, or use of the plural do not have to be used in parallel (as above).
    • The batsman scores, but bowlers ...
    • A batsman scores, but the bowler ...
    • Batsmen score, but a bowler ...
    To my ear, if a plural is used first, it does tend to influence the rest of the sentence. I think this is because hearers have a default expectation that singulars following plurals are more likely used to communicate a distinction between many and one, rather than being merely stylistic variation on ways of expressing genericity.
    • Batsmen score, but a bowler has a more subtle role.
    • Batsmen score, but the bowler has a more subtle role.
    The first will often be prefered because the indefinite article is less likely to be ambiguous.
    In the current article, retiarius or "net-man" is implicitly contrasted with other classes of gladiator. The secutor, in particular, is named. There is no specific individual on view, only a specific type. It is a very significant stylistic issue, however, that clear writing often suggests a singular generic individual for the sake of clarity. Alternatively, use of the plural can also aid clarity because it makes the genericity ("dealing-with-types-ness") of the text explicit for the reader.
    There are several grammatically wrong ways of stating things (none have been proposed). There are many options to state things grammatically, with differing levels of clarity. Some of the assessment of degree of clarity is subjective. When I copy-edit for such things, I propose what seems clearest to my ear, but I give way if the author insists.
    With a consensus available, like in this case, perhaps we should offer three or four options and have a vote. Varieties of English most certainly vary (in fact, what is clearest to second language users often sways me, unless it shows misunderstanding of idiomatic usage).
    Proposal The article needs to start either by defining retiarius as a type of gladiator -- semantic precision -- or it needs to start by defining retiarius by using a concrete generic individual -- simplicity and readability. Both options are "legal" and "quality". Both should not be attempted in the same sentence (or consecutive clauses) -- i.e. compromise would confuse. The sources show the Latin word was used in both ways, so I think we are free to do what we like. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of these options, beginning (as a definition) with A retiarius is a gladiator [of such-and-such a kind] still seems the most straightforward. To take another Roman example, a plebeian is a Roman who did not belong to the patrician aristocracy; the class of Romans is the plebs. Please remember that we are writing for an audience which does not know Latin, and has no suspicion, at the first sentence, whether the word means a person or a class.
    The OED follows the same line: " A Roman gladiator who carried a net with which to entangle his adversary." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm easy on this. I like to imitate OED where possible. I would note, though, the class of Roman gladiator that ... would have been more cumbersome in compressed dictionary definition format. That a class is refered to is implicit in the use of the indefinite article, and in the scope of the relative clause that constrains which gladiators fall within the definition. In dictionary format, don't say what isn't absolutely necessary (sorry for two negatives). In encyclopedic form, a word or two to aid clarity can be expected by readers.
    Important thing here though, featurability of this article doesn't depend on the first sentence. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This began as a simple comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)000[reply]
    • Support—This is good. Just one query: a caption says "2nd–3rd century AD"—Does that mean we can date the painting only to a period of 200 years? CenturIES? TONY (talk) PS AusEng? I know of no distinctive approach to generic phrasing in this variety. TONY (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, actually, that's quite plausible. Very little ancient painting survives, and hardly any of it is signed. Except for the styles preserved at Pompeii, which has a large amount of work subject to a firm terminus ante quem, most dating is very uncertain.Septentrionalis PMAnderson
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

    To Kill a Mockingbird

    edit
    previous FAC

    Someone remind me not to work on a book that has been read by nearly everyone in the English-speaking world ever again. But here I present one of the best-selling books of the 20th century, and love it or loathe it, its impact is duly noted in the article. I recognize its length at 71k, but I have been sensitive in what needs to be deleted and kept. Occasionally an article deserves that much space, and this is one of them. The novel has a lore that surrounds its creation, adaptation, and influence on culture. There is a previous nomination, linked above, numerous peer reviews: another one, and another, and one more, from WP:Novels and general Peer Review, and (here's my Oscar speech) it has recently had input by Awadewit, WillowW, JayHenry, citation cleanup by Maralia, and dual copy edits by LOCE members Scartol and Galena11. Thank you in advance for reading the article. I intend to do everything I'm capable of to get it featured. Self-nominator, major contributor --Moni3 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warm support A wonderful article for a wonderful book, and one of Wikipedia's finest. Well-referenced, well-illustrated and well-written. Kudos to the major contributor; perhaps she'll tackle Dracula next? ;) Willow (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you and maybe two other people have read it, I'll get started on it right away! Thanks for the support, Willow. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I thought this one was ready a month ago and it's gotten nothing but better since. This article is important enough that 73k is okay. Maybe the best article on 20th century literature on Wikipedia. --JayHenry (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, - GrahamColmTalk 15:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't finished studying the article, but could something be done about all those "whiles", (I counted 15). They spoil the quality of the prose. More comments and a vote to follow.--GrahamColmTalk 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are now 5 while's in the article. And I no longer know what that word means after reading it so many times...--Moni3 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I sniped another one out. – Scartol • Tok 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments
      • Can we find more familiar words to replace "atypical" and "preternatural"?
      • In Style, I can't quite understand the inclusion of After Dill promises to marry her, then spends too much time with Jem, Scout reasons the best way to get him to pay attention to her is to beat him up, which she does several times. The context is not clear to me.
      • In "Southern life and racial injustice", I don't quite get the meaning of This regionalist theme is further reflected in Mayella Ewell's apparent powerlessness to admit what she did? Had done? Please remind us here.
      • Two words, that are not used in this context in the UK, need a definition or a link, "assigned" (in classrooms) and "challenged" (in libraries?).
      • Lastly, I think a little too much effort has been put into avoiding repetition of the word "published". The book "first appeared" (?), often it was "released". In the Reception section we don't need to be told that the reviews came when the novel first appeared because the section is called Reception.--GrahamColmTalk 11:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mayella's powerlessness was expanded a bit, "assigned" was changed, and I altered "challenged" once, but the ALA uses that term to mean any book that is proposed for banning. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate link for that, unfortunately. The title of the ALA list is "100 most frequently challenged books of 1990–2000", so I don't think I should alter the wording of that. "First appeared" in Reception was changed.
    I have to say that I like "atypical" and "preternatural". Is that a dealbreaker? The sentence preceding "After Dill promises to marry her..." includes the use of a childhood perspective for humor, exemplified by Dill and Scout's understanding of adult relationships. I'm not sure what you would like to see changed there. I appreciate the time you're putting in to the commentary. --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, issues resolved. I will read the article once more before adding my support.--GrahamColmTalk 14:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full and unconditional. I've searched for a suitable superlative with which to praise this important contribution to the Mockingbird literary analysis canon, but without success. I can't wait to see the article on the Main Page. You should be very proud of this achievement.--GrahamColmTalk 15:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 112 is used to cite what Oscars the film won and was nominated for. Are there particular guidelines as to what IMDb is appropriate for and what it is not? Citation 88: how do you suggest I note the many lists the book has appeared on? It has strongly been suggested that the lists not be part of the article prose, but footnoted. I wanted to provide the contexts of the listings and their sources as well. --Moni3 (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relatively acceptable to cite imdb for awards, but you can cite the AMPAS Official Academy Awards database at [42]; they don't seem to have perma links to search results, but a simple search on TKAM pulls up both all the nominations and the wins. Maralia (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For ref 88, is it possible for you to integrate the links, like this: "It is listed as #5 on the Modern Library's Reader's List of the 100 Best Novels in the English language since 1900, and #4 on the rival Radcliffe Publishing Course's 100 Best Board Picks for Novels and Nonfiction." It's not the whole thing, but I think it would be a lot neater this way. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consolidated, per your suggestion, IMDb reference changed to AMPAS reference (thanks, Maralia). --Moni3 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the American Decades book? (Current ref 10) I've not seen it before, is it like the ONDB?
    All other links checked out fine with the tool. Sources look good. You'll forgive me if I don't come back to review the article, I spent WAAAYYY too long one semester dealing with the book in college. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    American Decades is an encyclopedia database. No worries about not reviewing it. It's on indefinite page protection for the many vandalizations by middle school students who share your sentiments. --Moni3 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I did a copyedit/review of this back when, and I believe it's made some impressive headway since. Kudos to Moni3 for her diligence and dedication to this gargantuan task. – Scartol • Tok 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've read this article in several incarnations now and I am always impressed with its continual improvement. Moni3 has put an incredible amount of effort into this article and that effort has borne fruit - this is a wonderfully lucid and exhaustively researched article that will provide an excellent explanation of TKAM to millions of users. Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is an excellent, comprehensive article with elegant prose that certainly satisfies the criteria for promotion. That said, I do have some questions about things that are bugging me.
    1. This article uses pictures from the motion picture under the license of no copyright. Is there any verification for that? I find myself doubting that a movie would be released without copyright, but I may be mistaken there.
    2. I have a problem with the Theme section of the article. I have a personal conflict on including this in an article: on the one hand, I want the article to be as comprehensive as possible, but on the other, I don't think that Wikipedia should be including people's speculations on the symbolism and things that I personally believe ought to be left to the reader. While the information in the Theme section is properly sourced, something just seems wrong about interpreting themes for people: has wikipedia become sparknotes? I suppose that's all I have to say. Great job on the article, all, I'd love to see it on the main page someday! Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err...Scartol told me the film's copyright ran out. I neglected to ask him where he got that information. Shame on me. (If you're reading this, Scartol, where did you get that information?)
    From my left nostril, apparently. I suppose I read it from several different sources, all of them dubious. I succumbed to the "hear a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" type of thinking. A thousand apologies for the misinformation. – Scartol • Tok 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the themes, all that can be presented in the article is what has been written about the novel in literary and scholarly journals. For this particular book I also included legal journals and education resources, since the bulk of what has been written about it is from these sources. I understand you're not opposing, but the article doesn't tell the reader what to think, just what has been presented by scholars. I happen to take a vastly different view on many of the issues in the article, and prefer my own interpretation. That, and elements of literature are required for FACs on novels. I appreciate your comments, support, and time you took to read the article and present your views here. --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would like the defend the inclusion of a "Themes" section. Literary scholars, the experts on literature, discuss themes and symbolism far more than they discuss plot. Leaving out a discussion of these key topics would mean that the article did not discuss the "meat" of the book and did not represent the published work of experts. The article would not be comprehensive. I understand that the above editor wants readers to think for themselves and I would hope that they would still do that after reading this article. However, literary scholars can often offer insight into texts, particularly because they are trained to point out rhetorical elements that readers often miss in the "heat of the reading moment" and because scholars take the time to investigate historical and cultural connections. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been looking a little into the copyright of the images issue. The To Kill a Mockingbird (film) article states in the last sentence of the lead that it is in the public domain, but this has no citation. The conversation of whether or not it is in the public domain is carried out on the talk page, with, in my opinion, no solid consensus being reached. Some say it is, some say it isn't, and I can't read the links that one of the editors on Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird (film)#Copyright gives, so I can't decide. I think that, if there is any doubt, then the images from the movie should not be used in the article since the licensing is dubious at best.
    About the themes, I've checked out some other FA's about books, and some don't have theme sections (The Lord of the Rings especially, considering that deep themes that are in this book, A Tale of a Tub, Make Way for Ducklings) but some do (Mary: A Fiction). I guess that my main problem was with the "Death of Innocence" part of the themes, which seems to be out of place in an encyclopedic article. The best way to deal with themes that I found was in Uncle Tom's Cabin: not too much, but says what needs to be said without going overboard. I do understand that the themes of this book are uber-important, which I found while reading this book, but I don't think that an in-depth look at theme here is appropriate, no matter how well sourced. Perhaps an overview like in the UTC article would work, maybe with links to other websites or books that interpret the themes and symbolism, but I think anything more than that just isn't right for this article. If this could be worked out, I would be even more enthusiastic in my support. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lord of the Rings should really be taken to FARC, for many reasons (e.g. the last time I checked it didn't discuss the trilogy's contribution to the development of the fantasy genre), but I haven't had the stomach yet. A Tale of a Tub does discuss themes - it just doesn't have a section called that (I should know - I just added notes to that article). It is difficult to say what is "going overboard". Since themes are essential to any discussion of a novel and these are the themes discussed in the published scholarly work on this novel, we must discuss them. Perhaps what you mean to say is that the "Themes" section should be smaller, more concise? Perhaps this is really a discussion about size and summary style rather than about the inclusion of a "Themes" section? Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it would be good to work in the themes like in A Tale of a Tub. Either that or, like you said, I'm thinking that it should be smaller and more concise. If people want analysis of the themes in this book so bad, then there is certainly enough material to warrant a Themes in ''To Kill a Mockingbird'' page. I just don't think that the main article is the right place to be going in depth into the themes: sure, they are very important to the understanding of the book, I completely agree there, but is a complete critical analysis really necessary in the article on the general history, effect, plot, etc. of the book? And the issue of copyright still lives... Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we need to work out precisely what you think the problem is with the "Themes" section. Is it a problem of organization? Do you think the article is poorly organized (i.e., do you think that the material cannot be understood because of the order in which it is presented?) and thus the "Themes" section should be reorganized along the lines of A Tale of a Tub? Personally, I do not see this problem in the article. If you do, however, perhaps you could explain why you do. If you think that the article goes into too much detail in the "Themes" section, perhaps you could point to areas of that section that you believe are too detailed? It would help all of us here to better understand your concerns and would allow us to address them. At this point, it is difficult to address your concerns. (I don't know the minutiae of copyright - hopefully someone else can handle that issue.) Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Please, Awadewit, remember that I support this article as is: I'm just wondering whether it could be improved. The article as it now stands is 73,937 bytes (or whatever the unit actually is). At User:Bmrbarre/TKAM, I have put in a version of the page which removes the Themes section. That version is 48,585 bytes. That is a difference of 25,352 (if my calculations are correct), which means that right now, the Themes sections takes up a bit over 34% of the entire article. 34%, people, is a lot for any one section to take up. This seems to be hypocritical considering that the Theme section, which is one of 10 sections, starts off with "Despite the novel's immense popularity upon publication, it has not received the close critical attention paid to other modern American classics." I think that the theme section should be cut down considerably, eliminating unnecessary details that should really be saved for a seperate article on the themes in TKAM. The themes ought to be mentioned: that is a must. But I think a brief overview and a link to an article specifically about themes in the book would reduce the heavy emphasis on themes in the article. Also, with the themes taking up such a large amount of space, I think that perhaps Wikipedia:Article size should be checked out. I regrettably don't have the time to sort through 25,000 bytes of info on themes, as I have an essay on religious symbolism in The Metamorphosis due tomorrow and it needs some work (sorry, real world comes first), but I hope that my throwing out there the idea of an unnecissarily long part of a very good article being trimmed gets something done and improves the article, bringing it closer to its full potential. Sorry I can't do more, Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One-third of an article about a work of literature devoted to its themes? That actually seems just about right to me. I'm sorry, Benjamin, but I'm not seeing any sort of reason to exclude scholarship on themes, or really any sort of reason to make it shorter, since it's a substantial portion of the available sources. We read books because of what's inside the covers, plots and themes. There's not a lot of literature that has no real themes, but a *great plot* (sorry, Mr. Grisham). It's absolutely essential information for understanding why people read TKAM. And it's not as if having a summary of how academics think about the themes of TKAM is going to prevent a reader from liking the book for whatever he or she sees in it. --JayHenry (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Benjamin, all I'm asking you to do is identify what part of the "Themes" section is too detailed. Now that you have calculated that 1/3 of the article is dedicated to the section, I have to agree with JayHenry. Themes are the core of a novel. I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. You have to give us specifics - what is too detailed? If, after your essay is done, you want to return to this conversation, I'm sure we would be willing to listen to your comments. We want the article to improve as much as you do. However, specific suggestions are always the best way to do that. Awadewit (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Awadewit, Jay and Moni on this one; it's long but it's necessary. Anyone who's sat in an English lit graduate course knows how tedious thematic discussions can become -- why should Wikipedia be any different? Seriously though, if length is the only issue, the entirety of it could be moved to Themes in To Kill a Mockingbird and then a smaller, condensed version of the section could be kept in the main article. I'm not a big fan of this, however, because it is immensely important to the scholarship of the work, and to all novels, and therefore should remain up front and center. What is important to note is that the themes listed are only a taste; last semester I wrote a short paper about TKAM's thematic use of mental and physical disability, for example. I guess we should be thankful that the section isn't longer than it presently is. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should have been, so I'm going to summarize what I have said so far: I am worried about the use of photos with questionable licenses, and I believe that the theme section is too long and goes into too much detail. I believe that there are two possibilities that would remedy this latter issue: either the section could be cut down considerably, or the themes could be mentioned but not elaborated so much, with a link provided to a page entitled Themes in To Kill a Mockingbird, where the majority of what is now under the theme section would be moved to. I created this, which provides an overview of the themes, going into what I feel is enough detail without completely going overboard. If the stuff that is in the Themes section now were moved to the "main article" I have proposed, I feel that those readers seeking to know more about the themes can visit there, without completely losing those readers who don't want to know every detail and symbol in the story. I apologize in advance for my shoddy prose, but I'm sure it could be polished up some.
    It just seems impractical to devote so much of the article to something which fully deserves its own article. I was recently involved in the (failed) Roman Catholic Church FAC, where the article served as an overview of everything involving the Roman Catholic Church. I bring this up because the RCC article linked to many other article that went into detail on issues that would have cluttered up and ballooned the size of the Church article. I think that is a good idea, and it would be helpful here. I apologize to anyone that has been confused by my statements and lack of detail, and hope that this idea will be considered rather than immediately dismissed. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a sidenote, the definition of theme at the relevant article is "In literature, a theme is a broad idea in a story, or a message or lesson conveyed by a work. This message is usually about life, society or human nature. Themes explore timeless and universal ideas . Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated." I think that the themes as they are now in this article seem to heavily focus on the broad ideas and conspicuosly leave out what Lee is actually trying to say, something I have attempted to remedy in my version. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To separate the implicit from the explicit is much harder than you might think. Everyone has a different idea of "what Lee is actually trying to say". Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That is what theme is, that author's message (or so 10 years of English teachers have taught me: perhaps they're wrong, though), and that is subjective, so perhaps there shouldn't even be such thing as a themes section.
    Then your teachers misled you. What the author intended is only one aspect of the thematic content. And, in fact, literary scholars no longer focus on the "author's intention" - it is now called the intentional fallacy - because it is impossible to know what the author intended. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reset indent - I have to abstain from this portion of the discussion. I've worked on the article since August of 2007, devoting the majority of my research to the Themes section. To entertain the idea that it was unnecessary, extraneous, and gratuitous is deeply upsetting and troubling to me. I cannot at this time consider this proposal without an intense amount of emotion. --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an editor who mainly deals with the creation of new articles (I'm up to over 40), I know how long it can take to delve into Google or books and drag out the information that you know is hiding there. Even beginning a simple article takes several hours and many internet tabs. The research contained in the Themes section is wonderful, and very enlightening for me, a teenage who had this book forced upon him quite reluctantly at first, but was soon fascinated as the story unfolded. I too recognized the importance of the social caste, the symbolism of the mockingbird as related to the loss of innocence, and the effects of wealth and class in this book. I would be extremely embarrassed and horrified if you were even entertaining the idea that any bit of this research is unnecesarry: every bit is, that is a fact. What I am trying to say is not here, not in this article. If anything, your wonderful research should have its own article, which I believe it deserves. It really kills me that you are being troubled by my proposition, as this was the opposite of the intent. I would like to reiterate the fact that I gave this article a support, and am merely trying to improve it, though you may perceive my intentions differently. I understand that you hate to see all of the research you have done moved, but please be open to the idea that this might just improve the article rather than detract from it. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I do not think a "Themes in To Kill a Mockingbird" page is necessary. Everything that can be said about that topic can be said in this article. As Moni3 has made clear elsewhere and in the article itself, there is actually not much published research on TKAM and its themes so actually expanding the amount of space on Wikipedia for that topic does not make much sense. Removing the "Themes" section would rip the heart out of the article - it would not improve it. Let me try to explain. Imagine two people in a garden who ate an apple. They were tempted to eat that apple by a snake. They were subsequently banished from that garden for eating that apple and condemned to death. The themes of sin, betrayal, life, death, etc. are what is interesting in this story - not the eating of a piece of fruit. It is themes that add to the meat of a story - without them, the plots are mere skeletons. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think poor analogies should be used as the reason to keep the themes in. As a kind of sidenote, the example you picked is quite misleading, since, as a religious person, I know that the eating of the piece of fruit was, in fact, the most important thing in that story.
    Your response to this analogy (which I think works well) is particularly illuminating. First, it reveals that different readers focus on different parts of the story (e.g. Catholic vs. Protestant) - there is not just one interpretation. Second, you are focusing on a plot element and extrapolating meaning from it (that is a theme). I could go on here, but I think you get the point. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is not that much published information about TKAM, then why in the world does it take up 25,000 bytes of space, more than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles out there? I guess my mind fails to see how such little material can produce such a good deal of information...
    Because it is based on research and explained well, which the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are not. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have now iterated many times but will do again, I believe that the theme should not take up so much space of the article. While the information should be kept, I believe that its place in the article has become too long. At this point, it would be best to retain the basics on the article page, and link to another page, which would contain the in-depth analysis currently on the page. One could spend a lifetime analyzing the book, but the truth is that the average reader who, hopefully, will eventually see a summary of this article on the main page, will most likely not be interested in a complete analysis from head to toe of the book. There will be readers looking for this, and, if the themes are put out there in summarized form and a link is provided to more comprehensive analysis, then it seems to me that everyone wins. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I am just not understanding the problem here. Again, if you think that the "Themes" section is too detailed, explain what sections are too detailed and the editors can try to fix them, but as I said above, simply saying that it is too long without explaining why except to say that it occupies 1/3 of the article (which other people have found acceptable) is not convincing. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, my tuppence says that if any book deserves a section that goes into some detail about "themes" (and I agree with Awadewit that they all do), then it is this one. To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic "issues" novel, which is why it's endlessly taught at high school. (And while we're at it, you can mark me down as support. This is a very impressive article.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) I give up: I guess that I am the only one to see things the way I do, and as such I withdraw any issues I have with the theme section. I'm sorry I wasted your time and mine, and hope that the article will become featured. As a final statement I suppose that, per the intentional fallacy, I'm at a loss how the article can feature such sentences as "In a 1964 interview, Lee remarked that her aspiration was "to be ... the Jane Austen of South Alabama."[37] Both Austen and Lee challenged the social status quo and valued individual worth over social standing", "Scholars argue that Lee's approach to class and race was more complex "than ascribing racial prejudice primarily to 'poor white trash' ... Lee demonstrates how issues of gender and class intensify prejudice, silence the voices that might challenge the existing order, and greatly complicate many Americans' conception of the causes of racism and segregation", "Just as Lee explores Jem's development in coming to grips with a racist and unjust society", and "In exploring how each character deals with his or her own personal defeat, Lee builds a framework to judge whether the characters are heroes or fools." Of course, I'm probably interpreting the meaning of intentional fallacy wrong, but that's the sense I get of it. That said, my problem with the copyrights of the pictures has yet to be addressed, and I propose that, unless undeniable proof is provided that they are licensed correctly, they ought to be removed from the article. Cheers! Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I actually have a problem with the Austen material for a variety of reasons that I outlined on the talk page of the article, but it is published scholarship. I happen to think it is poor literary scholarship, but we are not here to assess the value of the literary scholarship, only summarize it (WP:NPOV). Second, using the shorthand of "Lee explores" or "Lee demonstrates" is indeed an issue if the article wants to avoid the intentional fallacy. We could replace all of these phrases with "To Kill a Mockingbird demonstrates" or "the text shows", etc. Scholars often do this or use the author's name, knowing that their readers understand the intentional fallacy. However, I don't think we can assume our readers understand the fallacy. I will leave it up to others to decide whether all instances of the author's name should be replaced. (I think someone else has raised the issue of copyright below.) Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Niggling little copyedit questions (easy ones I just handled myself, comments collapsed in the box):

    • "about people in her hometown, Monroeville." - this is redundant as the paragraph begins with Monroeville
    • "Scout, Jem and Dill watch in secret" - you've used serial commas elsewhere
    • "when a hopeless Tom is shot and killed when trying to escape from prison." - this may have been a result of someone else's 'while' comment above, but this is a case where 'while trying to escape' would avoid when...when
    • "This prompts their black housekeeper Calpurnia, to escort Scout and Jem to her church" - why the comma?
    • "Any transgressions by black males that merely hinted at sexual contact with white females during the time the novel was set, often resulted in a punishment of death for the accused." - another inexplicable comma?
    • "A teaching guide for the novel published by The English Journal cautions teachers," - can we drop the second 'teachers' as it's presumed a teaching guide is directed at teachers?
    • "One writer notes that Scout, "in Austenian fashion" satirizes women with whom she does not wish to identify." - Scout, "in Austenian fashion", satirizes
    • "a city-wide reading program through the city's libraries" - redundant
    • The Plot summary section uses spaced emdashes but I see unspaced emdashes in the Autobiographical elements section
    • "Upon its release, it was instantly successful and has become a classic of modern American fiction." - "It was instantly successful upon its release and has become a classic of modern American fiction."
    • In the cover caption, why is Late capitalized? ("First edition cover - Late printing")
    • "The three children are terrified by, and fascinated with, their neighbor, the reclusive "Boo" Radley." - why the scare quotes?
    • "Scout's role as a girl who beats up boys, hates wearing dresses, and swears for the fun of it, provides humor" - why the last comma?
    • In the Style section, "Mr. Cunningham" is mentioned with no context; he has not yet been introduced
    • "As Jem says to Miss Maudie the day after the trial" - Miss Maudie needs context; she hasn't yet been introduced
    • "When the book was released, reviewers noted that the book was divided into two parts" - the second 'the book' really isn't necessary, is it?
    • "Despite the novel's thematic focus on racial injustice, the black characters in the novel are rarely explored as fully as the white characters." - the novel...the novel
    I'm so happy to see such a fine article on this great book :) Maralia (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took care of all of these except:
    The first instance of "Boo" Radley has quotes as his name is Arthur, and he has been nicknamed Boo by the children. I can leave them out, though.
    Maycomb as a whole considers itself decent society. I'm not sure what you're looking for this to say. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In RE "Boo": I find quotes around his nickname odd because his real name is never mentioned. Regarding Maycomb: I have no idea how, but I entirely misread that sentence last night; disregard that one. Only one other issue:
    • "For example, Scout embarrasses her classmate, the poorer Walter Cunningham during lunch at the Finch home one day" - embarrasses her poorer classmate Walter Cunningham during?
    • This was changed to "Scout embarrasses her classmate, the poorer Walter Cunningham at the Finch home one day", which doesn't resolve either of my issues: the unnecessary comma and the fact that he's not the poorer one of multiple Walter Cunninghams.
    Maralia (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I altered the sentence again. Not sure if it's what you're going for, though. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support my copyedit issues have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both Lee and Capote were atypical children: - sounds like a medical condition, any reason why it is a better word than unusual here?
    Is atypical so...atypical a word? I didn't realize it sticks out so much. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A little, but that was about the sum of it - looks great otherwise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The license for Image:In Search of Atticus Finch book.jpg explicitly says use is allowed only “to illustrate an article discussing the book in question”. This article is about To Kill a Mockingbird, not "In Search of Atticus Finch". Further, how does the book cover significantly contribute (per WP:NFCC#8) to our understanding of To Kill a Mockingbird and to our understanding of Mockingbird’s impact on the legal profession above and beyond (i.e. significantly) the prose already included in the article? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Do you think that the image can only legitimately be used in an article about In Search of Atticus Finch?
    • 2) Would a "significant" contribution have to include something about aesthetics? That is, would the only legitimate reason to include a non-free image, in your opinion, be if the article discussed that image as an image?
    Just trying to clarify why the current non-free rationale is not sufficient. You know I usually work with PD images from long-lost books. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the objection here. The book cover is not needed on a section in this articles discussing the existence of this book that was inspired by a character from TKaM. If there was an article about the book, the image could be used there to aid identification, or to discuss the inspiration for the image (a source would be needed saying that the artist based the look for Atticus on... whatever). I've never read TKaM. Has it ever been illustrated? Those sort of images would be better fair use than this. The film images look OK, but only one or two - no more. If anything, I would say only one here, and use the others on the film article. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The film images are public domain (due to the issue of the film without a copyright notice), so fair use isn't a problem with those (or are you objecting to their use on aesthetic grounds?) Yomanganitalk 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for a source that confirms or refutes that the film is no longer under copyright. Can you point us toward one? --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This page tells you what is in the public domain, and the film print does not have a copyright notice, but if you want a source that authoritively says "The film To Kill a Mockingbird is in the public domain", I don't think you will find one (though you won't find any that say it is copyrighted either). Universal did attempt to prevent its distribution from some free movie sites a few years ago, but was ignored and as far as I know their claim to copyright has never been tested in court. We even have a tag on Commons for this: {{PD-US-no notice}} Yomanganitalk 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I called the US Copyright Office, who assisted me by giving me their site here. When I searched for "To Kill a Mockingbird", I got 126 results. The woman I was on the phone with got 138 results, for some reason, but neither of us could find the film version. The film version would have the year of 1962 as the copyright date, although the music from the film has a date of 1963, is on the list, and has been renewed. So has the screenplay, with a copyright year of 1964. If the copyright was renewed, the number under "Copyright Number" would have RE in front of it. The woman I spoke with on the phone said only works that have been renewed 28 years after the original date would be on the list. The ultimate answer would be for me to request a search from them, which would cost me $150, take several weeks, and they would send me their response in writing. --Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But since it was issued without a copyright notice, and hence not copyrighted, it wouldn't be able to have the copyright renewed (which is probably why it isn't on the list). This is the problem with trying to get a statement that is is in the public domain: since nobody owns the copyright there is no incentive for anybody to put anything out saying "I own the copyright, get your grubby mitts off". I suspect the search from the US Copyright Office would also come back as "Not found" which doesn't get you any closer. Yomanganitalk 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what's the main issue? That the film isn't copyrighted or that it's public domain? There seems to be initial documentation of it not being under copyright. Right now the stills in the article are tagged as "Public domain because of missing copyright indication". Do I need to change them to reflect a more accurate, just "no available copyright information" with a link to the US Copyright Office? Or do they need to be deleted entirely? If that is the case, and the image issue below is determined that the other book cover should be removed, I'll have three images. Will this suffice for a featured article? --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 75% of copyrights are not renewed, but I would err on the safe side and delete the images that are the cause of all this controversy. To beome an FA, IMHO, they are not essential. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 22:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the objection. While I understand the need to use such images with extreme caution, I feel that its use here powerfully demonstrates how influential the character has been. It shows elegantly the ripple effect of the book's impact more than words alone can. – Scartol • Tok 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awadewit: 1) That is a requirement explicit to the licensing tag; my personal opinion isn't necessarily relevant. The article does not discuss the book in whole or even in part (although discussion in part would itself not be adequate); the use is unambiguously inappropriate even without considerations of NFCC#8. For what it's worth, I'm always open to considerations of context, but I don't believe it to be present in this article. 2) No. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scartol: How does an image of this book "powerfully demonstrate" the influence of the character? It's merely an example of derivative media. We can't use fair use images as examples; they have to be the direct topic of discussion. Why is prose alone insufficient to adequately convey the importance of the character on the legal profession? I see no "ripple effect" being demonstrated; please elaborate. Elegant adjectives do not a sound argument make. If we assume your assertions to be true, the implication is then that the relevent and supporting prose is severly lacking, if not nonexistent. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what "significant" means - does anyone know? That is why I was asking if it was restricted to an aesthetic discussion for the book cover. In a sense, why would one ever need to use a fair-use book cover, except to discuss something on that book cover? How would that book cover significantly increase understanding unless the book cover itself is discussed, which would be an aesthetic discussion? Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is derivative media, but not in the sense of a Pokémon spinoff; it shows that the character has taken on a status in the legal profession unlike most others in American fiction. (I don't know of a parallel.) I'll defer to others in terms of what is and is not acceptable for fair use; I'm just stating my opinion.
    I'd apologize for using "elegant adjectives", but decades of incessant literary analysis have cursed me with a voluminous erudition. Thank you for noticing. – Scartol • Tok 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resent indent- The still frame film images and the book cover of In Search of Atticus Finch have been removed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

    Robert Falcon Scott

    edit

    Self-nominator: Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Resolved comments from Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • Infobox: HMS Britannia leads to a disambiguation page (Also in "Family background", 2nd paragraph)
        • Both links now corrected
      • Need an en-dash between birth and death dates in lead sentence.
        • Done
      • Lead section, 2nd paragraph: a comma after "Discovery Expedition" will help to avoid the strange "Discovery Expedition Scott"
        • Done
      • Same section, 4th paragraph: Terra Nova Stoker? Is this a stoker for the Terra Nova expedition? Should be in lower case if so. Also, consider linking to stoker.
        • Yes, and linked
      • Same paragraph: The sentence beginning with "As an explorer…" is awkward. Is the "As an explorer" really necessary for the sentence?
        • Rephrased
      • Early naval career, 1st paragraph: Spacing after note 8 in first sentence
        • Fixed
      • Same paragraph: HMS Boadicea leads to dab page
        • No article for this Boadicea, so de-linked. Could redlink I suppose
      • Same paragraph: The WP article styles it as "Saint Kitts" rather than "St Kitts"
        • All my books say St Kitts, and so does my school atlas, so I think it's right
          • St Kitts redirects there, so no problem
      • Same section, 2nd paragraph: HMS Vernon leads to a dab page
        • Properly linked to the torpedo training school
      • Same section, 3rd paragraph: HMS Amphion seems confusingly piped to Royal Navy. If no article, delink the ship name rather than link to an unexpected location
        • Delinked
      • Same section, 4th paragraph: HMS Vulcan leads to a dab page
        • Delinked, per Boadicea
      • Same section, 5th paragraph: RGS? If it's the Royal Geographical Society, introduce the abbreviation in the article when the group is first mentioned. Also, this abbreviation is used in several sections. You might consider introducing it as "Royal Geographic Society" at first mention in new sections for those not familiar with it.
        • I've added (RGS) to the first mention. Personally I think it will over-clutter the article if I spell it out in full in each new section.
          • That's reasonable enough
      • Discovery section, 1st paragraph, sentence beginning "Scott may not…": Move the note after punctuation, rather than placing it in the middle of a phrase. My preference is always for the end of a sentence, but after the comma is certainly acceptable.
        • Done
      • Same section, final sentence: "He had a career with belly buttons!" What does this mean? Also, exclamation points—except in direct quotes—are generally not considered encyclopedic. (Vandalism was removed)
      • Same section, 2nd paragraph: I think the minutes of longitude would be better served with a straight, rather than curly, quote. (Same goes for instance in 2nd paragraph of "Journey to the Pole")
        • Done
      • Same section, 3rd paragraph: I'm not familiar with the term "man-hauling". Can that be rephrased to sound less jargon-like?
        • Can't really be rephrased as it's a standard polar exploration term, but I have added an explanatory note
      • "Popular hero" section: Is "returned Britain" a UK/Commonwealth phrase? Seems like there's a missing preposition.
        • Yes, I've inserted it
      • Same section: HMS Victorious leads to a dab page
        • De-linked, per Boadicea
      • "Marriage" section, 1st paragraph: You might link to Edwardian period for those unfamiliar with "Edwardian"
        • Done
      • "Preparation" section, 1st paragraph: "pious hope" seems a quirky choice of phrase. Is this from a reference?
        • It's my phrase, doesn't seem that quirky, but I'll change it if you wish
          • No problems at all with quirky. Just felt it should be cited or quoted if it was from a source.
      • "First season", 2nd paragraph: WP:MOS recommends against the use of whilst
        • Changed to while
      • "Death march" section, 1st paragraph: "100–mile" needs a hyphen, not an en-dash
        • Done
      • Same section: the placement of the photo tends to obscure block quote formatting. Also, I would suggest using {{quote}} rather than html tags.
        • I've tried to reposition the image, but I can't really find a better place for it in this relatively short section. If I move it up it interferes with Amundsen, and breaks the text awkwardly. Is it not acceptable where it is? I've changed the quote tag.
          • If there's no other good place for it, the placement is OK.
      • "Glorification" section, 1st paragraph: Do we know what work the Tennyson line is from? It would be nice to mention it and would make a high value link.
        • Yes, it's from Ulysses. I am organising a link
      • Same section: I would recommend using {{quote}} for the poem
        • Done
      • Same section, 5th paragraph: It's nice to have the present-day equivalent values, but it seems a bit much here. What about the equivalent for the total, and just list the actual amounts for the individual sums?
        • I've done this, but I bet someone else will say they need all the equivalents.
          • I hope not, but whatever the consensus ends up being is fine.
      • "Modern reaction" section: WP:MOS says "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level headings"
        • I've moved it down
      • Same section, 2nd paragraph: "recent previous" is an unusual phrase. I also wouldn't characterize 1966 and 1977 as particularly recent in the context of this article.
        • You're right. I changed it to "post-war"
      • Same paragraph: Use the full name of "Franklin" in the link.
        • Done
      • Section titles of "Notes" and "References" seem more standard in my experience
        • I prefer "Notes and references" to cover both in-text citations and footnotes, "Sources" to list books and materials used in compiling the article and cited at least once in the text, and "Further Reading" to list other general books not specifically cited. I believe this is OK in Wikipedia.
          • Perfectly fine
      • I think the items listed in the "Sources" and "Further reading" sections would be well-served to be in {{cite book}} format. Most seem to be missing the location of publication, and Scott's Last Expedition should have an editor listed (is it available online at Google books, Project Gutenberg, or a similar site?). Also, I would link Ranulph Fiennes in this section to his article.
        • My preference is not for {{cite book}}. I have added the editor's name to Scott's journals, and included publishers' locations. I forgot about the requested Fiennes link but I'll do it now.
          • Perfectly fine on all accounts

    — Bellhalla (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope my responses are OK with you. Please let me have any further comment or opinion. Thank you for your time and trouble. Brianboulton (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: I re-formatted—but did not change—responses from Brianboulton for easier response by me. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Support – My concerns have been addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    All links checked out fine with the tool. All refs and footnotes look good. I corrected two small typos. I'll try to get back in a bit and review more in depth. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few more comments

    Brian, I did a cursory review of Robert Falcon Scott, from what I see it is excellent. Here are a few comments I have:

    1. It says "Scott had followed the conventional career of a naval officer in peacetime Victorian Britain, where opportunities for career advancement were rare" Is the "career advancement were rare" part really true? Was this in the Crane source?
    The Crane citation refers to Scott's lack of predilection for polar exploration. Unfortunately I had mis-cited this to p. 92, & have now corrected it to p. 84. I haven't especially cited the lack of career opportunities for Victorian naval officers, this being clear in several narratives. Crane himself refers to the competition for the best postings. However, on reflection "rare" is perhaps too strong, so I have changed it to "limited"
    2. "Professionalism was considered less praisworthy" - unless there is a British spelling I don't know about, I think it's "praiseworthy".
    You're absolutely right, this was a spelling error.
    3. "unforced aptitude" - I read this several times and didn't really get what this phrase means.
    It's Huntford's phrase, which is why I cited it. It means, I suppose, natural flair. I've put it in quotes to indicated that it is a quoted phrase.
    4. Just a suggestion - a one liner about how difficult the trip back from the farthest south (during Discovery) was. Michael Smith's book, which I cite many times in the Thomas Crean article, says he journey home became "a desperate race against time, with the trio constantly hungry and scurvy beginning to take a grip", and it's Smith's opinion that "one lengthy blizzard at this critical stage, confining them to their tent, would probably have killed them". From this account it appears they almost died on the way home - did you get this impression from other sources?
    Maybe Smith is laying it on a bit, for dramatic effect? I dont know. The march is covered in some detail in Discovery Expedition, and I don't really want to extend the Scott article with another lengthy description. I have added a bit, to emphasise the arduous nature of the march, and I think that's sufficient for this article.
    5. "At the end of the expedition it took the combined efforts of two relief ships and liberal use of explosives to free Discovery from the ice". Smith's book says that after all the blasting was done there was still 2 miles of ice between the Discovery and the rescue ships. Then the ice suddenly broke up and drifted out to sea. So I think your version implies they used explosives to free the ship, when in fact in the end, they were just lucky that the ice conditions changed. I could add the Smith citation if you like.
    Nearly all the accounts of the Discovery's escape differ to some extent, but they all refer to explosives, and I think that in this article my one-line description will do.
    6. There is a quote from Scott's The Voyage of the Discovery (p. 170) printed in the Michael Smith book which captures Scott's own admission of their inadequate preparation. You can decide to fit it in if you like: "But at this time our ignorance was deplorable; we did not know how much or what proportions would be required as regards the food, how to use our cookers, how to put up our tents, or even how to put on our clothes. Not a single article of the outfit had been tested and amid the general ignorance which prevailed the lack of system was painfully apparent in everything." This quote is really astonishing for someone in charge of the lives of 50 men!
    Yes, I read this quote in Voyage of the Discovery. It relates to the first sentence of the second "Discovery" paragraph. The quote is a bit long, but I have inserted a footnote which refers to it.

    If you would like me to add any of the above material from the Michael Smith book and cite it, I'll gladly do so. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your helpful suggestions and comments, which as you can see I have largely adopted.
    Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comment - another well-written and balanced article. I'm close to supporting though I have some quibbles with the polar journey - obviously you've tried not to over dramatize it, but it comes off as somewhat dull and a little fatalistic as a result, as if they knew it was hopeless from the point they turned round.

    OK, but you rather argue against your own case by altering Death march to Last march (which I agree is better). Anyway, I've altered the first sentence of this section, and I think that further changes lower down will give it a bit more life, although it is basically a record of a solemn and indeed tragic sequence of events.
    • Since Wilson theorized that Evans' death had been caused in part from a brain injury incurred during one of his falls the article should mention both the diagnosis and the falls
    This has been done, by alterations in the text and by extending a footnote.
    • Evan's decline was more marked than suggested. Scott doesn't seem that concerned for him until the 14th Feb (on the 8th and 9th the party are still relaxed enough to be geologising which in itself is worth mentioning). Even after Evan's death they haven't given up hope of getting back
    More marked than suggested? I had said "rapid decline". As to your comment about when Scott first expressed concern for Evans: 23rd Jan "Evans is a good deal run down", 30th Jan "Evans is losing heart", 4th Feb Evans is "dull and incapable" and 6th Feb "Evans is the chief anxiety". I have extended the section dealing with Evans's decline and death, but I've left out the geologising, otherwise the section begins to get unbalanced.
    Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I meant that you imply his decline mirrors the descent of the Beardmore (from 7 Feb), but Scott is only really anxious about him in this stage of the journey from 14 Feb (worse case...giving us serious anxiety). We then get no mention on 15 Feb, then the whole entry dedicated to him on the 16th and then the death on the 17th. I suggested the inclusion of the geologising breaks to suggest that they were by no means worn out (quote from 9 Feb) and to get away from the "Death March" feel.
    • from then on...the party’s fortunes descended into tragedy - does this suggest that Evans' death wasn't tragic? Poor old Evans.
    I agree, I've amended the wording here.
    • I'd think the frostbite, snow blindness and injuries are worth mentioning rather than just a vague deteriorating physical condition.
    Yes, I've done this.
    • The diary entry on 29th March is followed by a "Last Entry" (which we assume is made on the 29th, but there is no way to know for certain).
    I've slightly altered this bit so as not to imply any certainty about when Scott ceased writing.
    • As far as I know only one of the letters is dated and some can be dated by the circumstances outlined in them, but there is nothing to suggest he was writing after the 24th
    Covered in above
    I don't particularly like the film, and the linked wikipedia article is inadequate. But as an example of Scott-worship continuing into the post-war period, I've mentioned it.
    No, me neither, but it probably brought the story to a new audience (and it was on TV today)
    • There are a couple of odd adjective choices too: was the RGS's hope for the Terra-Nova expedition really "pious"? Is Shackleton's main trait "bravado"?
    Another reviewer asked about "pious". The sense is one of "well-intentioned, but probably vain". But rather than having to keep explaining this to audiences of raised eyebrows, I've deleted it. As to bravado, I simply typed in the wrong word. I meant bravura.
    I've never come across that meaning, so I've been educated, but it is probably wise to remove it as you have done.

    Yomanganitalk 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your continuing interest in these articles. My main problem I had with these points was trying not to extend what is already a fairly long article with "expedition" details. I have attempted to write a biographical article of Scott, without falling into a reprise of the Terra Nova Expedition, hence my glossing over of some details. You will see from the above what I have done, and I hope that these meet your concerns. Do get back to me if they don't. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you were trying to do (and you only had to see the article before you started work on it to see how bad it could be), but the Terra Nova Expedition is really what defines him to us and I felt it was a little too understated in the final section. Yomanganitalk 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Slight oppose mainly due to a few small glitches. Also one place where I feel a source citation is needed. When these get cleared up I'll be happy to support.

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead - third paragraph. The second sentence is quite convoluted. Consider rewording/breaking it up. I get the drift of the paragraph, but it's a bit awkward.
    Can't really see a way of breaking it up, so I've simplified it, without loss of intended meaning. See what you think.
    • Lead, last paragraph, sentence starting "But he sometimes had less easy..." I have two concerns with. One is that "had less easy relations" phrasing, which is awkward. The other is the "each of his expedition second-in-commands" which might be wordy. Since he only did two major expeditions, I would say "and his expedition second-in-commands." since to me each implies more than just two.
    I've re-jigged the sentence, and adopted your suggestions re second-in-commands.
    • Maybe I'm missing something but why is it important to mention that his father was "of Outlands, a country house at ..." Wouldn't it be simpler to say his father was a resident of Stoke Damerel, near Devonport, Devonshire?
    I'll deal with this and your next three points together, as they are all connected. I thought that it would be a good idea to have some information about Scott's family background, so I did my research and wrote this section. After your comments I looked at it again, and...you're absolutely right, it's magazine stuff! What was I thinking? "No portents clouded...." indeed! - I blush in shame. Anyhow, I've rewritten the section, reducing it considerably but at the same time adding some information about the naval tradition in the Scott family. I hope you see this as a real improvement.
    • Okay, I'm unclear who is being referred to in the sentence starting "From the testimony of John's daughter .." is it John or Robert? If it's John, I'm not sure it's needed to know that John resented his brothers, since this is an article on Robert.
    Dealt with above
    • Early life section, family background subsection, the sentence starting "His financial position later..." is very long and wordy. Consider cutting it back some?
    Dealt with above
    • Same section and subsection, that first paragraph is wordy and could use some pruning. It reads more like a magazine article than a encyclopedia entry ("No portents, however , clouded ..." is an example)
    Dealt with above
    • Another example of the above is in the Early naval career section, last paragraph "Scott now had the additional weight of domestic responsiblity to spur him forward on the path ..."
    In the same vein I've changed the end of this sentence, with a fully cited reference to his concern to get promotion.
    • Between expeditions section, Popular hero subsection, have we introduced the RN abbreviation for the Royal Navy yet? If not, it should be done before using RN.
    Now done & properly explained
    • Modern reaction subsection, third paragraph, the last bits are uncited and probably should be cited as they are opinion ("further attempted vindication of Scott" is definitely opinion)
    I've cited the "credibility of Huntford's evidence" to the appropriate pages of Fiennes's book. As to the Susan Solomon sentence, I've reworded this so that I can include her own statement of the book's purpose. The book's cover calls it a "vindication of Scott", but you can't cite a cover, can you?
    Looks pretty good to me. I did a bit of copyediting, where I saw some places to cut wordiness. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let me know of any remaining concerns and I'll do my best to deal with them Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything addressed. Looks better! Changing to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I made some copyedit fixes, with rather extensive edit summaries. Some remaining issues:

    • Discovery is mentioned in the lead - in italics, without context - when only the expedition, not the ship, has been introduced (also, if I'm not mistaken, there is no link to the ship article at all here)
    I found this quite awkward to fix. I was using the ship's name Discovery as shorthand for the expedition, to save having the full Discovery Expedition appearing in successive sentences. Scott was both leader of the expedition and commander of the ship, so how about: "...to apply for the Discovery command", with a link to the ship? That's what I've done. I've also put in note (1) to explain the expedition's commonly-used name.
    • It's quite incongruous to equate an education with a ship ("Education HMS Britannia" in the infobox); if you're trying to emphasize that he received very little schooling aside from his naval training, can the infobox refer to the cadet program, perhaps, instead of a vessel?
    I've done as you suggest. All potential naval officers of Scott's generation ceased normal schooling at 13 and underwent training on one of the Royal Navy training ships. HMS Britannia eventually became the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, but not until many years after Scott.
    • "Parents John Scott and Hannah Scott" - why not just John and Hannah Scott?
    That's what it now says - did someone fix it?
    • "For example his reluctance to rely on dogs, against the advice of expert ice travellers such as Nansen," - this wording is a bit muddled. 'despite' rather than 'against' might help clear it up.
    Yes, "despite" makes better sense
    • "before being sent to Stubbington House, a cramming establishment preparing candidates for entrance to the naval training ship HMS Britannia." - 'preparing' is an odd choice of verb tense in this context
    "preparing for the entrance examinations" is what I meant, and I've altered accordingly.
    • "his examinations for Sub-lieutenant," - I think more proper capitalization would be 'Sub-Lieutenant'
    Yes, done
    • "He focuses on the period 1889–90" - isn't 'focusses' the preferred spelling for commonwealth english?
    My Chambers English Dictionary gives "focuses" as primary spelling and "focusses" as alternative, so I've left it as it is
    • "Before and after the appointment was confirmed there were committee battles over the scope of Scott's responsibilities, since the Royal Society was pressing for a scientist to be in overall charge." - the end of this is awkward; perhaps '...responsibilities, with the Royal Society pressing to put a scientist in charge of the expedition.'
    Yes, this sentence needed sorting out. I've dropped the "Before and after the appointment" as unnecessary, used your form of words thereafter, and added a bit on the end about Scott's ship command. It now has the sense I was aiming at.
    • "In contrast to his naivety" - isn't 'naivete' (with or without diacritics) a far more common spelling?
    Again, my CED tells me that naivety is the primary spelling with the others as acceptable alternatives, so again I've left it.
    • "public receptions, lectures, and the writing of the expedition record The Voyage of the Discovery." - I think elsewhere you have not used serial commas
    I've deleted it.
    • Please review capitalization on Terra Nova Expedition and Discovery Expedition throughout the article for consistency
    I think this is now done, but I'll keep looking.
    • For note 68 (SLE p. 551), please clarify whether it's Vol I or II
    Vol I entered
    • In note 70 ("The researches of Susan Solomon"), can you rephrase to avoid the weird plural 'the researches"?
    Altered to "Research by...."

    Thanks for another fine article on a great explorer. Maralia (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let me know of any further problems. And thanks for the copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Well done yet again, sir. Maralia (talk) 03:31, 1 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 21:45, 1 April 2008.

    Blue Iguana

    edit

    Self-Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have worked hard on it off and on for the past 6 months, rewriting it from a non-referenced Start Page to what it is today. The Blue Iguana is one of the rarest animals in the world and is a success story in that it was brought back from the brink of extintion within a decade. Although Critically Endangered its future is looking better. I have carefully checked my facts in the article against published sources and have had input from several scientists who work with this species or other Cyclura species, including feedback from the scientist who's genetic research renamed the Latin binomial nomenclature for this animal. It has been rated as a Good Article and recently went through a Peer Review from other Wiki Editors. I feel it's ready to be Featured.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments I added one image and fixed some of the placement per WP:MOS#Images; please make sure that left-aligned images don't separate text and headers. One issue still present: I believe your use of the Quotation template in Causes of decline is incorrect per WP:MOSQUOTE. The quotation box is for pull quotes and other similar styles, while you're using for block quoting (i.e. directly within the normal flow of the prose as an indented quote) incorrectly. According to MOSQUOTE, block quotes must be 4+ lines or multiple paragraphs in length. Either remove the quotation box and turn the quote in to regular quoting style (just quotation marks), or make it a true pull quote or epigraph by disconnecting it from the rest of the text. Otherwise it looks great, nice work! VanTucky 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I tried to fix it, but don't like the way it looks now...can you point me to where I can make it a true "Pull Quote"? I was attempting to give more emphasis on that sentence by setting it apart from the paragraph...as just regular quoted text I think it looks a bit disjointed. Thanks for that additional picture! It's great and the Iguana in it is a dead ringer for a male Cuban/Cayman Hybrid that I own!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • that,"the species is nearly extinct, the people say since 1925 the "guanas"[sic] have become so scarce that it is no longer worth their while to hunt them." - period belongs outside the quote marks per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. A space needed after "that,".
    Fixed
    • "from over 45 different plant species" - "different" is redundant
    Fixed
    • "over the last 25 years" - "past" is better
    Fixed
    • "was created in order to determine" - "in order" is redundant
    Fixed
    • "unique to the islands - yet there" - wrong dash per WP:DASH
    Fixed, I think
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
    Fixed
    • Single years that shouldn't be linked
    Fixed
    • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "25 years", "65–90 days"
    Fixed
    • Hyphens needed for compound adjectives, eg. "large scale release"
    Fixed
    • Inconsistent number formatting, eg, "15 animals remained", "twenty-one eggs". Numerals are generally used for numbers over nine.
    Fixed, It was "one to tewnty-one"; I made it "1-21"
    • English speaking countries generally don't require linking.
    Fixed
    • "20–30 inches(51–76 cm)" - space needed
    Fixed
    • Some dates in the footnotes need linking.
    Fixed
    Fixed, it was part of the conversion template.
    All fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Old comments from ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://www.caymannetnews.com/bracker.php?news_id=1170&start=0&category_id=7 gives a page not found error
        • Yes. I got that when I checked the links but when I clicked on it it went to the article, then today it wouldn't...I found where that sneaky Caymanian newspaper hid it and it's back.
      • http://www.kingsnake.com/westindian/metazoa10.html what makes this a reliable site? I don't see sources listed on the pages.
        • It's a cite for a simple translation of the Latin and Greek words which compose the scientific name for Cyclura. The author is a Catholic Franciscan priest and is fluent in both languages, unless you think I do not need a source for the part which is a Greek language translation.(My own Latin is fluent, but my Greek is not) As for reliability, he is a naturalist and his location and ministry gives him access to photograph and observe firsthand much of the flora and fauna of the West Indies. I do not use him to cite anything else in the article, although he has given permission to upload his photographs in other articles I've worked on concerning this family of lizards.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am I correct in assuming that http://www.caymannetnews.com/index.php is the web site of the Cayman Islands newspaper?
        • Yes.
      • Current ref 14 (Blair, Dabid "West indain Iguanas of the Genus...") what's the publication for that article?
        • It's in the ref if you look at the source, the template was not displaying it in the references section, I think it is fixed now.
      • Current ref 19 (Alberts, Allison the Grand Cayman Blue Iguana Species Recovery Plan) is missing publisher information.
        • It's in the ref if you look at the source, the template was not displaying it in the references section, I think it is fixed now. I went with a new template
      • Current ref 27 (Wissman, Margaret "In Search of the Grand Cayman...") doesn't have issue and page number information. Not sure if that journal gives issue numbers?
        • It's in the ref if you look at the source, the template was not displaying it in the references section. That journal gives the information and the hard copy is sitting next to my desk. I think it is fixed now.
    Links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to review and point out my errors.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still some copy-editing to do; here are random examples from one small part. Please get the whole thing looked at.

    • "thick ringed tail characteristic" --> "thick-ringed tail". Then "name ... name".
    • "The Blue Iguana's closest relatives are the Cuban Iguana (C. nubila nubila) on Cuba, and the Andros Island Iguana (C. cychlura cychlura) in the Bahamas, all having apparently diverged from a common ancestor some three million years ago." Reword so it couldn't possibly be the countries that have diverged. "All" is odd after a list of just two. Perhaps "all three species ...".
    • Why are common units linked???
    • "Although not known to be arboreal the Blue Iguana has ..."—Where should the comma go?
    • "The male is larger than the female by one third of its body size." The body size of which: male or female? It makes a difference.
    • Great pic of the yawn—could almost be a featured pic, if they don't mind the blur at the bottom.
    • " As Blue Iguanas have only a few rod cells they have poor vision in low-light conditions." --> "As Blue Iguanas have few rod cells, they have poor vision in low-light conditions."

    Tony (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking the time to look. I fixed all of these. I'll see if I can find someone else to take a look at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • "it was reclassified as a separate species due to genetic differences discovered in 2000." seems to conflict with "Frederic Burton reclassified the Blue Iguana as a distinct species in 2004"
      • Not really, the differences were discovered in 2000, it took four years of research, peer review, verification, etc for it to be published in 2004.
    The text does not make that clear.
      • Who is Frederic Burton?
        • Frederic Burton is the Director of the BIRP and has the most hands-on experience working with this species on Grand Cayman. Yes, I have considered writing a seperate article on him, but because he hasn't been a featured character on the Simpsons or family Guy, it will probably be deleted.
      • As this is a "scientific article" should the measurements be SI first? Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Which_system_to_use
    I have run into this with a few other elements of researching this piece (and others of est Indian Cyclurids); half the sources use metric, half the sources use what's normal.
      • Can you get a better picture for Grand Cayman? Perferably one showing it on a world map. The current picture shows all of the cayman islands
      • I'll try!
      • Regarding the quote, is it in the middle of a sentence? Shouldn't it start and end with ... if it is? If it isn't in the middle of a sentence why doesn't it have a capitolized first letter and period?
      • Fixed
      • This sentence is about the 3rd time restating these issues: "The wild population of Blue Iguanas had been reduced from a near island-wide distribution to a barely viable, increasingly fragmented remnant owing to the combined influences of habitat conversion, hunting, introduction of non-native predatory species, and road kill."
      • I feel it's necesarry, it's in the lead, and its in the section as a summary of all the factors contributing to the decline before leading into conservation.I think it is needed to tie it all together.
        • I don't like reading anything more than 2x in a Wikipedia article, there is no reason. Please try and clean up repletion wherever possible. Also it seems as if you are using it to form a 'conclusion' section which is not normal practice.
          • I think this is fixed now.
      • "BIRP maintains these hatchlings for two years before their release into the wild". Can the fact in this sentence be added to one of the above where "head starting" is used?
      • I've considered that, but it will turn into a run-on sentence...I'll take another look at it.
        • Changing "to an age" to "to the age of two" will not make it a run on sentence.
          • Fixed
      • The whole "Blue Iguana Recovery Programme" section seems like it needs some work. Items seem repeated or out of order. ex: "Restored sub-populations are already present in two non-contiguous areas—the Salina Reserve and the Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park." comes after Salina is already mentioned.
      • If you can be a little more specific I can work on it.
        • Examples:
          • "head-starting them to an age where their chance of survival in the wild is high, and using these animals to rebuild a series of wild sub-populations in protected, managed natural areas" that sentence explains head starting, and then there is another sentence.. which explains head starting
            • Fixed
          • "BIRP maintains these hatchlings for two years before their release into the wild" is again another repetition of the "head starting idea", but it comes after other unrelated sentences.
          • Fixed
          • It seems like this section has pretty decent overlap with the last paragraph of "Endangered status"
          • The section starts out mention head starting, goes into where the Iguanas are then goes back to head starting.
            • I made it a footnote.
      • -Ravedave (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Generally MOS suggests lead to have 2-3 paras. reading it I felt para 3 segued into par 4 nicely and see no reason why they can't be combined.
      • Done!
    • In the Taxonomy section paras 1 & 2, and 3 & 4 can be combined with each other for flow. Also avoids the two paras that start with "The Blue Iguana...."
      • Done!
    • Anatomy and morphology - anatomy reminds me of livers and internal organs, why use jargon when you can use the plain description?
      • Done! (I guess anatomy and morphology sounded better...now I'll have to revisit the other Cyclura articles and fix this!)
    • First 3 paras can all go together in this section too.
      • Done!

    Overall, the prose is pretty good, though the profusion of small paras is not altogether pleasant on hte eyes. If you could combine a few in the lower few sections it would scan better. Nearly there though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Old comments from GrahamColmTalk 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments for now.
      • As they are not capable of creating liquid urine more concentrated than their bodily fluids, This is confusing, firstly, urine is a liquid by definition so the liquid is redundant. Do the produce, (a better word) any urine at all? I don't think they do. If so this phrase could be reduced to As they cannot produce urine..
      • Usage areas - does this mean territory?
        • Yes, I changed it.
      • Road kill are dead animals at the side of a road so, Road kill is an increasing cause of mortality - dead animals do not cause mortality; they are a result of mortality.
        • I put in "automobiles and motorscooters" but hope some eco-warrior doesn't make the leap to say it's greenhouse gases that are killing them.  :)
      • (AZA) designated the genus Cyclura as their highest priority - highest priority what, conservation effort?
        • I put in conservation for now, but really in the case of 4 species it was beyond conservation. It was their highest priority , period. Three species, C. lewisi, C. collei, and C. pinguis were on the verge of extinction with less than 20 animals left of each species.
      • through DNA analysis and blood work - the (ugly) expression blood work usually refers to the analysis of blood for signs of disease.
      • The program contains only pure specimens, as these hybrids - Now the program??
        • I had that in there originally, (it may have been "now" or "currently") some other wordsmith had me remove it, either here or at peer review.
      • bloodline exchange - genetic exchange would be better, or perhaps cross-breeding.
        • "Cross-breeding" works!
      • breeding the Blue Iguana in captivity over a period of seven years - the period of is redundant.
        • Gone
      • population remains a single genetic unit - a single genetic unit is a gene??
        • I changed it to "single genetic management unit"
    GrahamColmTalk 11:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well written, very well referenced, and compelling. I made some minor copyedits and have three comments that should be addressed (but I still support this FAC).
      • Areas in acres are given in conversion to metric units as square kilometers in several places, but as hectares in one place. I think hectares makes more sense here as the areas are all quite small (0.6 acre usually, also 88 acres), but these should be consistent.
      • fixed
      • In the "Causes of decline" section the exact same quotation from Chapman Grant is given twice - once in the text and once in a text box. Surely this only needs to be in the article once?
        • Yes, I left it in as the pull quote.
      • In the "Blue Iguana Recovery Programme" section we are told twice in the space of three sentences that 1000 individuals are needed. Does this really need to be repeated?
        • I removed the second mention.
    Hope these help, and I am rooting for the recovery of the Blue Iguana - thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your valuable input and comments!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:21, 1 April 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 21:45, 1 April 2008.

    Don Tallon

    edit

    Don Tallon, wicket-keeper on Don Bradman's invincibles. Part of a WP:CRIC FT drive. Has a wide range of pictures and sources. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Isn't debut an English word now ie without the accent?
    • "gloveman" - non-experts may not realise this=wicket-keeper.
    • "he had limited opportunities to force his way into the Test team and was a surprise non-inclusion " - well, if he had limited opportunities, why was it a surprise non-inclusion?
    • " keeping tidily" - not keen again, non experts wouldn't have a clue about this phrase, and it's a touch POV too.
    • In the infobox, why is Leg break capitalised?
    • "he barely stood higher than the stumps." - really? Seven year olds are usually quite a bit taller than 2ft 4in aren't they?! Can you cite this?
    • " at age 13" - just aged 13 would do fine I think.
    • "1932-33 " - en dash alert!
    • Order citations numerically, there's a [6][4] right now. And a [15][13]. And a [16][12]. And a [24][21]. And a [40][39].
    • " first time he witnessed a first-class match." - do you really mean witnessed? He'd never seen one before or just never participated? (question really)
    • "542 in a tidy performance [4] but was dropped after the match." - move [4] to the end of the sentence. or next to performance. either way, it can't stay where it is with a space either side of it.
    • " Clarrie Grimmett,the world's l" - space needed.
    • "Bradman's blazing 233 " - peacock.
    • "1937-38", " 1-0" - en dash alert!
    • "he was 23 when war broke out and cricket did not resume until he was 29. First-class cricket was cancelled and Tallon joined the Australian Army in August 1940 at Bundaberg.[18] He was discharged in 1943 as a private and was not decorated.[18] His discharge was due to stomach ulcers and he later had a major operation to remove part of his stomach.[12] His chances of international selection waned as the war dragged on. He was 30 when first-class cricket resumed in 1945–46.[19]" a lot of consecutive "He" or "His"...
    • "retrospectively accredited one-off Test" - I get it, would a non-expert reader?
    • "The only downside was a dislocated finger." a strange standalone sentence, needs to be merged and needs to be clear that it was Tallon who suffered the dislocation!
    • Try to avoid placing images where they might straddle section dividers, it looks a little untidy. Something like the cigarette card could easily be placed at the top of the section its in. It may not be a problem for people with wide displays, but those of us on narrow iBooks see it differently!
    • "20*" - link * to not out at the very least, or spell it out.
    • Expand MCG and link it.
    • Caption on the chart doesn't explain it clearly enough - what does the blue line mean? What do the blue blobs mean? What are the red bars? What's the y-axis scaled against?
    • "1967-68" - en dash alert!
    • The table is untidy - New Zealand should fit on one line and consider centrally aligned the stats.

    That's all I have for now. Let me know when you're done! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed everything except the first point, which was implemented by Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) so I don't know what the rationale is. The final part of the table I don't know how to implement, but I've cut down some of the labels about wk, so that there should me more space on the LHS for NZ before the table starts auto-folding. Can you fix the table? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nvm, Mattinbgn wrote the lead and used French and I wrote the main body without the accent. So I reverted to the accentless. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah they did. Bill Brown was the first Test player from QLD AFAIK, and Tallon was the second. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
      • Q2: And were there only 4 state teams at the time?
    Yeah. WA joined in 46 and TAS is 80 or so. Graham McKenzie was the first regular WA player, in the early 1960s. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q3: What's an "unofficial reason"? Is it speculation, or was there a leak? Unclear.
    Leak. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q4: Article implies that the spinners would make the ball swing. Is that incorrect?
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q5: Is the information about Barnett's mistakes in the 1938 Ashes needed? ... in such detail?
    Well, why not... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q6: Do you think it's POV/OR to say that Tallon's 2 world records in 38/39 were a response to the Aussie selectors?
    Yeah, I guess I imported that from the thinking of the source, I rm the specific ref to the selectors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q7: What do you mean by "furious" in "his catching and stumping style became more furious"?
    A more animated style of play. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q8: Post-war subsection heading seems inaccurate for contents
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q9: What did Tallon do between 1943 and resumption of 1st class cricket (45? 45-46? 46? At least a couple of years)
    Not discussed in the books. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More as I find em. --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    did more jargon links, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continuing here:
      • Q10: The refs at the end of the parag about his Test debut need some attention. Does one of them need to move to a prior sentence?
    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q11: His big stand with Lindwall - notable for his cutting or his driving or both? Currently, it's a bit of a muddle.
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q12: MOSNUM "allows" twenty as a word, but consistency is important. I suggest all numbers above nine are numerals and am correcting as I find them.
    ok. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q13: Wetting his inner glove is fascinating - why did he do it normally (it's clear why he didn't in chilly old Pom-land!)
    The book doesnt expand unfortunately, if it is common in keeping textbooks then I'm not aware. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q14: Bruised finger story on 48 tour - was this batting or keeping? In the nets?
    In a tour game. Probably against Surrey, while keeping. Clarified. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q15: Bruised finger story segues uncomfortably into discussion about playing conditions and why Tallon wouldn't get many opportunities... when a reader would expect the parag to go on to say to what extent the injury impacted on his opportunities. It's jarring, though not as jarring as playing a Lindwall bouncer with one's finger.
    Tweaked and moved the shiny ball stuff to the front. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q16: Article earlier talked about Tallon standing up to medium pacers. As Johnson also played Tests, he must have had some opportunities to stand-up to bowling. This makes "depriving Tallon of an opportunity to show his stumping abilities standing up the batsmen." seem slightly too strong. (there's also a missing "to" in that sentence) Suggest "depriving Tallon of an opportunity to continue his profitable partnership with the spinner." or some such.
    Tweaked to mention the McCool-Tallon partnership specifically being broken up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q17: Even if that's what Perry says (does he?), "allowing them to win the match by eight wickets." seems too strong for me, coming across as OR. If he'd dropped those chances, there's no reason they'd not have been "allowed" to win the match anyway - they were a pretty good side and England were not very strong, according to some RS. Suggest replacing "allowing" with "helping", except it's already used in that sentence, but that's the tone I'd aim for.
    Tweaked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q18: I realise I may have made a mistake and the finger bruised against Lindwall may not have been the same one later injured. Please clarify. If not, what's the relevance of the earlier injury?
    Cleared up. Tallon had a few mishaps initially while he was acclimatising and adapting to English conditions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q19: Yorker length/ankle height is a (slightly inaccurate, if I'm picky) tautology. Why not just stick with the easier understood ankle height?
    rm redundancy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q20: Would be nice to clarify how rare it was for Tallon (or any keeper) to bowl. Perhaps a snippet of statistics (how many overs he bowled in F-C cricket v on this occasion?)
    Pointed out that it is about 50 overs in his whole career, about the same as one match's work for a specialits bowler. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q21: Difficult to justify the terse treatment of the 50-51 Ashes series. The previous ones (won by Australia) have been lingered over; this is dismissed in a couple of sentences. Tallon and Australia performed badly; comes across as NPOV to skip over the details.
    I know, but I'm not sure what I can do, since he was picked as a keeper, if he failed in those days, it wasn't such a big deal for keepers to bat poorly. A lot of keeprs in those days averaged 15 throuhgout their careers. Secondly, the first two series featured a lot of famous catches, so they are explained, similar to famous centuries for batsmen. If he dropped heaps of the catches, the books didn't mention it and the scorecard can't indicate such things. Actually Australia won 4-1 that year, and in both Lemmon and Perry's minibios, they both had a large emphasis on 46-47 and 48 because of the iconic catches. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q22: I've added "Deafy" to the infobox - probably needs citing there as well as in the text. Did he have no nickname before then?
    Cited. No other nickname cited in book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q23: Re Image:Don Tallon stumping.jpg. Pedantically, the image needs a little more explanation - I assume he's in the middle of appealing for the stumping? The image doesn't actually show him doing the action of stumping, but the aftermath and I think this could be clarified. Would also be nice if we identified any more detail about who/when, but that might be tricky.
    The book didnt have dates or the batsman, but I changed it to past tense. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q24: Could his height be given using one of those clever thingys that means I can see it in imperial (how appropriate for a Pom) figures too?
    Its in teh infobox- not my handiwork. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q25: "High standing" immediately following comments about his unusual height looks like a bad pun, even by my standards of bad puns. (Cf "imperial" above)
    changed to acclaim. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q26: I agree with someone else who thinks it odd you've compared his batting with modern day wks. I think it'd be better to compare him to the best of his day, at least in addition to Gilly and Sanga.
    Found two of his English contemporaries
      • Q27: "Constant" appealing is misleading - I never saw him play, but I am 100% sure he wasn't constantly appealing.
    Changed to frequent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, at last. Sorry for delay. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - I have total faith that Blnguyen will fix all of the above that are appropriate to be fixed and will firmly slap me down where I've made a silly error. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done now, if possible, I hope. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My faith eminently justified. We're all done here. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Not particularly happy with the world today and that may reflect in some of the comments ....

    • Tallon was part of Don Bradman's Invincibles of 1948 and was recognised as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1949 for his performances with the Invincibles.

    Two invincibles in one line.

    • Tallon missed selection during the 1951–52 season due to a combination of health reasons due to stomach ulcers, age, deafness and increasingly error-prone glovework

    Two due to in one line.

    • Hassett and his deputy Arthur Morris then made the decision to drop Tallon in place of Gil Langley

    My English isn't very good but "in place of" doesn't look correct.

    • Tallon’s Test batting average of 17.13 paled in comparison to that of contemporary wicket-keepers such as Australia’s Adam Gilchrist and Sri Lanka's Kumar Sangakkara, both of whom have made a double century and more than ten centuries each.

    Very awkward comparision. If he is to compared with someone at all, why with two from the 2000s ?

    • During the First Test at Trent Bridge, Tallon took a total of four catches, including two difficult catches to dismiss Washbrook and Edrich at the start of the second innings, which helped Australia to seize the initiative and win the match by eight wickets.

    Loooong sentence

    • Among his three catches was a diving effort after Washbrook inside edged a Toshack full toss downwards at Tallon’s ankle at yorker length. Bradman described the catch as "miraculous".

    It was edged towards his ankle, why did he dive ?

    • Tallon combined with McCool in four stumpings and two catches,[23] registering 170 first-class dismissals in only 50 matches.

    The second half looks awkward.

    • Tallon was worried that his poor batting might lead to him being replaced, but was retained as Australia took an innings victory in Sydney.

    "Took" an innings victory ? Not sure I have seen that often.

    • He performed strongly, with four catches and two stumpings and scoring 30.

    "Strongly" ?

    • The score was 2/88 as the man who held the Test world record score of 364 was dismissed

    Do we need "the man who held the ... " ? There are several more peacocks in the description of that Test.

    • By series end, Tallon had set a Test record of twenty dismissals

    Just an Australian record

    • Bradman injured himself during the marathon innings in a rare stint at the bowling crease after the specialist bowlers had failed to break the Englishmen. With ten men, Australia fell to its heaviest innings defeat in Test history and the series was drawn

    It was nine (Fings too).

    • He also struck a century before lunch in a 90-minute session against New South Wales in Brisbane, the first player to achieve such a feat in Queensland history

    Just to be sure - was the session of 90 minutes or did he score 100 in 90 minutes. He came in to bat after 21 runs had been added to the overnight score, so if the session was of 90 minutes, the 100 would have come in around 70 minutes.

    • In 1935–36, Tallon was the top Queensland batsman with 503 runs at a batting average of 55.88.[8]

    It would be more helpful is the reference for things like this is CA's series average instead of the Pollard book. Tintin

    I've fixed these issues I think, although the value of "Cathces win matches" is why Hutton's value is described. The reason that batting wicket-keepers is in there is because Tallon was regarded as great purely on glovework style, rather than with batting included. The source was unclear on the century in a session so I kept in ambiguous. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:13, 28 March 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2008&oldid=209339864"