Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2013

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Interstate 296

edit
Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last freeway in the Interstate 96 family that isn't already an FA. (I-96, I-196, I-496 were promoted this year and I-696 was last year). It's also a short article, but it has the most complete history of why this Interstate Highway does not appear on maps and lacks signage in the field. Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dough4872:

  1. You should mention when I-296 was designated and built in the lead.
  2. "the freeway designation begins across the river from the 6th Street Bridge Park and Belknap Hill north of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum and the DeVos Place Convention Center". By freeway designation do you mean I-296? If so it seems redundant to mention it here as you already mentioned that I-296 begins at I-196.
  3. "South of the Ann Street interchange, the highway crosses a rail line.", maybe you can mention what railroad company owns the line.
  4. In the exit list, I would split the I-96/US 131 entry in order to have the exit list in proper chronological order (US 131, M-37, I-96). Dough4872 04:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers 1, 3 and 4 implemented. As for number 2, the first sentence mentions where the southern terminus of I-296 is, the second sentence is about the unusual lane arrangements and then the third sentence, which is the one you're mentioning, brings things back to the terminus with greater specificity about the landmarks around it. I think that's fine, so unless you elaborate about something specific with a suggestion, I'm leaving it as is. Imzadi 1979 → 05:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article looks good now and meets all FA criteria. Dough4872 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image / Source Review and one general comment by AdmrBoltz 05:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC):[reply]

  • Support Comments' – I'm currently going through the article and doing some light copyediting (as always, feel free to revert any changes you disagree with), and overall the article is excellent. Just a couple questions...
  • the highway crosses a rail line owned by CSX Transportation and West River Drive. – like I said, I'm not sure how to reword this, but at present it sounds like the tracks are owned jointly by CSX and West River Drive. I know what it means, and any reasonable person could figure it out, but it's one of those things that just jolts the reader's brain a bit.
  • Random visual comment, but I just tried this in preview, and I think you could move {{portal|Michigan Highways}} to the Footnotes section to alleviate the need for an otherwise empty See also section.

Otherwise, I'm happy to support promotion. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked that sentence. Everything should look good now. Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow, I read through the entire article, and I couldn't find a single fault. And that slightly annoyed me, so I read parts of it again, but it's really well-written, and I'd be happy to see this little road as an FA. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I'm just curious if the coordinators would like to see anything more on this review. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even when a nom is getting good support I generally like to leave it open at least two weeks but given we're almost at that point, plus the article's brevity, I think we can safely put this to bed, yes. I'll likely walk through the list tonight and action this and a few others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūjō was another attempt by the Imperial Japanese Navy to squeeze a quart into a pint-sized pot during the 1930s by adding more weapons and aircraft than could be safely borne by the hull as was proved when the ship was damaged in a typhoon shortly after completion. AFter modifications to improve her stability and general sea-worthiness, the carrier participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. During the Pacific War, Ryūjō supported Japanese operations in the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies before participating in the Indian Ocean raid, where she engaged Allied merchant ships with her guns, something that aircraft carriers of any nation rarely ever did. After her return to Japan, Ryūjō was assigned to support the Japanese attack on the Aleutian Islands while the main carrier force attacked Midway Atoll in June 1942. Her final assignment was to cover the Japanese reinforcement convoy to Guadalcanal after the Americans had landed there in August during which she was spotted and sunk by aircraft from two US carriers in the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. The article had a MilHist A-class review several months ago and I've tweaked it a bit since to bring it up to snuff. I look forward to working with reviewers to identify and fix any issues that might arise during the review process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made one tweak. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Image Review

--AdmrBoltz 01:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The lead is awfully short. Shouldn't the fact that she was built to exploit a loophole in the WNT be mentioned?
  • "World War 2"? Roman numerals please.
  • A citation might be needed for the specific claim that Japan was trying to exploit the loophole. It shouldn't be difficult to add - IIRC Preston mentions it in The World's Worst Warships, which I have if you need it.
  • "No armor could be provided because of the need to keep Ryūjō's weight to 8,000 metric tons, although some protective plating was added abreast the machinery spaces and magazines, and her hull was lightly built." - this is a bit lengthy and the light construction bit seems tacked on.
  • "attacked the British heavy cruiser Exeter and only managed to damage" - would "...cruiser Exeter 'but' only managed..." make more sense?
  • Is there an alternative to "destroyed the Dutch destroyer"? "destroyed the destroyer" seems a bit odd to my ears. Maybe something along the lines of "destroyed HNLMS Van Ghent, a Dutch destroyer that had run aground..."
  • "starting its raid" seems a bit easter eggy. Perhaps it would be better to shift the link a little to the right -> "starting its raid in the Indian Ocean"?
  • Is "of the 1st Air Fleet" really necessary in the line about Jun'yo joining the 4th Division? It seems very out of place coming after the clause about the divisional commander.
  • Kudos for not repeating the nonsense about the Aleutians operation being a lure for the American carriers.
  • takeoff is one word, not two. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Some duplicated links: bridge, superstructure, flight deck, hangers
  • The ship carried 2,490 long tons (2,530 t) of fuel oil which consider comma before "which"

Regards Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Closing comment -- Generally I like to see a review from outside MilHist but HcHc's field is I think far enough removed from this subject to do the trick as far as checking for accessibility, avoidance of jargon, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

The Carpet from Bagdad

edit
Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a shorter article than the existing feature film FAs. But this isn't a summer blockbuster or even an independent art house film. The Carpet from Bagdad is a silent film, released in 1915, and now all but lost -- save for a few frames of viewable film teased from a single ruined reel, salvaged from the wreck of the Lusitania! The modern niceties like box office returns may be absent, but I'm quite convinced that criteria 1b and 1c are met; I've surveyed everything from period film periodicals and daily newspapers to modern journals and books. Hopefully, the article rises to the challenge of the other FA expectations as well. Thanks to everyone who helped out with the sourcing on this, and thanks likewise in advance to the reviewers here for taking a look at this forgotten bit of film. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Comments from Chris857[reply]

  • Release date and running time - source, maybe [4] for date? why only in infobox?
  • [5] has a second scene from the film showing the titular carpet, any reason it isn't included?
  • Does any video exist from the one Lusitania reel?
Chris857 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existing film FAs were somewhat split over whether the release date is mentioned solely in the infobox or in the text. Mentioned that in the prose, cited to AFI (although I could have picked any number of period sources, too). Cited runtime in the infobox to AFI as well (again, runtimes don't tend to get referenced in most film FAs... but I'll agree that it probably needs one here, since readers cannot confirm the runtime by viewing the film!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several stills extant, of vastly varying quality. I agree that I probably should include a shot that, well, actually shows the carpet. I'll see about cleaning up that second Motography-published image. Other image from Motography now included. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No video exists, nor is it likely to become so. While the sources aren't explicit about the restoration work on the Lusitania reel, it's my understanding that there are only a few seconds of viewable footage, and even that is badly damaged and without perfs. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Eric Corbett

I generally like this article, but there are still a few too many rough edges:

  • The lead needs to about twice as long as it is to properly summarise the article.
  • "Upon its release, the film also received a special, invitation-only showing at the art gallery of the Bobbs-Merrill Company". How can a film be given anything? Where would it keep it?
  • "However, in 1982, an Oceaneering International diving expedition salvaged a number of artifacts from the wreck of the RMS Lusitania ..." Sentences ought not to start withhowever, don't be afraid of But.
  • "... this was an early example of the sponsored exhibition of a feature film outside of a theater". So the exhibition was outside (we'll let the "outside of" slip by) a theater?
  • "Despite the acclaim from many period reviewers, the British Film Institute's Clyde Jeavons thinks it unlikely that The Carpet from Bagdad is a lost masterpiece." Why does he think that?
  • Taken a stab at a better lead. I also tracked down the 1983 issue of Sight & Sound that discussed the recovery; this was itself the main source for the Bottomore material (including the statement attributed to Jeavons). Much to my surprise, he didn't do a particularly accurate job of relaying the content: he would have failed a source-use spotcheck here, for certain! Accordingly, I've minimized the use of Bottomore and expanded the appropriate sections with the better material. Most of the other sources Bottomore cites are redundant, but I am trying to track down the appropriate issue of long-defunct American Classic Screen to see if there's any more to say about modern scholarly opinion of the film's quality. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Looks pretty good, but a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • consider linking Baghdad, mosque, Middle East, Cairo, Damascus, bazaar
  • released 3 May 1915— "released on"
  • The Arab characters' clothing was genuine, and the actors portraying them...—as written, they are portraying the clothing
  • them as "a gem of..,—something not quite right "a gem" can't be "them"
  • many period reviewers—"contemporary"?
  • Your short form refs don't end with a full stop, unlike the others (my only excuse for a comment as trivial as this is that I've been on the receiving end)
  • Well, Eric Corbett got to many of these before I could, which I certainly appreciate. Eric, my especial thanks for the better short form reference template. So glad that I learned that now before I wrote too many more of these silent film articles! As to the rest, I've linked a little more liberally, and reworded the grammatical number mismatch. Also adjusted the clothing/actors sentence by substituting a noun reference in place of the disorderly pronoun; does that make it read more correctly for you? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created it as a separate section more trying to follow the Wikiproject Film section outline that for any personal preferences. That said, perhaps here it would be better to merge it into the Production section above (to discuss, broadly, things the studio did), rather than into the one below, which would wind up covering quite a bit of territory? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We have promoted several silent film articles like Si Tjonat or Gagak Item. I don't really want to support this, given that it's kind of short and like the nominator says it's missing a lot of info, but I guess it isn't the nominator's fault. Its comprehensive enough I suppose. And I don't feel that I missed anything. Sources look reliable. Beerest 2 talk 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support from Crisco 1492
    • The Carpet from Bagdad is a 1915 silent adventure film directed by Colin Campbell for the Selig Polyscope Company, starring Kathlyn Williams, Wheeler Oakman, and Guy Oliver. - Feels like this sentence should be split (probs after "Company")
    • antique dealer George Jones (Oakman), conspirator Horace Wadsworth (Oliver), and Fortune Chedsoye (Williams), the innocent daughter of a co-conspirator, - any way to keep the position of descriptors consistent? (You have before, before, after here)
    • Out of sympathy, Jones gives them a two-hour lead before notifying the police, - Sympathy for what?
    • What was the point of stealing the carpet?
    • Perhaps some information about the novel, which could hint at why it was chosen for adaptation? (Aside from the fact that people from that era loved adapting novels even more than they do now)
    • More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead largely rewritten to take care of the two unwieldy sentences. Hopefully I didn't cause more problems in the process!
  • Plot also clarified, somewhat. To a modern reader, there are clearly some plot holes (Your gang travels halfway around the world and back to ... make enough money to tunnel into a bank? Did you really think that through all the way?). But my sources don't address them and, frankly, adventure stories of the period weren't ever really intended to hold up to careful scrutiny.
  • I'll go back over the sources and see if there's any reason in particular this novel was chosen, or anything meaningful to say about it. MacGrath was a prolific author and Selig Polyscope drew from that well fairly often for film adaptations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Moving Picture World's James McQuade considered the film a "close second" to Campbell's 1914 film The Spoilers, praising its acting and special effects, although he felt that a Cairo scene, present in the novel but not the film, would have made Mohamed's motivations easier to understand. - a bit of a run-on here. I'd split this.
    • Despite the acclaim from many contemporary reviewers, modern scholars of the silent film era do not consider The Carpet from Bagdad a lost masterpiece, according to the British Film Institute's Clyde Jeavons. - Any substantiation? Right now this is so ambiguous that it could not be "a lost masterpiece" if only because it isn't entirely lost.
    • Images are all fine - PD 1923 both (screenshots). No poster seems available online. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- Doesn't look like we've had a formal source review so I had a look myself: main thing that stuck out is that we seem to have retrieval dates for some online sources but not others; also it's nice to format dates in a more readable form than yyyy-mm-dd, although from memory it may not be an absolute requirement... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the nominator hasn't been around for a while so given these are minor formatting points I won't delay promotion any further; hopefully Squeamish will be back online soon and can reiew then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Ontario Highway 416

edit
Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a fine piece of civil engineering and a vital artery in Ontario's transportation network - Connecting Ottawa, the capital of Canada, with Toronto, the capital of the province - Highway 416 is an important and interesting feat. The article has been polished through the various review stages and represents one of my best works, with complete sourcing for information that was very hard to obtain. It represents the work that a bit of dedication can accomplish, and so I present it to the FAC overlords for review. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with a few comments:
    • C$ is linked in "this section was C$196 million", but its first appearance is earlier in "a cost savings of over C$7 million"
    • you don't use {{convert}} in "Highway 416 "North" was a 21 km (13 mi)", but you do later in the same paragraph with "the twinning of 57 km (35 mi) of"
    • "to strike a cost-to-benefit balance": worth linking Cost–benefit analysis?
    • {{Reflist|2}}: a hard number of columns is inflexible and doesn't work well on different-sized screens—it forces a column off-screen on mobile devices, and leaves a lot of whitespace on large screens. If you choose an appropriate "|colwidth=" instead, users' devices can adjust the number of columns automatically
  • ———Curly Turkey (gobble)
    • All fixed, and thank you for catching all these rather obscure, yet easily solved issues. The convert situation was most likely due to the fact that Canada adopted the metric system in 1977, and that all distances provided by sources prior to that are given in miles. - Floydian τ ¢ 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review from AdmrBoltz 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC):[reply]
    • Issues resolved -- Support --AdmrBoltz 20:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd replace {{convert|76.4|km|adj=on}}-long with {{convert|76.4|km|mi|adj=mid|-long}} as I did on my FAC. There are several instances where this should be used throughout the article.
    • "The median also narrows for the remainder of the distance into Ottawa." - this sentence seems awkward. Can you rephrase it?
    • MOS:RJL#Colors states that you should be highlighting the incomplete interchanges with that pink shade, and then defining the shade in the legend at the bottom.
    • Why is the footnote about the park a footnote and not just in the route description?
      • Fixed
      • Fixed
      • Canada, or at least Ontario (I'm not watching many BC articles hehe), doesn't use the pink or cyan colours for incomplete interchanges and concurrency terminii. See Highway 401 and Don Valley Parkway. I find them too distracting and that the note column describes the setup best.
      • I can't remember to be honest. It feels kind of like directions that are better presented as a note to the article, since the article on the park was merged into this article. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—I made a few updates to citations, but a few changes are still needed.

  • You've used |abbr=on in {{convert}} when you should be using | to display the adjectival form. Additionally, the unit shouldn't be abbreviated in running prose (that's reserved for infoboxes and tables), and {{convert/spell}} should be used for the "approximately 5 km" measurement in the History section.
  • Footnotes 26, 28–30 should probably use {{cite press release}} to explicitly indicate that these are press releases.

Otherwise, the article looks good, and I'd be happy to support promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 04:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be able to get these tomorrow (too inebriated to try now), but I'm just wondering about the issue with sources 26/28-30: If these were published under the mantra of what seems like a press release, but feel and have the layout of a news article, do you think I should cite them as press release still (I'm assuming you already checked the citations, but figured I'd just double check). - Floydian τ ¢ 10:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd treat them as a press release... when I worked on a newspaper staff, we'd republish university press releases, with minor stylistic changes to match The AP Stylebook as necessary, as news articles. That didn't change the fact that the original is still a press release written and published by the university. The same concept would hold with MTO press releases; they're still written and published by the MTO. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quickly made those changes so that any pending closure of the nomination isn't held up over minor details. Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion now. Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey

edit
Nominator(s): --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a political office in the state of New Jersey that was created in 2005 and filled for the first time in the modern era in 2009. It discusses the quirks of the state's early history that caused New Jersey to be one of the few American states without a lieutenant governor, the circumstances that forced New Jersey to create the post, and the qualifications and powers of the office in its current form.

After a very comprehensive GA assessment that was more intense than most FACs, I think this article is ready for FA consideration.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check by Nikkimaria

edit

Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

edit

Support, looks good! As a New Jerseyan and a political lover, I had to stumble here from my FAC and comment :)

  • "It is the second highest-ranking official in the state government. The lieutenant governor is elected on a ticket with the governor for a four-year term." - I feel like these two could be merged, and at the same time clarify who is the highest ranking. It sounds obvious, but not everyone on Wikipedia has a western style of governance. Something like "it is the second highest-ranking official in the state government, behind the governor, with whom the lieutenant governor is elected for a four-year term." Just throwing it out there for a jazzy sentence. Or, if that's too jazzy, merge these - "The lieutenant governor is elected on a ticket with the governor for a four-year term. The lieutenant governor's term is concurrent to the governor's four-year term. "
  • Reply: These sentences were originally one longer, combined sentence and were copyedited into three sentences for greater clarity. I am averse to merging these sentences because of that. I think the three sentences together are sufficient to establish the subordinate role of the lieutenant governor to the governor and adding a clause is not necessary. Further, one of the comments in the GA review was that the lede was too large, so adding more explanatory material to the lede isn't a course I would take lightly--especially when the rest of the article establishes those points at length sufficiently.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I just think that those two sentences started with "The lieutenant governor" and end with "governor for a four-year term" and "governor's four-year term". Seems like those two could be combined easily without losing anything. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I think merging the sentences will reduce clarity (as it apparently did in earlier versions where these three sentences were united) and create a nasty confusing run-on (something you point to as needing clarification in another example below). So we're just going to have to agree to disagree.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply/Done: Because a few months ago someone else thought that something similar to that wasn't clear enough, and I'm loathe to get into a tug-of-war over it if it's just a matter of "I would have written this differently" because everyone would write something differently. But I'll defer. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He furthered angered the colony's Quaker leaders by retaliating against them for refusing to support raising troops for a military effort to invade French colonies in Canada" - I'm not exactly sure what happened here, but I think it could be clearer.
  • Reply: How is the sentence "not clear"? If you could tell me something more than "not exactly sure" I'd consider addressing it, but just saying "it could be clearer" doesn't really tell me much. Further, that's about as clear a synopsis as can be managed. If I go into an explanation of the dispute, it would take up too much space to explain and end up worthy of its own article (not a bad idea). So is this a question of what I think is a rather clear sentence not getting the point across (which you could tell me how it doesn't) or just a matter of you thinking you'd write it differently (which is unactionable, IMHO)? We often forget that an article is a summary (WP:SUMMARY) where we're advised to avoid excessive detail (WP:DETAIL). If anyone wants more detail on the dispute, they can read the source that supports the statement which spends a few dozen pages setting up the action. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply/Done: Unlike most run-ons, this one is rather straightforward and no longer than average sentence in an average academic history text--so I unless there's something specific in its messiness, and since there's no use using commas if one isn't needed, I don't know what else you're getting at. I revised it to: "Ingoldesby furthered angered the colony's Quaker leaders after he retaliated against them for their opposition to raising troops from New Jersey to support a planned invasion of French colonies in Canada." I am hopeful that this suffices.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just being picky, but "New Jersey had two recent periods during which several politicians assumed the governorship within the span of a few years.' - this isn't backed up by ref 24.
  • Reply: No, it is not backed up by fn.24--the following sentence is, where the footnote appears. The sentence you complain of is the first sentence (thesis) of the section. The rest of the section adequately backs up its thesis with sourced information. Not every sentence need to be tagged with a source...especially if it's just an introductory sentence and the rest of the section it prefaces adequately is sourced (as this one is with about two dozen footnotes).--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an LGBT New Jerseyan, I think it's kinda unfair to brush off McGreevey's resigning as "a sex scandal". 2004 was a very different time than 2013 as far as gay Americans go. I'm not saying much more is needed, but I think a bit more might be in order here. Him resigning is quite different from Whitman leaving after being appointed to another position.
  • Reply: Again, we're advised not to go into too much detail especially on tangents--especially when that detail is discussed at other articles there's no need to regurgitate it. I will link it to the relevant section at the McGreevey article, but since it's unnecessary detail I'll avoid regurgitating the scandal details here. To your main point: McGreevey was accused of sexual improprieties and harassment by Golan Cipel, and the media criticized that the governor appointed a love interest into a "homeland security" post that he wasn't qualified for except for having been the governor's love interest, other damaging sexual allegations came to light, it wasn't just his admission of being a "gay American". Simply put, he resigned amid a sex scandal. I'd prefer not to dance around the obvious with euphemisms or sugarcoating--and I'd use the phrase "sex scandal" whether the participants were gay or straight and the circumstances warranted it. Here, this incident had all the hallmarks of a scandal and it was compared by the media with other scandals (especially after Spitzer resigned). Newspaper coverage described it as a scandal, and even McGreevey discusses the nature of the events (and others) as a "scandal" in his memoir (his former wife in her memoir uses the word "scandal" more frequently, but she might have had reason to be bitter.) Nevertheless, the details are found elsewhere and at length discussion of them wouldn't be germane here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning that Codey and DiFrancesco were considered official governors retroactively, or is that trivial? Really not suggesting anything here, it was something that came to mind.
  • "On November 3, 2009, Christie defeated Corzine by a margin of 48.5% (1,174,445 votes) to 44.9% (1,087,731 votes), with 5.8% (139,579 votes) of the vote going to independent candidate Chris Daggett." - is there a reason you spell out Chris Daggett's name here, when you just refer to Christie and Corzine by their last names?
  • "The current lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, serves as New Jersey's 33rd Secretary of State." - ref?

All in all, it's a really good article on a fairly new subject. Hope it keeps up to date when there is a change in 2017 (or 2016 - it'd be funny to see the very first lieutenant governor actually become governor due to another resignation). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be interesting to see what constitutional crisis emerges if Christie does move on in 2016. The state's constitution doesn't provide a Lt. Gov. who assumes the acting governorship to appoint or fill a vacant Lt. Governorship, which places a Republican governor at a disadvantage with a Democratic legislature--so that raises an interesting question of succession and political wrangling. The article is on my watchlist and I'll be sure to update it if I'm around in 2016/2017. If I don't, someone else will--I'm sure of that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

edit

My knowledge of US politics is approximately nil. Here are a few comments on the text of the article: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is the second highest-ranking official in the state government." - It doesn't seem correct to me to refer to an official person as "it".
  • " Ingoldesby first served under the colony's first royal governor ..." - too many "first"s.
  • "Ingoldesby furthered angered the colony's Quaker leaders after he retaliated ..." - Typo.
  • "-an offer retracted by his demands for wide-ranging powers-" - This doesn't sound quite right.
  • "... it empowers the governor to appoint "principal department heads" that serve as his (or her) pleasure." - Nor does this.
  • "The President ... would assume the role of acting governor while retaining their powerful role in the State Senate." - This is a misuse of the word "their".
  • "The legislation proposed before the general assembly was titled ..." - This sentence seems awkwardly phrased.
  • "After the primary election in June 2009, Governor Corzine sign into law A.3902, ..." - "signed"?
  • "... the date that the vote count of that election were confirmed as final and certified by the state's Secretary of State." - "was confirmed"?
  • "The governor and lieutenant governor must be members of the same political party, campaign on the same ticket, are elected conjointly, and serve the same four-year term concurrently." - "be elected conjointly"?

Comments from Taylor Trescott

edit

This looks really good and I think it meets the FA criteria. I Support its promotion. Just a few concerns. (I'm not in the know about American politics, so feel free to laugh at these...)

  • "The person elected to this position is the second highest-ranking official in the state government. The lieutenant governor is elected concurrently on a ticket with the governor for a four-year term." These two can be merged, since (I think) they refer to the same person.
  • In the "2009 gubernatorial election" section, you refer to both "running-mate" and "running mate" - be consistent. (Since the article is at running mate, that's what I would use, but it's up to you)

That's really it. Congratulations on a high quality article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

edit

It's surprising to me that there are no portraits of Richard Ingoldesby. I suspect that one exists, but we have yet to find it. Similarly, the photo of Kim Guadagno is not very good, but none of the other options is any better. That should be a challenge to New Jersey Wikipedians: get a decent photo of this person! But none of this is necessary for this FAC.

  • Reply - I was surprised as well that there was no Ingoldesby portrait when I was preparing List of colonial governors of New Jersey--even asked a friend at the National Portrait Gallery if they knew of one. We could not find one. We had previously used Guadagno's official state portrait on the article. NJ's official website states that state government images could be used freely and without obligation--and commons used to have a PD-NJ tag, but since there was no explicit permission on the NJ website to alter (even though it was considered implied), that tag was deleted and so with all the images/files it supported. I emailed the Christie-Guadagno campaign in October/November organization for one, they never replied. If a better image does come up for Guadagno or one is uncovered for Ingoldesby, as long as I'm alive, I'll find a way to get it up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it not. – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the proprietary period (1664–1702), the colony was often administered"... But it was two colonies, not a single colony. You should explain that it was divided, move the mention of East and West Jersey up, and then say accurately that the colonies were often administered in such-and-such a way.
Great, but that turned it into quite a long sentence, which I took the liberty of splitting. – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When text says "In its previous creation...", it sounds like you mean previous to the merging of the crown colony. Also, it would be simpler and clearer to use a comma instead of an em-dash in that sentence.
  • When the text says "Ingoldesby became acting governor of both provinces briefly", the rest of the paragraph describes specifically when his term began and ended, including the different dates for the end. I don't think it clarifies anything to say "(1709–1710)", and in some ways in confuses the issue.
  • I don't think "(1681/2–1757)" is a correct date format.
    • Reply/Addressed: - The usage of 1681/2 conforms with Annunciation Style--which was in use in Britain and her colonies before 1752 when they used the Julian Calendar when Europe had been using the Gregorian for 170 years previous. WP:OSNS requires an explanatory footnote--added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's what you meant! Okay, that footnote is quite useful. – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect "1st Duke of Newcastle" is a parenthetic, requiring a comma after it when it doesn't end a sentence.
  • I don't know what this means: "Pownall did not assume the governorship of New Jersey as his expertise shared in England led to his commission as Royal Governor of Massachusetts".
Excellent rewording. (I added a comma.) – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to refer to Montgomerie, Cosby, etc., by their last names only, when they have not been previously introduced.
  • "Prior to creation of the lieutenant governor position" seems ambiguous, because you're referring to a period after there already been two of them. Prior to the modern creation? Prior to the creation of the permanent lieutenant governor position?
  • You usually capitalize "Lieutenant Governor" and "Governor" when it precedes a name (e.g. "Governor Thomas Kean") or when part of the full title ("Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey"), but not in any other cases (e.g. "grants the governor the power", "did not have a lieutenant governor", etc.). I approve. But there are a few seeming inconsistencies: the top of the "Gubernatorial succession" section refers to "the governor of New Jersey"; the "Resignations and succession controversies" section refers to "a permanent solution such as a Lieutenant Governor" and "establishing a Lieutenant Governor"; the "Referendum on a constitutional amendment" section refers to "acting governor Richard Codey" and "Incumbent governor Jon Corzine"; and there is a section called "List of Lieutenant Governors" (capitalized) with table headings "Lieutenant Governor" and "Royal Governor". I'm not 100% sure when Lieutenant and Governor should be capitalized, but I'm sure the article should be consistent.
  • Reply/Addressed - In the GA review I tried to get it consistent, but concede there were probably a few strays. I erred on keeping the column labels capitalized for the table. I couldn't find anything MOS wise regarding it in a quick check, but they are titles as a proper noun in this context, and aesthetically I didn't care for the alternative version in lowercase, I kept them capitalized. I rephrased the "Incumbent governor" sentence. "Acting Governor" done., and addressed the others above. I think that should make the usage generally consistent. shout if you see any additional strays.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it looks fine to me now. – Quadell (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related: I think "President of the New Jersey State Senate" is appropriately capitalized as the name of the position, but I don't think "state senate" should be capitalized in "his or her powerful role in the State Senate", nor do I think the capital letters are warranted in "filled by the State Senate President"
  • The article says "Prior to creation of the lieutenant governor position, the governor of New Jersey was the only state-wide, non-federal, elected office." In New Jersey, you mean. I think adding "in the state" would maximize precision while minimizing redundancy.
Well, yes... I can only think of suboptimal wordings. Adding "in the state" would create an awkward duplication of "state", and adding "in New Jersey" would create a different awkward duplication. But leaving it as is could give the false impression that it was the only such office in the country, especially since the very next sentence compares New Jersey to other states. Perhaps a major rewording of the whole paragraph could fix the problem, but I can't think of a way. You may be forced to pick the best of the available not-so-great options. – Quadell (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, I may have solved it by rephrasing it as Prior to modern creation of the lieutenant governor position, the only state-wide, non-federal, elected office was the Governor of New Jersey. The next sentence starts with "New Jersey" but because it avoids the tautology I can accept that under the "best available" option. Let me know if you think that's o.k. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great choice, I think that works. – Quadell (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider "This order of succession would be included in the first state constitution in 1776, and the subsequent 1844 constitution, and kept in the 1947 Constitution until the 2006 amendment." The simple past tense is more appropriate, and the commas are problematic. Might I recommend the following? "This order of succession was included in the first state constitution in 1776, reinstated in the subsequent 1844 constitution, and kept in the 1947 Constitution until the 2006 amendment."
  • MOS:CAPTION says "Captions should be succinct". I think the clause "a former funeral director from Orange, New Jersey" is not relevant to the article and should be omitted. (Readers can always click on the link to learn more about him if they're curious.)
  • Per MOS:COMMA, when a date is formatted like "January 8, 2002", the year is acting as a parenthetic, and needs a comma after it (unless it's at the end of a sentence). There's only one such problem in this article.
  • I don't like the wording "a fluke of political circumstance". In an electoral fluke? In an unusual political circumstance?
  • This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that "in accordance with Article IX, paragraph 1 of the state constitution" gives unnecessary detail about how New Jersey's constitution is amended. What would you think of simply saying "in accordance with the state constitution"?
  • This isn't strictly necessary, but since you already have a "notes" section, I think the additional information about members not voting or abstaining would be better as footnotes. What do you think?
  • Consider splitting citation 1 into a note (for the explanatory information) and a citation (for the source).
  • Image review: there are no problems with any of the images.

I will continue this review over the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fascinating article. I have not done a thorough source check, but the sources look great at a quick perusal. The quotes are relevant and helpful. In my spotchecks, I always found the article's statements fully supported by the sources without plagiarism. Once my nitpicks are dealt with, I expect to support. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've addressed your suggestions and comments. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns. Thank you for your meticulous attention in reviewing this article and for your (anticipated) support. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article passes all our FA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo

edit
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discover the tragic story of Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo, Africa's first modern poet and Madagascar's greatest literary figure, who committed suicide by cyanide poisoning in his 30s following the French colonial government's refusal to let him represent the island at the 1937 world's fair in Paris. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

Feel free to disagree with anything here; some is only my preferences.

Lead
edit
  • "(4 March 1901/03 – 22 June 1937)": per MOS:DATEFORMAT, the slash refers to contiguous dates; I don't know what the standard is or should be, but I might do "1901 or 1903"
  • Changed to "1901 or 1903"
  • "Rabearivelo was impoverished in childhood": this could be read either as "grew up impoverished" or "was made impoverished (at some point)"
  • Ah, okay - changed to "grew up impoverished"
  • "just prior to the emergence of the Negritude movement": should this not be Négritude?
    • Changed to the French spelling throughout. MOS states we should use English spellings in the English Wikipedia, which is why I had it without the accent - and I suspect the name of the actual Negritude article may need to be changed to drop the accent as well - have I misunderstood that rule?
      • Per MOS:FOREIGN: "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines." Basically, if it most often appears in English without the diacritic, then avoid using it; if the diacritic is common in English sources, use the diacritic. This results in some irritating irregularities—in Japanese subjects, for instance, one is expected to write "Tokyo" rather than "Tōkyō", but "Shinzō Abe" rather than "Shinzo Abe", even within the same article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "already established an international reputation": I think you could drop "already"
  • removed
  • "reputation among Léopold Sédar Senghor and other literary figures": this reads strangely; I don't know if it's technically wrong, but I'd reword it ""reputation among literary figures such as Léopold Sédar Senghor"
  • edited to use your suggested wording
  • "declared Rabearivelo the national poet": maybe "its national poet" would be better
  • changed
  • "his works continue to be felt to the present": you can safely drop "to the present"
  • dropped
Biography
edit
  • "former Merina aristocracy ... entitled under the former monarchy": I'd drop "former"
  • I removed the first instance (former aristocracy) but want to keep the second (former monarchy) to make it clear that colonization eventually ended it. It didn't happen right away - the French colonized but allowed the monarchy to stay in place for two years, and in most of their colonies they ruled through the monarchy for much longer.
  • "Ecole Flacourt": "École"
  • Corrected
  • "He changed his name to Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo in order to have the": drop "in order"
  • I feel this reads a little better if I keep the "in order" here. Otherwise the repetition of the word "to" starts to stand out.
    • I don't really see any issue with the "repetition", especially since the two tos are not even the same word: the first is a preposition, the second a particle, and besides, they both remain whether you use "in order" or not, so there's no avoiding the "repetition".
  • I do feel it reads better as is, but this is probably just be a matter of personal preference. I'll take it out.
  • "at the Cercle de l'Union": is "the Cercle de l'Union" a library? Best to make it clear
  • Clarified that it was a social club
  • "sums to buy himself books": I'd drop "himself"—that can be assumed
  • removed "himself"
  • "Imprimerie de l'Imerina": rather than linking "Imprimerie" to Printer (publishing), I'd reword to something like "the printing house Imprimerie de l'Imerina", and drop the link entirely
  • changed to use your wording
  • removed link
  • "in various literary magazines, including 18° Latitude Sud": "various" is redundant
  • removed "redundant"
  • "of essays and theatrical plays": we can drop "theatrical", unless there's a reason to distinguish theatrical plays from other kinds of plays
  • removed "theatrical"
  • "In 1925 he published a book in prose called L'Aube Rouge ("The Red Dawn"), a historical novel": "a book in prose called" is redundant
  • changed to "he published a historical novel called L'Aube Rouge ("The Red Dawn") about the last years ..."
  • "Rainandriamampandry, the former governor of Toamasina who was executed by the French in 1896": we can assume he was "former" if he was executed; is "Rainandriamampandry" one word?
  • Yes, that's his last name. Malagasy names are often agglomerations of many words together (the king known as Andrianampoinimerina, for example, actually has a much longer name - that's the short version :D). Removed "former"
  • "He published his second and third poetry anthologies": I assume "he" is Rabearivelo, and not Rainandriamampandry? It's grammatically ambiguous
  • Changed to "Rabearivelo"
  • "with a wide variety of women throughout his adult life": "a wide variety" sets my imagination loose! Is there some reason this can't just be "many"?
  • Ha! Good call. I removed that clause to streamline the sentence.
  • "of hainteny (traditional Malagasy poetry)": might want to redlink "hainteny"
  • I have an article on that but linked it earlier in the article under its subsection topic of kabary. Apparently per MOS we can link terms once per section, so I've added the link to hainteny as well now
  • "his three-year-old daughter Voahangy died": no cause of death?
  • I could only find that it was due to "illness" - added this
  • "and his personal journal": I think we can drop "personal"
  • I'd prefer to keep this to differentiate it from academic or literary journals
  • we may have been looking at different instances. I changed one to "his works and journal" and removed "personal" from another instance, but kept the one before "Calepins bleus" because this is the first real mention of the journal collection as a work with a title.
  • "writing "Perhaps one needs": comma after "writing"
  • I believe this is an aesthetic choice, and I find the close repeated use of commas ("...his own death in his journal, writing, "Perhaps one needs...") breaks up the flow of the sentence
  • Yes, the use of commas before quoted text is optional but not required. Explanation here.
  • changed to "committed suicide"
  • "first five volumes of his personal journals": could drop "personal"
  • Keeping as explained above
Style and influences
edit
  • "he utilizes": not a fan of "utilizes" when "use" would do
  • changed to "uses"
  • "a purer form of traditional models": "the purer form"?
  • I don't think we could use "the" - it's not the only one or the definitive one
  • Really? I'll have to go back and revise some of my other articles as well! Removed the link
  • "His break from conventions": drop the plural
  • done
Legacy
edit
  • "of the Negritude movement": accent again
  • fixed
  • "and celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2011": is unnecessary
  • removed
Works
edit
  • Book titles should be in italics.
  • done
  • « Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo »: English doesn't use guillemets; this should be in double quotes
  • done
  • Translations of the titles would be nice
  • I tried to translated them in the body of the article - here they are only in English if they were published in English
Suggestions that won't affect support
edit
  • You might want to throw a {{Portal|Colonialism|Madagascar|Poetry}} in there somewhere.
  • done

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Support on prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

edit

I thoroughly reviewed this article for GA status back in September, and I feel it is a strong FA nominee. There are a few nitpicks that weren't a problem for a GAN, but should be dealt with in a FAC. Most of these have been mentioned by Curly Turkey, above. In addition:

  • There are still a few serial comma issues (e.g. "Jean Amrouche, Paul Claudel, and Valery Larbaud" vs. "Rilke, Whitman and Góngora"). Be sure to be consistent throughout the article.
  • I believe this is fixed now.
  • Page number ranges need an en-dash, as in note 9. (I found no other format problems in the sources.)
This en dash is going to haunt me to the end of my days, seriously. I cannot figure out how to make an en dash short of using the old fashioned coding for it, which apparently is now being removed from WP by a bot. Can you or anyone tell me where the en dash is on my keyboard? - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
­If you use a French keyboard with a Compose key, you can type <<Compose>>, <<dash>>, <<dash>>, <<period>>. For an emdash: <<Compose>>, <<dash>>, <<dash>>, <<dash>>. You can also do {{subst:endash}}. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! What about the QWERTY keyboard? Lemurbaby (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I use a Linux, and have remapped some of the keys (I'm an Emacs guy); I've remapped the "insert" key to be a "Compose" key, so I can input and French, and macrons for Japanese. If you don't use Linux, I don't know what the standard method is, but if you have a key on your keyboard you don't use (like the "insert" key), I'm sure some googling will show you how to remap it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, it's an interesting and well-written biography that's well-sourced and follows MOS closely. I look forward to your improvements. – Quadell (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I caught the last serial comma irregularity. Let me know your thoughts on the translation issue. Otherwise I think I've addressed what you've raised here. Thanks for coming back to take part in the FAC, and thanks again for the GA review as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I have no opinion on the translation issue, other than to opine that it's inherently and unavoidably confusing to have a title "Translated from the Night", which is translated from the French, in which he translates French into Malagasy. But what can you do? – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is a fascinating article about a little-known writer who deserves wider recognition. It's well-written, impeccably sourced, and follows the MoS. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

edit

Many of the prose issues seem to have been highlighted above, so I'll be brief. Is there some way in which that "Works" section could be translated into English as partially done above? And I believe it is "Négritude" not "Negritude". 209.255.230.32 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now changed to the French spelling of Négritude throughout, and have ensured all the titles are translated to English in the text, but not in the listing of works, except where the work was published in English. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: I see May 2007 and 2011 on the article - where are you getting 2006 from?
  • See also should be above Notes
  • FN11: missing accent on publisher name

Note -- Looks like required checks have been done but need some more eyes on this for a comprehensive review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

I concur with Quadell, this is an extremely solid article and well-meriting of FA.

I have a couple of minor reservations :-

  1. www.iarivo.org is not a source I'm familiar with, and is only used once, but I'm not sure how it measures up to WP:RS?
I've now replaced it with a much better book source. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Could "Romantic, post-symbolist" in the infobox not be linked to the articles associated with them, as sophisticated concepts in their own right? I believe Romantic poetry and, although post-symbolism doesn't seem to have an article, a half-link to Symbolism (arts)?
Good thinking - I've added the links.

Brigade Piron (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Support from me then! Brigade Piron (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Cliftonian

edit
Leaning to support
Support

I have just read this through and I have to say, a really, really good job on this one, about a figure I must say I had never heard of. I found very few things to quibble about and enjoyed the article a lot. I fully expect to be supporting in due course once these minor issues have been cleared up.

Well done, supporting —Cliftonian (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Why is there ambiguity about him being born in 1901 or 1903? I imagine it's just a case of the sources differing, but if this is so just say so (in the body, not the lead)
  • Actually, I'm not sure why there is ambiguity - even several of the sources state "either 1901 or 1903", suggesting Rabearivelo himself may not have known and may have used different dates on various documents. Unless I can find a source that states as much, though, I believe it may be best to simply leave it as is.
  • "widely considered to be Africa's first modern poet" I'm quite dubious about this statement. I see it is taken near-verbatim from the source, but it still irks me. Presumably we're not counting white poets from South Africa or north African Arabic poets. How are we defining "modern" poet anyway?
  • Yeah, this irks me too, but let's keep in mind the time period when that reputation was established - the 1940s, when the term "modern" was unabashedly synonymous with "Western"/European. Your question is very post-modern; the context in which his reputation was established was not. If we were to be precise, I would interpret this as meaning he's the first African poet to use contemporary European poetic forms - but none of the sources are that precise, so to avoid original research I think I've got to stick with the way this reality is described in the sources.
  • I note that here he's described as "Africa's first Modernist poet", while here he's "the first modern African poet in French". Hmmm. I've just spent a good while trying to find another way to do this and I can't think of a better way to handle this, so I think we'll just leave it. I think any way we could try to "fix" this would be an intrusive compromise nobody would like. So in this uncertainty, yes, I think you're right, we should leave this as it is, at least for now. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to complete his secondary education" why not just "to complete secondary education"
  • Changed
  • "Malagasy traditional poetry" shouldn't this be "traditional Malagasy poetry"?
  • Good call - changed
  • "Upon independence from France in 1960, the Government of Madagascar declared Rabearivelo its national poet" The previous sentence also ends "poet", so I'd rearrange this to "The Government of Madagascar declared Rabearivelo its national poet upon independence in 1960" (no need to say from France, as we've already said he grew up "under French colonization"
  • Changed
Childhood
  • "to grow up in colonial society" a little awkward ("colonial society" could imply that he grew up side-by-side with the colonists), maybe "to grow up under the colonial system"
  • Changed
  • Does the source say why he wanted to study Hebrew? I would say religious reasons, but we have just said he was kicked out of school partly because he didn't want to observe.
  • Unfortunately there's no explanation
Early period
  • "to buy books which he had shipped to Madagascar" why not "to buy books and ship them to Madagascar"
  • Changed
  • "for the remainder of his life" why not "for the rest of his life"
  • Changed
Late period
  • "He had also been promised to represent Madagascar at the 1937 Universal Exposition in Paris, but one month prior to Rabearivelo's death the French colonial authority informed him of his non-selection for the Malagasy delegation." Slightly clunky wording, try "He had also been promised that he would represent Madagascar at the 1937 Universal Exposition in Paris, but in May 1937 the colonial authorities informed him that he would not be part of the island's delegation."
  • That's much better - changed
Style and influences
  • I would move the quote box down to the bottom of this section and include it as part of the main body, as a cutaway quote
  • I think I'd like to maintain the box format and keep it up top as it communicates the key message of the section and nicely summarizes what it is about his style that makes him unique
Legacy
  • "Rabearivelo has long been considered the first modern poet in Africa" See point above. I suggest we find more sources to back this up, or reword.
  • I can add more sources

Hope all this helps, and if we don't correspond again before the holiday, a Merry Christmas to you! —Cliftonian (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Great to see more people chipping in to help progress a review when needed, thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Dredd

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The future Wikipedia Federation is a dystopic irradiated wasteland known as the Cursed Earth. On the English Wikipedia lies Dredd, a violent action film with a criminally underperforming box office but critical achievement. The only force for order are the Admins, who act as judge, jury and reverter. Crime is punished harshly. The sentence for not leaving an edit summary: 30 cryo cycles. The sentence for replacing content with "Josh is awezum!": 400 cryo cycles. The sentence for not passing this article: Death. Or banning.

So Dredd is an awesome film and what we have here is a well sourced and all encompassing article containing any and all information that can be found about it. I think it is worthy of FA status, and hopefully you all do too! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thirlby caption shouldn't end in period
Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3:37Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a problem - per WP:SAMPLE, non-free sound samples may be no longer than the shorter of 30 seconds or 10% of the original, and 10% of 3:37 is 21 seconds, not 29. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning what about it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means both being recent films about authority figures being trapped in buildings and needing to face their enemies while getting out. Maybe see if there's commentary from a reliable source making the connection? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, you cite Empire's review as positive coverage, yet Empire concludes that The Raid is the better film. IGN's review makes a Raid comparison too. The two films that Mark Kermode's BBC Radio 5 Live review (around the 50 minute mark) compares it to, are the 1995 film, and The Raid. - hahnchen 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Raid sentence about schedules seems out of place in the reception. That comparison might work better in the post-production or marketing sections, where you could note how viewers saw Raid similarities in the trailers. Try to say something about what those comparisons were, only mentioning why they were made begs the question. - hahnchen 03:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried but I can't make it work without going into more detail than the topic requires as it involves an unnatural tangent in any section but the reception section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The production schedules sentence does not have any real connection to the sentence preceding it. The Washington Post review for example, gives you a better idea of how to link the two - stating while Dredd feels derivative, the timing is a coincidence. - hahnchen 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried something else. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Erik

Hello, it looks like the article is comprehensive and well-researched. Most of my comments will be rather focused:

  • In the infobox, do we need the inline citations? I assume these citations are in the article body too. Like with the lead section, we do not need to have citations in the infobox unless it was controversial. I assume that these cited items are well-accepted now.
  • In the lead section, per MOS:FILM#Lead sentence, I do not think we need "British-South African" in the lead sentence. Since it is not singular nor a specific collaboration, I would just have "English-language". Per the guidelines, to mention the UK and South Africa, you could mention DNA Films as the British studio and also state that the locations were in these cities in South Africa.
  • Again in the lead section, can we clarify that "2000 AD-endorsed" is referring to Rebellion, the 2000 AD publisher?
  • In "Cast":
  • Can Ma-Ma not be above Kay? The lead section mentions the Urban-Thirlby-Headey grouping and leaves out Harris, while the infobox mentions all four. I assume that some billing-block logic is applied, but it seems clear that Ma-Ma is more primary than Kay.
  • Can MOS:LQ be applied to the "Reich described" sentences? Can colons also be replaced by commas in sentences with "said"?
  • Can you break up the last paragraph into individual sentences? Right now, it's just one long "sentence". I would suggest grouping them somehow. Maybe group the Judges, then group characters as outside/inside the building?
  • In "Development":
  • IM Global is mentioned twice, the second time as if it was new, which seems inconsistent with the first mention.
  • The distribution deal is only tangential to actual development in that it covers part of the budget. Could this be moved to "Release" instead? Same with the release date announcement? (Considering that the release date didn't change, I don't think it's worthwhile to mention the announcement.)
  • The "Pre-production" paragraph taking place in August 2010 is after the "During the TIFF" paragraph taking place in September 2010. I think that if there is emphasis on months and years, there should be chronological flow.
  • In "Writing":
  • Can it be clarified that Garland wrote Sunshine and 28 Weeks Later? I can tell that it can be inferred, but without clarification, it could seem like he had some other role with these films.
  • Can the sentence with "Democracy" and "Origins" be separated into two? It is a bit long for the detail it provides.
  • In "Design", the "Lawgiver" is mentioned as an operational weapon. Maybe it is somewhat obvious, but can it be stated that blanks were used in the film?
  • In "Box office", could the million-dollar figures be rounded up? I think it is more readable, especially considering that the hundred-thousand figure and downward do not add much value.
  • In "Critical reception", could the groups of reviews at Metacritic be mentioned -- 18 positive, 7 mixed, 4 negative? It would give readers a sense of the distribution of critical consensus.

I'll give the article a second review and see if I can make any smaller changes more directly. Also, I found this that mentions why filmmakers chose South Africa for production, and I think the article would benefit from stating the reasons. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done what I can, I don't agree with rounding the BO figures, I can't find a source that says the Lawgiver was a working prop that fires blanks, and having read MOS:LQ I don't quite understand what you are asking me to change regarding the quotes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't they be rounded? Publications like Variety often do not report full figures in running prose. To write "a total of $41,037,742" is to report more information than needed comparing to writing "a total of $41 million". Why do readers need to know about the extra $37,742 in this encyclopedic article? It does not add value, and rounding it makes for better writing and reporting of box office performance. If it's because other articles have done it that way historically, it's probably circuitous. We've done it because that's the way it's always been done. We can change that going forward. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well why round out the numbers but specify the metacritic ratings? In the one specific instance which is the opening sentence of that section, if we have the info available I think it is nice to extrapolate the figure a little and get a little closer to what the actual figure is meant to be. Plus if you round then the argument starts over do you round up or down? I don't think extended figures in the lead sentence of the BO section is a significant issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Metacritic recommendation is not applicable here. As for the box office figure, I reviewed the reference, and this mentions $35.6 million instead of the $41 million mentioned in the article. Also, The Numbers states $40.9 million worldwide. I think both sources are considered reliable, but maybe the larger figure is more appropriate? In light of this uncertainty, I think MOS:NUM#Large numbers applies here: "Avoid excessively precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context." I think rounding is fully appropriate per the MOS. To return to Metacritic, my suggestion is to show the distribution of reviews. The Metacritic overview of "mixed or averaged reviews" looks to be inconsistent with the summary statement that the film received positive reviews. By stating the distribution, it can be clearer that 18 critics out of 29 sampled gave positive reviews (and the remaining, 7 mixed, 4 negative). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BO figure is BOM's US figure with it's international figure, clicking through to the international figure you can see they haven't updated their international total, adding up the individual nation figures gives the existing figure of $41 million. Other changes made. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to follow up on my initial comments. Unfortunately, I am not satisfied enough with the writing of the article to support it. A more detailed comment for the nominator was shared here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion pending a few minor issues:
  • I think in the BOM reference you should make a note that the foreign total is derived from adding up the individual country totals, since the worldwide figure you are stating differs from the worldwide figure BOM is reporting. I'm aware of the issue here, that BOM only periodically updates the totals, but to the unaware reader it looks incorrect.
  • In the box-office section, I think you should replace "international markets" with "markets outside of the United States and Canada" or something to that effect. Remember, this is a British/South African film so the terminology could be interpreted as meaning markets outside those countries.
  • There is a spaced em-dash in the first paragraph of the critical reception section; en-dashes can be spaced, em-dashes should not be spaced.
  • Citations 114 & 115 are bare links.
Other than that I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article that deserves to be promoted. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment - taking a look now - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The theatrical gross made a sequel unlikely, but home media sales and fan efforts endorsed by 2000 AD's publisher Rebellion have maintained the possibility of a sequel. - reword so you don't use the word "sequel" twice if possible....
  • Ma-Ma orders Dredd and Anderson killed, and the Judges fight their way through dozens of armed thugs. - the "and" not a good linking word here. Need a more contrastive word (?) - worth rewording.
  • Meanwhile, Ma-Ma sends her henchman Caleb to confirm the Judges' deaths, but when they meet, Dredd throws Caleb off the tower in full view of Ma-Ma. - maybe split this sentence and avoid repeating "Ma-Ma" if possible.
  • Duncan Jones had previously been offered the role of director - would be good to add why he turned it down, if it can be found out.
  • The visual effects and slow-motion sequences induced by Slo-Mo received consistent praise. - "universal praise"?
  • I don't get a huge feel for how it differs conceptually from the comic - is there any more on this?

Other than this looks on track for FA status- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most but I'm not sure what you're asking for the last two. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Replacing the adjectives - "universal" more accurate than "consistent", (b) any other info on how the film differs or is similar to teh comic?
A) I'm not keen on the use of "universal" for the same reason we generally avoid saying a film received "universal acclaim", what about something like "broad" or "widespread"? b) not that I have seen, all I have found relates to the changes in costume and budgetary constraints limiting the inclusion of things like Robots and Aliens. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'll pay that - I think "broad" is better than "consistent", and take on baord that all sources have been exhausted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed broad. Yeah, the home release doesn't even have commentary tracks, so at the moment there doesn't seem to be any more information available. Thanks for the support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, seems to satisfy WP:WIAFA with just a minor niggle:

  • The article goes back and forth between "Andrew MacDonald" and "Andrew Macdonald". Which one is correct?

Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, good eye. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ranges should use endashes
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, what is capitalized, etc
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers and magazines
  • Use a consistent date format
  • What is your rationale for using this source?
  • FN90 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Done
  2. Are you sure you meant to ask about the Rotten Tomatoes one? RT is a standard inclusion in film articles, its a major review aggregator. I replaced the accentcoach one with one from Metro, a British news paper, replaced Bleeding Cool with Digital Spy.
  3. Pending
  4. Done
  5. Done
  6. Per Vocus "Ctrl+F" PRWeb, it seems like a reputable company that owns several companies including PRWeb which is used for the dissemination of press releases by businesses that are then picked up by news outlets. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DoneDWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1: should be endashes, not emdashes. Re 2: yes, I'm sure. The aggregate score is fine, but the RT summary review generally should not be used, unless you've a good rationale for doing so. Re 3: we're looking for consistency here. For example, you've got Time Inc. wikilinked in FN84 but not FN46; Digital Spy is italicized in FN65 but not FN54; Guardian.co.uk is capitalized in FN69 but not FN67. Take a look through and look for little details that are inconsistent - expanding to general rules where possible (ie. either all website names are italicized or all are not, instead of a mix). Re 6: my question is more why you're choosing to use a press release (a primary, non-neutral, essentially self-published source) rather than an alternative source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've addressed the linking/italicizing issues with the references and the dashes thing. For RT, per Prometheus (2012 film), I'm not sure there are many articles not using the consensus, its a simple summary. For PRWeb, I don't believe the information it is sourcing is controversial as it speaks to the musician's thought process behind creating the songs rather than making any kind of extraordinary claim. If it still isn't satisfactory I can try to find something else, but the direct quotes there do not seem to be used elsewhere from a cursory google search. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still a few inconsistencies creeping through - compare for example FNs 4 and 66. As to RT, I'm not seeing any source review at all at the Prometheus FAC - not sure how that was missed, but a non-review shouldn't be counted as an endorsement of the article's sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the issue with RT but I've removed it and I think the referencing is now complete. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Roxy Ann Peak

edit
Nominator(s): LittleMountain5 20:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Ann Peak is a beautiful round-topped mountain that looms over the city of Medford, Oregon. The largely undeveloped peak is protected by the massive Prescott Park, home to several nature trails and many amazing views of the surrounding landscape. I am nominating this for featured article because I think it has vastly improved since its last FAC nearly five years ago, and now meets the featured article criteria. Cheers, LittleMountain5 20:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

Feel free to disagree with anything here; some of it is just my personal opinion.

  • "located at the eastern edge": I think you can drop "located"
  • "1,740-acre (704.2 ha) Prescott Park.": Is "1,740" a precise figure? It sounds rounded, and if that's the case, the hectares should be rounded as well.
  • "the 50 to 35 million-year-old Payne Cliffs Formation&nbsp... 35 to 30 million-year-old volcanic basalt ... 5 to 2 million-year-old basalt intrusion": I'm not a geologist, but don't we normally go from the smaller number to the larger? We're not talking years BCE here. Especially since later on you have "the past 8,000 to 10,000 years".
  • "prone to downhill creep, earthflows, and landslides.": I'd change the order, as "to downhill creep" initally feelslike a typo for "to creep downhill".
  • " far away as near Shady Cove,": "as far away as near" sounds awkward
  • "animals which are still abundant there today": you could safely drop the "today"
  • "led to the Rogue River Wars of 1855 and 1856. After the war,": shouldn't that be "After the wars"?
  • "Roxy Ann and her husband, John, and Stephen and Mary Taylor": if you dropped the first comma it would be more clear that John was Roxy Ann's husband
  • "one for each U.S. state": is there something that could be linked to here?
  • "a Medford police officer who was ... a surge in vandalism, littering ... city limits": overlinking
  • "a trend that would continue for several decades": "a trend that continued"
  • "Vandalism has since decreased by 70 percent.": as of?
  • "than all of the city's other parks combined": I think we can drop "all of"
  • "in part because of a controversial bill passed in 2003": unless you're go into detail about how it's controversial (and probably even then), I'd drop "controversial"
  • "The bill easily doubled": I'd drop "easily"
  • "cost of retrofitting an existing structure approaches $100,000": "approached"
  • "also home to the RoxyAnn Winery,": is "RoxyAnn" with no space how it's actually spelled?
  • "On September 21, 2009 at around": I think there's an argument going on over this, but I believe the guideline still calls for a comma after 2009
  • "Deer Ridge Fire" section: does this really require a whole subsection? Is this fire somehow a defining feature of Roxy Ann's history? Check out WP:WEIGHT
  • "containing trees such as Douglas-fir,": "Douglas fir" should be unhyphenated
  • "The peak is home to many species of birds, including blue-gray gnatcatchers, lazuli buntings, oak titmice, acorn woodpeckers, and California quail on the lower slopes, and mountain quail, mountain chickadees, and red-breasted nuthatches on the upper slopes. Wild turkeys and raptors such as Cooper's hawks, golden eagles, bald eagles, and prairie falcons are also common. Ruby-crowned kinglets, yellow-rumped warblers, and golden-crowned sparrows arrive in the winter.": Apparently most of these animals should be capitalized.
  • again, I wonder if the entire paragraph on Roosevelt elk is due weight
Recommendations that won't affect support
edit
  • I fixed some harv errors. These can be really hard to catch unaided. If you're not averse to using scripts I'd reccomend User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.
  • The article is fairly dense with inline cites. WP:BUNDLING has some suggestions for prettying things up. Since you're using the sfn template, I'd recommend using {{sfnm}} to deal with it.
  • I like {{<nowiki>[[Template:Portal|Portal]]<nowiki>}} links, and think it would be nice to see something like {{</nowiki>Portal|Mountains|Oregon}} in there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Never mind—even after double-checking I seem to have missed that you had one there already. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I fixed all but a few of the problems:
  • RoxyAnn Winery is indeed spelled without a space, strangely enough.
  • I agree that the Deer Ridge Fire probably doesn't merit its own section... The problem is that the information doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Any suggestions?
    • It's not the section header I was concerned about, it was how much space was given to it in ratio to the rest of the article. Was it really such a big deal that it required two paragraphs? Have there been no other fires throughout its recorded history? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be fairly easy to shrink it down to a sentence or two, but then the section would be tiny. Are such sections acceptable in featured articles? LittleMountain5 05:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shrank the section down a bit. LittleMountain5 04:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not sure about this being an entire subsection. Is there any statement in your sources that makes this fire stand out? I mean, something along the lines of "biggest fire in 200 years" or something—it seems to me to lack context. Why focus on this fire and not any other? The feeling is that it was included in such detail because it was recent, rather than because it was particularly significant to the subject of the article as a whole. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I (grudgingly) have to agree with you—this is probably a case of recentism. I shrank it further to two sentences, and I wouldn't be opposed to removing it entirely. LittleMountain5 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a lot better, although I'd still prefer a little more context. I googled around a bit and couldn't find anything myself, though, so I won't hold that over your head. I'm not sure "Modern development" is quite the right fit for it—actually, I'm not sure "Modern development" is the best subsection title ("recentism" and all that—also, the section's not all about development). How about renaming it to "21st century" or something? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm always unsure whether I should capitalize animal common names or not... (And plant names, for that matter.) WP:BIRDS seems to favor capitalization, but many other non-bird articles don't (mainly mammals). What I'm getting at is: should I capitalize just the bird names, or all of them?
    • Clicking through to the articles will show you what's (likely) preferred—me, I use this script, which highlights different kinds of links. The redirects appear in green, and if you hover over them it tells you what they redirect to. In the case of all these animals, they were redirecting to capitalized versions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know they were all redirects—in fact, I created a few of them. They're capitalized now. I just wish animal articles were more consistent. LittleMountain5 05:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm far from an expert on the subject, I was just pointing out that they were capitalized in their own articles, so I thought it likely they should be capitalized in this one, too. The other articles themselves could, of course, be mistaken, or there could be multiple standards, etc etc. Without knowing myself, I'd just capitalize the ones that are capitalized in their own articles, or hunt down a subject expert where I wasn't sure. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you recommend I remove the elk paragraph? I thought it was interesting.
    • There's "interesting", and there's "encyclopaedic". I thought it was just a bit much, and given how recent it was (same as the fire) it made me wonder if it wa really all that significant, or if it jest happened to be recent enough to have a lot of online material to reference it. Unless it can be explained why this event requires so much space, it gives a sense of imbalance. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the article from sfn to sfnm, but I'm not sure if I like it. While the text is cleaner, the reference section seems a lot more confusing, at least to me. Thoughts?
    • It's not a requirement at all, but I prefer it, thinking that one doesn't normally scan over the list of citations—normally one clicks through from an inline cite, and only wants to see the citation(s) for that particular instance. With the prose, however, most of the time you just want the inline cites to disappear so you can just read. Whichever style you go with will not impact whether the article is worthy of FA or not, it was just a suggestion based on my personal preferences. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for fixing the harv errors. That script is awesome. Cheers, LittleMountain5 03:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It would still be nice to have more context for the fire, but I still think this article meets the Featured Article requirements. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll keep my eye out for more fire-related sources. They may be out there somewhere... Sincerely, LittleMountain5 08:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

edit

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check. (Yes, all but one of the images are mine.) As for the image layout, I don't see much of an alternative... There's not much room to cram all the images on the right, and none of the sections are long enough to not have a left-aligned image under a section heading. Hmm... LittleMountain5 05:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issue

edit

This line: "Roxy Ann Peak has a high level of biodiversity due to its location midway between the Cascade, Klamath, and Eastern Cascade ecoregions, and also because of its wide range of elevations." is poorly worded. I also found that the "Cascade and Eastern Cascade" to be unspecific and redundant in usage. Unless there is a clear reason for needing both, I'd drop the "Cascade" part. I believe that that you could drop the "level" and the "location midway" awkwardness by restructuring the sentence as "The high biodiversity of Roxy Ann Peak is due to its location between the Klamath and Eastern Cascade ecoregions and the Peak's wide range of elevation." Just a suggestion. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additionally, the whole "Flora and fauna" subsection needs a bit of work. Apart from the inevitable "Sea of Blue", I am seeing that it is disjointed in form. First it details what is predominate than it contrasts it by stating what is the "most common in the region, an apparent contradiction of the preceeding sentence. And I am left wondering if any endangered or protected species currently reside on the Peak. I'm not going to go through many of the other prose issues as listed above, but this section stands out for me as needing some expansion and rewording. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the biodiversity sentence, but kept "Cascade" and "Eastern Cascade" because they are two distinct ecoregions, both relevant to Roxy Ann Peak. I also reworded some other parts of the section. Hopefully it's clearer now. Unfortunately, I haven't found any mention of endangered or protected species in any of the sources. Thanks, LittleMountain5 20:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking and fixing it. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

edit

This article is very well-written. I made some minor copy-edits (mostly opinions; feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of them), but the prose is generally excellent, aided in part by Curly Turkey's suggestions. I found a few issues, which I list below.

  • The phrase "was most likely attributed to" should be reworded. (It was definitely attributed to a cause, whether that attribution was correct or not.) Perhaps you mean "most likely caused by"?
  • The sentences beginning "The lower slopes of the peak..." and "At higher elevations..." should really be broken up.
  • An unnamed and unmentioned person dominates the middle of the Roxy Ann Road photo. To be honest, it feels a bit unexpected and distracting for me, like using this for an image of the Taj Mahal. Is there a replacement? If not, I don't think the image shows much that informs the reader about this road; could it be omitted?
  • The paragraph about the "challenge course" isn't clear. It has "15 elements"? What does this mean? The link is to ropes course, and these seem to vary quite a lot. Is there more information on this one?

I look forward to your comments. – Quadell (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I agree with all of your concerns, and have addressed them. I could potentially add more to the challenge course paragraph, but I'm not sure if that much detail is necessary. Thoughts? LittleMountain5 07:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed, and I believe the article now fulfills our GA FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! I hope you meant "FA criteria", though. ;-) Cheers, LittleMountain5 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! (Those too.) – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit

Queries to follow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last millennium, the region became home to the Latgawa Native Americans tribe - shouldn't "Indian" be singular here? Looks very odd as a plural before "tribe"....
Prescott Park is Medford's largest park, covering much of the upper slopes and summit of Roxy Ann. The park is two and a half times larger than the city's other parks combined - whoa, four "park"s in two sentences -any reduction of these would be nice.

Support' on comprehensiveness and prose.....looking alright otherwise....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and support. I singularized "Native Americans" and removed a "park". Cheers, LittleMountain5 17:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Mughal-e-Azam

edit
Nominator(s): Bollyjeff (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because 2013 is the 100th anniversary year of Indian cinema, and I wanted to feature this 1960 film which is widely considered to be a milestone in Indian cinema, and considered by some to be the greatest Bollywood film of all time. It has been thoroughly reviewed and expanded by myself and the co-nominator, and we look forward to your comments. BollyJeff | talk 18:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from User:Dwaipayanc
Comments from Dwaipayanc
  • Comments from Dwaipayan
  • "... Indian period epic film directed by K. Asif (Karimuddin Asif) and produced byShapoorji Pallonji." The full name within parenthesis at the very first sentence of the article is rather halting the flow of read. I'd rather not mention it here. The full name may be mentioned later in the body of the article. In any case, his commonname is K.Asif.
  • " Production of the film was plagued with communal tensions and financial uncertainty..." communal tension may not be understood by everyone. It is used in a particular sense in the subcontinent, which I am not sure conveys the same meaning elsewhere. I do not have any suggestion rightaway though.
Political tension?
  • "Mughal-e-Azam had the widest cinematic release for an Indian film at that time, and patrons often queued throughout the day, eager to get tickets." Sounds rather dramatic. May be "...patrons often queued throughout the day to get tickets."
  • "Today, Mughal-e-Azam is widely considered to be a milestone in Indian cinema..." What is today? Better to remove.
  • "Today, Mughal-e-Azam is widely considered to be a milestone in Indian cinema, and contemporary critics have praised the film, commenting on its cinematic grandeur and attention to detail." Contemporary to the film. or, present day (2013)? I think you can simply drop the word contemporary.
Removed.
  • The plot, while reads ok to someone who has seen the film (like me), not sure how much will it hold good for someone not familiar with the film. Comments from other editors will be appreciated.
  • "The Urdu dramatist Imtiaz Ali Taj wrote a play based on the love story of Salim and Anarkali in 1922. The story is based more on a 16th-century legend than facts." Quick repetition of "based on"
  • "It is not known how the writers collaborated or split up their duties, but The Times of India said that their..." Times of India said in XXXX (year). --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let's see if anyone else has trouble with the plot. It seems quite simple to me. BollyJeff | talk 01:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I read it before I saw the film and understood it with no problems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mastery over Urdu's poetic idiom and expression is present in every line — giving the film, with its rich plots and intricate characters, the overtones of a Shakespearean drama" the emdash is probably wrongly used, there should not be spaces. Please check MoS (I have forgot intricate details).
  • "Madhubala suffered difficulty while filming, primarily because she suffered from congenital heart disease." Two consecutive suffered.
  • "...but remained dedicated to her work without much concern about her health" Perhaps the last phrae (without much concern about her health) can be removed. Not much important though. You can opt to keep as well.
  • "Lance Dane, a photographer and collector of erotica who was onset during the filming..." I guess there should be a space between on and set?
  • "...later gained fame for his part in the song "Mehbooba Mehbooba" from Sholay." Mention the year of Sholay.
  • "...a price higher than the budget of an entire film at that time" Perhaps an entire Bollywood/Indian film at that time?
  • "Dilip Kumar has spoken of the intense heat of filming the sequence in the desert of Rajasthan, wearing full armour" Intense heat during filming...--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed to date I think Jeff? Can you state done Jeff whenever you address something so I don't duplicate it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all done up through here. BollyJeff | talk 19:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The principal photography of Mughal-e-Azam began in the early 1950s, with the exact year being disputed between 1951 and 1953" The cited reference does not mention 1951 (unless I missed it). Can this be slighly elaborated? Like, who says 1951 and who 1953?
Not worth it, if the date is disputed early 1950s will suffice, I've removed the mention of 1951 or 1953.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filming suffered a number of problems and production delays, to the extent that Asif had considered abandoning the project at one point. Kumar commented on the time it had taken for principal photography to be completed, but defended the duration due to the massive logistics of the film." Reads as if Kumar commented on the lengthy tine when the Asif was considering to abandon the project. That's not what you want to convey, right? Should add when (which year) Kumar said so.
Agreed, reworded it, disagree that a date makes any difference here to when he said it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differences crept up between Asif and Kumar when the former married the latter's sister" which year?
Not sure why you think that's important to the film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A song titled "Ae Ishq Yeh Sab Duniyawale", picturised on Sheila Dalaya, was cut from the film." Who is Sheila Dayala? Why is it important to name her?
  • "s was "Husn Ki Baraat Chali", because a scene during which Prince Salim visits the royal boathouse and distributes gifts was removed from the final cut" The relationship between the song and the boathouse scene is not established explicitly. Did the song appear during the boathouse scene?
Removed text about these specific songs. BollyJeff | talk 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...started the colour revolution in films in India" What is colour revolution?
Reworded, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Akbar's participation in the Janmashtami celebrations of the Hindu god Krishna's birth" Something wrong in this construction.
  • "During the song sequence of "Mohe Pangat Pe", Akbar is shown pulling a string to rock a swing with an idol of Krishna on it.

" this sentence is somewhat suddenly inserted. It probably goes with the previous sentence (Hindu-Muslim unity); but, it is cut by a full stop. The previous sentence has three examples of Hindu-Muslim coexistence, then why this example in a separate sentence?

I addressed both of these issues by combining all the examples and simplifying the Akbar one. BollyJeff | talk 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't accessible in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I combined it with a similar ref. BollyJeff | talk 19:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the film is based on a legend, it is given credence by being linked to the historical period of the greatest monarch of the Mughal Empire, Emperor Akbar " This sentence needs a citation.
  • " At least two Indian history books assert that Prince Salim was having a secret love affair with Anarkali, which is further supported by the fact that a marble tomb was built by him on her grave in Lahore in 1615, when he had become Emperor Jehangir" Needs citation as well. Which two history books (you may not need to mention the books in this sentence, but perhaps would be better if you do mention the names/authors)?
Done and still looking. BollyJeff | talk 19:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet, the author of the play, Imtiyaz Ali Taaj,..." The spelling of Imtiyaz/Imtiaz needs to be consistent.
  • "...had his friend Abu al-Fazl murdered..." Whose friend? Akbar or Salim?
  • "For example the thumri, a musical instrument..." Thumri is an instrument? I thought it is a particular type of music/genre?
Done, done, and done. BollyJeff | talk 19:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This anecdote of Asif offering money to Naushad and he throwing it out of window surprising his wife -- am not sure how much encyclopedic value this has. Can wait for other editors' comments.
  • "opening lyrics of "Mohe Panghat Pe" being composed by Thakur Prasad" What is opening lyrics? the first few lines?
  • "These songs (a much reduced number compared to earlier genre of Bollywood films) still formed a substantial part of the film" What early "genre"? You mean earlier Bollywood historical films had moe songs? I really doubt that. More than 10-12 songs was pretty unusual.
  • "The song and dance sequence presented in the Sheesh Mahal, during which Anarkali is reflected in every small mirror, was the first scene ever to be shot in colour in Indian cinema" But earlier in "post-production" subsection, readers were told that Asif was inspired by Jhansi Ki Rani, the first Indian film in colour, to shoot some scenes in colour for MeA. So, this is contradictory.
  • "It was inserted in the middle of the original black-and-white film to give effect, emphasising the importance such dance and music scenes in Bollywood films, despite being unrelated to the main story" That sounds odd. First, technically, "in the middle" shoudl not be there (exactly in the middle?); then, it was perhaps not inserted to emphasize the importance of such scenes in Bollywood film, rather just to serve its own purpose in the film. And unrelated to main story? really? In a sense, almost every song can be proven to be unrelated to main story, but, on the other hand, they are well inter-woven within the story. I think you should revisit this sentence.
  • "A total of 20 songs were composed for the film, at a cost of 3,000 (valued at about US$629 in 1960) per song" That is kind of weird. You mean each song individually cost exactly Rs 3,000 or on an average. Also, what is exactly cost of a song? the money given to Naushad? Or, the money given to Naushad, lyricist, singers taken together? Also, probably this is wrong as Bade Ghulam Ali Khan himself took Rs 25,000 (if "cost" of songs means all costs)
  • "...on the day of the song's recording, Naushad rejected two sets of lyrics made by Badayuni. Subsequently, a "brainstorming session" was held on Naushad's terrace, beginning in early evening and lasting until next day" If Naushad rejected two versions "on the day of recording", how could brainstorming last until the next day? Perhaps "on the scheduled day of the son's recording"?
  • "The cost was reported to be between 26 Lakh and 65 Lakh" Approx equivalent in USD needed.

Some of the points may appear nitpicking, sorry for that. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I finished this, but some of the things about the money are not definitive, even after re-reading the sources. I think it's clear enough now. BollyJeff | talk 21:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hindu has stated that Mughal-e-Azam is the highest-grossing Bollywood film of all time if adjusted for inflation. According to the online box office website Box Office India, the film's adjusted net revenue would amount to 1327 million, ranking it as an "All-Time Blockbuster". The trade magazine Box Office implemented a formula for adjusting box office collections, using the base price of gold and growth of multiplexes as factors, and calculated that Mughal-e-Azam is the highest-grossing Bollywood film of all time" All these would need the time when these were done, that is when did The Hindu say it, the year.
  • Same thing for the entire critical reception section. Anupama Chopra, tarand Adarsh and others, when did they say so. This is needed to make this section time-proof! Opiniosn may change with time. Even if you decline to add exact years, at least the reader should be given some idea about the era. Anupama Chopra, for example, was non-existent at the time the film released. So, you may prefer to use something like, "In 2000s, several critics commented on the film after its colour version released".. or whatever. The bottom-line is we need the year/era with every opinion.
  • "Sujata Gupta of Planet Bollywood gave the film nine out of ten stars, calling it a must see for young and old alike" That raises some curiosity in me. Why would the critic comment on the age of audience? MeA ws not a children's film, neither was it made for a geriatric audience (no films are)! So, this is a mysterious comment. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some specific dates (on best-ever type comments) and added date context for the rest of the section. BollyJeff | talk 00:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More time stamps are necessary in the legacy section, where different people or magazines and their opinion are mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BollyJeff | talk
  • "The digital colourisation of the film was also one of the earliest applications of information technology in Bollywood." Now, that is quite doubtful. To begin with what is information technology? Secondly, if we take information technology in the usual sense of the word, IT was already present very much in India since late 1990s. This film was the first to utilize any component of IT?
  • "... originally came up with the idea to enhance Mughal-e-Azam" Enhance? What enhance?
  • "...a fitting tribute to complete his grandfather's unfinished job" What was the unfinished job? Did the grandfather wished about colorizing the film?
  • "..restoring the portions which were damaged with pinholes" What are pinholes? a wikilink perhaps?
  • "...The exact cost of the colourisation is debated, with a wide variety of estimates ranging from INR20 million to INR50 million, to INR100 million; this is more than the original cost to make the film (not considering inflation)" Some 2004 US dollar equivalent values would help. This bit on more than original cost is a bit silly, IMHO. Obviously you have to take into consideration inflation for nearly 50 years.
  • "Upon release, the film had full shows at theatres, with an overall occupancy of 90%" What are "full shows"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BollyJeff | talk 00:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, "Mughal-e-Azam became the most expensive Indian film, to the extent that the filming of a single sequence cost more than the entire budget of a typical film of that period." Now, when I read the sentence, I have one trouble in understanding. Does it mean each single sequence was more expensive than average films of that period, or, does it mean one particular scene was more expensive? Editors with better grasp of English may throw some light on this. Am I thinking too much?
  • "As the script neared completion, Asif cast Chandra Mohan, D.K. Sapru and Nargis for the roles of Akbar, Salim and Anarkali respectively" Do we need a comma before "respectively"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debut role of Jalal Agha, who later played in the song "Mehbooba Mehbooba" from Sholay" The verb "played" is probably not very appropriate in this instance. It may mean Jalal Agha played some instrument in the song.
  • "...he was unable to recall a single other film about Hindu-Muslim love in which the woman is Hindu" The woman mentioned is Jodhabai, right? Since the film is about the love between Salim and Anarkali, the Hindu woman mentioned may seem to be Anarkali. So, here Jodhabai needs to be mentioned in parenthesis.
  • "A single piece of marble carries the inscription which reads: "Ta Kiyamat shukr geom kardgate khwesh ra, Aah garman bez benaam roo-e yare khwesh ra"" What language is that? Persian?
  • "Although the earlier film version of Anarkali displayed a disclaimer at the end stating that the story had no foundation in history, Mughal-e-Azam made no such claim. Although Anarkali is often regarded as a legendary figure, there are snippets of historical evidence for her existence." Consecutive sentences beginning with although. Preferable to change the structure.
  • "After conceiving the idea of the film, K. Asif visited Ali and handed him a briefcase containing money..." Who is Ali?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the above. BollyJeff | talk 04:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been resolved/appropriately answered. However, before voting, I would like to read the article once more. Meanwhile, the nominator can move these comments to this FAC's talk page, or, can collapse the comments.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments were also addressed, and I have collapsed those.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all criteria except criteria 1a and 3. Not including 1a because I lack the capacity to judge if the prose "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"; and 3 (Media) because I have not checked the media for appropriate license tags etc. Otherwise, the article meets the rest of criteria in my opinion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from self-locked-out User:Indopug
  • On currency:
  • The problem with having a dollar value is that it significant hampers readability in places where money features often, "earning INR4 million (US$838,574) in the first week, and eventually earning a net revenue of INR55 million (US$11,530,398), generating a profit of INR30 million (US$6,289,3088)". That you don't round up the dollar figure makes it worse.
I could use just one conversion per sentence if that would help. BollyJeff | talk 13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use lakhs and crores for Rs. No Indian (the most-likely reader of this article) is going to understand "Rs 5 million" without converting it to lakhs. A note explaining it for those unfamiliar with l and c might be better.
Believe me, I agree with you, but I see editors going around and changing Crore and Lakhs to Billions and Millions in many articles, so I thought that it was the new rule. Is it not? I do not want to be switching it back and forth multiple times for each new reviewer. Can you show me a definitive policy on this? Recent FAs Kahaani, Vidya Balan, and Rani Mukerji do not use the word "crore" even once (except in the source titles). On the other hand, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles#Basic_India_conventions says to use it, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is inconclusive. BollyJeff | talk 13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figures in Colourisation don't use Rs. 4.5/$. I think you should the note the new rate.
Colourisation was done in 2005, not 1960, so the rate was different. The new ones are converted automatically with the INRConvert template. Maybe I can still add a note. BollyJeff | talk 13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Immortal Dialogue of K. Asif's Mugahl-e-Azam - typo?
Fixed. The source itself had a spelling mistake. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be split, but I don't see any major problem with the current length and it's perfectly relevant. Need input from other editors on the currency issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment by Hekerui:
  • Thanks a lot for working on this article!

General

  • per WP:INITS: "where the subject uses two consecutive initials, a space is used between the initials", and this is not yet followed
Done except for a quote. BollyJeff | talk 03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Shapoorji Pallonji links to the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, not a person, and I don't see any discussion of the person in the article
This is very confusing because according to the sources (that are not consistent) there are 3 or 4 generations of guys with very similar names. [12],[13],[14]. Will try to sort it out, but may not be able to. BollyJeff | talk 03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I delinked the wikilinks to Shapoorji Pallonji since the link article does not have a particular person as subject or relieve ambiguousness, instead I linked the Shapoorji Pallonji Group. I hope you don't mind. Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • "... attempts to force the prince to love her ..." - how does Bahar use force? she schemes but I don't remember force, please explain
  • "Despite this, Anarkali refuses to reject Salim." - this qualifier at the beginning of the sentence sounds clumsy, I think, and unless the explanation that Akbar wants Anarkali to renounce Salim in return for her freedom, "reject" is a bad word to use here, because a reader would not understand a motive for rejection
  • "... his own army to confront Akbar" - is confronting his father the ultimate goal or is it rescuing Anarkali? if it is her, maybe we should write that instead
  • I feel we should include that the Emperor has a change of heart in the end and does not really want to kill Anarkali but is bound by law like everyone else to carry out the sentence - this is emphasized in the closing credits if I remember correctly (?)

Production

  • "... but Madhubala, who was longing for a significant role, could not let the opportunity pass" - this is unclear, how could she not let the roll pass even when she was not offered the role? the whole sentence makes it sound like her casting was fate - is it known what kept Suraiya from accepting? if not, we must plainly state that Suraiya was offered the role but Mubhala later got it
  • why is it mentioned that Lance Dane is a collector of erotica? he is first mentioned as a photographer. we should state the main profession of the person unless the collection is related to the movie somehow.

Themes

  • "... in the wider picture" - this is vague
  • I wonder why this section uses "the film scholar X", "the scholar Y", and "the author Z" - I don't believe the articles are necessary
Search for "the definite article" in Wikipedia:Peer review/Mughal-e-Azam/archive1. The guy is adamant that it is correct. Another case where you cannot please everyone. I will do whatever the delegate wants. BollyJeff | talk 01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a minor thing, I only wondered. Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • does it really say "relatively happy ending" in the source, because that ending did not seem too happy to me
It says "happy ending", not even relatively. BollyJeff | talk 10:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy

  • I would like to know whether the source actually argues that being linked to history gives a fictional story "credence", maybe the source talks about how relying on a legend gives credence, but merely being linked to a time that existed?
  • "It is further supported by the fact that ..." - this would indicate that being linked to the Mughal time supports the story's accuracy which I can't believe is argued anywhere
  • is there any more information on the origin of that marble couplet? does the text connect Jehangir to the marble with something more concrete that the time of her death? otherwise this does not read like a fact that supports historical accuracy
  • I suggest restating that Imtiaz Ali Taj wrote a stage play, simply referring to "the play" makes it seem like this was a prominent part of the article subject, at least to me
  • what is the Kathak dance sequence supported by thumri?
The source does not say. BollyJeff | talk 01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is tough, I know little about kathak but I suspect they mean the dance sequence before "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" - in that case that is not thumri at all (tarana in Darbari?). It's a pity this is not clearer in the source and since it does not say which dance sequence is meant one might well argue that this fits for one of the others where one might say the music is betweem something classical and a frivolous Bollywood tune, so it's not obviously wrong. Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that formulation means that the discrepancy is between putting the light song "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" next to the kathak dancing that comes before and is arranged with classical music. Or it refers to another instance, but certainly light singing and the court in that time don't go together. The book talks about another instance where Dilip Kumar practices for a "thumri" he sings with Mangeshkar. It seems the book means thumri to include Bollywood songs that are influenced by classical music. Hekerui (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

  • "... at a time when Lata Mangeshkar and Mohammed Rafi ..." - readers may not know that these were the best payed playback singers, we should make that explicit
  • until now I was pretty sure that Bade Ghulam Ali Khan does not sing qawwali in this movie. I assumed that the two times when he sings (Salim's return iirc and the love scene) are classical performances because of their structure (in the love scene he sings Raga Sohini, I think) and because I can't imagine they are devotional because of how they are placed alongside imagery of celebration and romance. the source in The Hindu identifies them as ragas, which would make sense since this was court music at the time, so I don't feel good that we are putting that qawwali claim out there, maybe we can simply call them "songs" like The Hindu does?
  • I don't think the description of Mangeshkar as "Indian nightingale" is a mark of special praise from the reviewer for this soundtrack, it's merely a common description for her, used often

Reception

  • "..., making it clear that he would sell the film only as per his wish." - this is so complicated, why not write more plainly?
  • it should be shortly explained what is meant by multiplexes, the linked article describes many technical applications but I think this instance refers to a specific kind of cinema, no?
  • I'm concerned we have too many quotes, a whole farm, in the critical reception section. These reviews can be summarized in our own words, no need to cite so much, especially since we don't want to overuse copyrighted material.
  • I'm not sure the "[ work ]" addition to the Rediff review is needed. Looks more like "historical" is an abbreviation for "historical movie" like talkie is an abbreviation, so no word was omitted by the author.

Hekerui (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done except where noted, and the quote farm which I will shortly trim. BollyJeff | talk 01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm happy with the changes. One issue I have after watching that marriage part again: I don't think she's a "make-believe wife" - Akbar is keeping his promises, whether to marry her to Salim or kill her, so she truly becomes his wife, even if it's only until her "death". Or am I wrong with this? Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that he would allow an actual marriage because that was his objection all along. He allowed the make-believe part so that she could get close to Salim and drug him. We would need a good source or two to verify this theory, as it goes against what other articles say. BollyJeff | talk 18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I did not see references to articles as sources for the plot so I had assumed it's your summary and not gathered from elsewhere, which is why I gave my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not usually add sources for plots, but here are a couple that talk about that scene: [15],[16] BollyJeff | talk 20:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could also mention in the music section that "Mohe Panghat Pe" is composed in Pancham Se Gara, a variation of Gara (sadly lacking a wiki page). In this we seemingly have a reliable source. Is this overkill to include? It show even better how music in this film is based on classical music. Hekerui (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some would say that a blog is not a good source, so I would prefer to leave it out. BollyJeff | talk 18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the medium of writing does not unmake an expert, since he has credentials, but as you wish. Hekerui (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had my say at PR and was happy at the end of that process, but this has been strengthened further since then. - SchroCat (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BollyJeff | talk 01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Schrod.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is essential to the topic of Indian cinema and I'm happy all this work was put into it. Hekerui (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cleanup and your support. BollyJeff | talk 00:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hamiltonstone

edit

Mostly fantastic, but sounds hagiographic and stilted in the casting section.

  • Lede: "Upon completion, Mughal-e-Azam became the most expensive Indian film, to the extent that the filming of a particular song sequence cost more than the entire budget of a typical film of that period." Ugle sentence, that uses the word "film" three times. Try: "Mughal-e-Azam cost more to produce than any previous Indian film, with the budget for a single song sequence exceding that typical for an entire movie".
  • "remade it as a talkie in 1935". "Talkie" is not treated as a collequialism?
Will "sound film" sound more professional? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kumar visited London to test the wig he would wear in the film". Bizarre celebrity factoid worth omitting, since neither the wig not London make any further appearance in the article.
  • "but remained dedicated to her work without much concern for her health." Sounds like celebrity hagiography to me. How can this possibly be known by the writer of an article in 2012?
  • "and would look into a mirror as tall as himself before every shot". What is the point of this information?
  • "on a diet and actively engaged in exercising" How else can one exercise? Passively? Why not just "on a diet and exercising"?
  • "covering all the mirrors with a thin covering of wax," - repetition of "covering".
  • "This process took extensive efforts, since restoration was essential for the colourisation.[101] The process involved cleaning the negative of fungal growth, restoring the portions which were damaged, and re-instating missing parts in the frames." Clumsy and a bit repetitive from previous sentence. How about "Costly and labour-intensive restoration was essential before colourisation could occur. The negative was cleaned of fungal growth, damaged portions were restored, and missing parts of frames were re-instated.[101]" (and delete the separate later sentence "The restoration required significant labour and money to complete".)
  • "reported to be in the works in 2009". Colloquialism?
Rewrote as "was reported to have been planned in 2009" ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting piece of cultural history. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some good comments, thank you; all have been implemented. BollyJeff | talk 13:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Can you take another look at two things in the casting section: the excessive repetition of "role" in the first para, and the repetition of reference to the body armour, once in the first para, then again in the second? hamiltonstone (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed. BollyJeff | talk 13:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a further edit to deal with some other repetition. Support hamiltonstone (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hamilton and Hekurai for your constructive input and support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - glad to see this here. I've really expanded my knowledge of Indian films after seeing noms for Sholay and others.

  • The External Images thing in the Plot section... is that a new thing? It's not very attractive.
I admit I glanced over them last time only to pop in my DVD and forget about them. I would think this a good idea if those were good quality images with a good plot outline or set images but I have to agree with LB here, going through them again I find little value in the screenshots or the awkward accompanying text. Hekerui (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LB, did you mean the template was not attractive or the link pointed to? I think its nice to see so many pictures. Would it be okay as an external linl instead? Anyway, I have asked the template designer if we can have an option to leave off the title and top image. BollyJeff | talk 01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Plot section... is that the end of the film? Her going into exile? Remember that we do not omit spoilers, so if there is a conflict resolution or other ending it should be described here. If not, depressing ending!
Yes that is the ending (they just walk away), except for some narration about how good the emperor was.
  • There is some overlinking. Akbar, for example, is linked in the lead, in the Plot, and in the Cast. Check others.
The tool "Highlight duplicate links" does not think Akbar is a problem. Which would you remove? It does pick up on a couple others, but other reviewers thought it was okay since the sections are far apart.
Generally you link the first mention of a term, and possibly the first occurrence after the lead if it's linked in the lead. See WP:OVERLINK. --Laser brain (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I readded links that Jeff removed, which were from a list of movies. It's inconvenient for readers to then put those in the search manually even if they only want to check, the guideline mentions keeping links that are helpful for readers and using common sense is part of the guideline. Hekerui (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A theatrical version was soon produced, and screen versions followed." This isn't really proper terminology for what I think you are trying to express. "Theatrical" and "screen" both typically refer to films. "Stage version" would refer to a play, which I suspect is what you meant. You also use "cinematic" later, so you have three different words in that section that mean films.
Done. BollyJeff | talk 01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be back with more. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, if you're able to complete your review shortly I daresay we wrap this up. Looks to me like we need image/source reviews so if you can take care of those as well... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll finish up within the next 24 hours. My Google Glass arrived yesterday and I've been busy making the townsfolk paranoid. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it's a bit of slow going. Rather than posting up a list, I'm trying to just fix things as a find them. I don't think it's quite ready yet because I'm still finding things to do. I'm looking at images and sources as I go. --Laser brain (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

====Comments from AmericanLemming====

I will review this article over the weekend. Expect a thorough review shortly. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a change of plans: I need to study organic chemistry over the next month, not spend hours reviewing FACs on Wikipedia. (Trust me, I would rather be doing the latter.) I sincerely apologize for the disappointment this will cause the nominators of this article as well as the FAC coordinators, but it is what it is. I thought I would be upfront about it (one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is when people say they're going to do something and then do it a month later or not at all). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is an excellent piece of writing. The film itself is a gem in Indian cinema and it is a deserving candidate for Featured article. The article is brilliantly written by Bollyjeff and Dr. Blofeld. Congratulations!!—Prashant 06:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prashant for your kind words.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • File:Mughal-e-Azam.jpg - copyrighted image, fair use rationale is acceptable.
  • File:Sulocmov.jpg - verified public domain, but the description isn't filled out correctly on Commons. The date isn't "1920s" and the author isn't anonymous.
Would 1928 and Unknown be acceptable? BollyJeff | talk 14:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1928, yes. Isn't there a creator notice on the source web site? I don't know if that's the right person. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists sources for the text, but I cannot find that image in those sources. I would bet that neither the web site owner nor the article author took this picture 85 years ago. In fact, I think its a screen shot. Who would author that? BollyJeff | talk 15:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in that case I have no idea. I looked at some other film FAs with screen shots and they just don't list an author. It's probably fine as is, with the date set to 1928. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will post again with source review and any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and final comments: I didn't find any issues with source formatting or consistency. I've been through the text again and just edited it to correct any issues I found. My concerns should be considered addressed and I don't have any further comments. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Laser, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Given a lot of people have had a go at this I was looking to promote but reading through the lead I see a fair bit of redundancy/repetition. The first sentence includes "1960 Indian period epic film", which is at least one adjective too many IMO; it's true not all epics are period pieces but many are, so I think you can afford to lose "period". The very next sentence states "Starring Prithviraj Kapoor, Dilip Kumar, Madhubala and Durga Khote in the lead roles" -- surely we don't need "starring" and "in the lead roles" in the same breath? Finally, the word "film" appears 15 times in the lead -- there must be a few places it's unnecessary, e.g. "Production of the film" (why not just "Production"?) and "Bollywood film history" for instance, and perhaps one or two other spots you could just use "it" or something else. Those being just in the lead, I have to wonder if another round of copyediting isn't warranted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down a bit and changed period to historical epic which I think is fine. The article has changed a fair bit since I last read it, I'll give it another read and copyedit later and ask one or two others to also do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

edit

After spot-checking for prose, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Ian Rose here. As comprehensive and well-sourced as this article is, I believe a thorough prose-review is needed. For instance, the Legacy section uses the word "film" eight times in the first paragraph, thirteen times in the second paragraph, and nine times in the third. It also contains a direct quote, "crowning glory", without a clear speaker or unambiguous source, and it uses a hypothetical direct quote ("Finish quickly...") which should really be omitted in favor of a gloss as to the term's use (e.g., "...has become part of Bollywood vernacular, indicating a project that is taking too long to complete"). The very brief Accolades section both uses and omits the serial comma in a single sentence, improperly uses a colon (to separate a list in the middle of a sentence), and awkwardly pluralizes "Dialogue" to indicate multiple nominees. If the article receives a thorough copy-edit, I may support, but I believe it will take a lot of work to make the prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". – Quadell (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The article has now had a thorough copy-edit (nearly 100 edits alone today) from several very capable editors such as Ipigott and Eric Corbett and I've also given it a final copy-edit and I'm happy with the quality of the prose now. In my opinion it is now satisfactory. Ian and Quadell, can you let Jeff and myself know if you still see any issues with it? Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of improvements! Reading now... – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is much improved, but it still has significant problems.

  • Significantly, the direct quote "crowning glory" still has no clear speaker or source, which is a major problem.
  • There are several places where the wording introduces awkward ambiguities or misplaced modifies. For instance, "Asif filmed one reel of Mughal-e-Azam in Technicolor that included the song...", but Technicolor does not include songs. For another, "The general theme of Mughal-e-Azam is a family history that highlights the differences between father and son...", but a paricular family history is not a theme. (You could say that the family history brings out the themes of father-son relationships, etc.)
  • There are several problems in the "Historical inaccuracies" section. A sentence begins "Yet, ...", in a way that is not grammatical. Phrases like "A single piece of marble carries a Persian inscription" feel like story-telling style, rather than encyclopedic style. (It's very normal for an inscription to be on one piece of marble, but the wording here is clearly designed to highlight the specialness of the inscription.) It claims "One of the books states", with no info on what "books" are meant. There are weasel words and vague expressions of doubt, like "Some have suggested" and "There are also historians who doubt" (who?) and "there are snippets of historical evidence" (though no such evidence is mentioned).
  • There are inconsistencies with comma usage that, while not a terrifically big deal, give the article an amateur feel overall. For instance, most style guides recommend using a comma when joining two independent clauses with "and", as in "The dog barked, and I ran." But some authors choose to omit this comma, especially in sentences with short clauses, and that's fine. This article, however, seems to use commas randomly in these situations. Similarly, most style guides recommend omiting a comma when combining two predicates to a single subject with "and", as in "The cat climbed a tree and hissed." Some authors include commas in these situations, especially with longer or confusing clauses, and that's fine. Here, however, commas are used or omitted in these instance without even minimal consistency. This gives the article a "hodgepodge" feel.
  • Similarly, the article is not consistent in its use of serial commas. Some places use them (e.g., "sets, costumes, and music") while others do not (e.g., "containing text, photographs and trivia"), and the "Accolades" section still contains a single sentence that both uses and omits them in separate parts.
  • Sometimes the article uses an odd-sounding "The" to introduce titles (e.g., "The film scholar Stephen Teo"), while in other places, the definite article is more naturally omitted (e.g., "Film critic Mukul Kesavan"). Different parts of the article sometimes use different spellings, e.g., "soundtrack" vs. "sound track".

I don't believe this passes 1a yet. It's deeply ironic that the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is one of its greatest strengths, but still, it's much harder to make an article's prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" with too many cooks involved with the broth. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are rather small things, easily fixed. And we're not concerned about most style guides, we're only concerned about one, our own. Eric Corbett 14:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have to disagree with you on this one Quadell, Eric and Ian (Pigott) have proved that the prose quality has improved. I believe Eric has also addressed most of your concerns too. Professional quality prose doesn't mean perfection..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the article's prose continues to improve at a rapid clip! Many of the issues I raised have been fully resolved, and others are less of a problem now. There are only three unresolved issues that I think are clearly objectionable and actionable: the unsourced direct quote in "Legacy", the WP:W2W problems in "Historical inaccuracies", and the inconsistent use of the serial comma throughout. (Regarding that last issue, our MoS does say "Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself.") – Quadell (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsourced quote and have reworded, it wasn't necessary. I have also removed part of the historical inaccuracies as I agree it's a bit vague and have also removed "the" before the authors in the themes section, should be consistent now. I've given it another quick read through and I really don't see this big problem with commas you keep bringing up. Any chance you could take the liberty to fix what you see is the problem? I believe everything else has been fixed now... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Eric Corbett

edit

I don't quite follow what this means, from the Plot section: "Salim rebels and amasses his own army". Is this an army that he amassed, in which case why not a simple "amasses an army", or is it referring to an army that he already had, his own? Eric Corbett 15:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amasses an army yeah. I think it was written as "his own army" as he is the son of the Emperor and would have naturally been in the same royal army as his father. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all the recent copy editors! I think its interesting how one sentence fragment can be changed each time someone new touches it: "and patrons often queued throughout the day, eager to get tickets.", "and patrons often queued throughout the day to get tickets.", "with patrons often queueing all day for tickets.", "and patrons often queued all day for tickets." BollyJeff | talk 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another (no more, I promise): "In all, nearly half of the songs recorded for the film were ultimately left out.", "In all, nearly half of the songs recorded for the film were left out.", "In the end, nearly half of the songs recorded for the film were left out.", "In the end, almost half of the songs recorded for the film were left out.", "Almost half of the songs recorded for the film were left out of the final version." BollyJeff | talk 21:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But my version is clearly far superior. ;-) Eric Corbett 21:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it because "in the end" was repeated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the prose is good enough to meet 1a now, but what do I know. Eric Corbett 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks to be on track to promotion, but I just wanted to mention one thing that I noticed: the entire plot of the film is given away in the opening paragraph of the lead - is this necessary? It seems a bit unfair on readers who haven't seen the film but are interested in doing so! Perhaps cut the last sentence? --Loeba (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point I guess but I think if somebody doesn't want to know about the film first before watching it they should simply just not read the article. We can't be expected to censor details on it and and the lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. We got rid of the spoiler template a few years back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. An encyclopedia article on fiction is not required to protect the reader from spoilers, even in the lead. – Quadell (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the lead spoiler-free is not required, but realistically it's a decent thing to do...I know I'd be annoyed if I heard about the film, wanted to see it, and then had the ending ruined for me in the first paragraph (I'd know to avoid the "Plot" section, but you don't expect to have to avoid the opening para of the article). Even if you don't agree with my this, I'm not sure I've ever seen a film or book article that summarises the entire plot in the lead. It's just not necessary and too much detail at that point. The spoiler ending doesn't provide any additional, necessary context does it? Anyway I'll leave it with you guys - it looks like the nominators have done a great job on the article, well done! --Loeba (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Closing comment -- Looking over the many recent edits, I agree the prose has improved markedly, so thanks all for your efforts (not the ideal time for copyedits to occur in the FAC process but the exception proves the rule). If there are any remaining minor points, I think they can be dealt with post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Charles I of England

edit
Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former featured article that has already been on the main page. It was delisted after a featured article review in 2007. Since then, it has been re-written with a view to re-promotion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: On the first read-through, it looks like your usual excellent work. I'll post more comments section by section as I go through:

  • Lede
    • Minor point: I might combine that opening sentence with the paragraph that follows.
    • "He supported controversial ecclesiastics..." I know what you mean here, but controversial can mean a lot of things. If it can be done succinctly, it might be good to add a word or two about why they were controversial, maybe a link to High Church or Arminianism.
  • Early life
    • Maybe make clear that his baptism was Protestant. People unfamiliar with the history might not know when the state religion of Scotland switched from Catholic.
  • Heir apparent
  • Early reign
    • "arrested at the door of the House" Were they inside the chamber, or outside?
    • I think "demonstrated" is more correct than "accentuated" in the last paragraph, but that might be my personal preference only. Don't change it if you disagree.
  • Personal rule
    • On the royal forests: it was my impression that people had been encroaching on the boundaries for years, and Charles was just reasserting the old metes and bounds. Absurd, sure, but legal. When you use the word "enlarged," it sounds like he made the forests bigger than they ever were.
  • Religious conflicts
    • " Laud used the two most feared and powerful courts in the land". The lay reader might not understand why one court is feared and another isn't. Maybe add that they were secret (at least Star Chamber was, I think) and staffed by judges more accountable to the king's whims (although this was not untrue of all courts, as Charles's sons would show). Unless you think it would take to long to explain.
      • The problem here is that the view that the courts were unrepresentative is a rather old one, from the Whig interpretations. Sharpe, for example, (in a view shared by Kenyon and others, so it's not just one of Sharpe's fringe ideas) points out that Star Chamber was well-respected and popular until the 1630s. Plantiffs preferred to bring their cases there. Hudson's Treatise, written shortly before Charles's personal rule, argues that the court, far from being arbitrary, was fairer and cheaper than other courts, and it was admired by Edward Coke (no royalist). The view of many modern historians is that the court grew unpopular because it punished gentlemen and paupers alike, instead of letting gentlemen off lightly, and because it was associated with Laudianism. I have moved the "feared" so that the article reads: To prosecute those who opposed his reforms, Laud used the two most powerful courts in the land, the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber. The courts became feared for their censorship of opposing religious views, and became unpopular among the propertied classes for inflicting degrading punishments on gentlemen. DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made one passive-->active voice edit. Revert, of course, if you think it changes the meaning of the sentence.
    • "Charles took the unusual step of summoning a great council of peers". Was this instead of a Parliament? That was my impression, but it's not clear here. I thought that Charles was trying to use Plantagenet-era precedents of convening a proto-parliament in place of the modern version, thinking it would be more amenable to his will.
      • I have attempted to clarify. It's a little difficult to ascribe motives to Charles because the sources are not agreed. The counter-view is that Charles never excluded a parliament and was prepared to summon one to obtain sufficient money for his campaign. He asked the privy council for advice and they unanimously recommended calling a great council, but were not (in the first half of September) agreed on summoning a parliament. DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civil War
    • This all looks fine.
The Infanta thought Charles was little more than an infidel, and the Spanish at first demanded that Charles convert to Roman Catholicism as a condition of the match - avoid using "charles" twice in the one sentence.
The reigns of Elizabeth I and James I had generated a large fiscal deficit - not fond of "generated" - maybe "led to", "resulted in" or somesuch.
Notwithstanding Buckingham's short lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was in reality little economic capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas. - "in reality" redundant methinks...
I wonder if some of the material in the first para of teh Legacy section can be expanded a little.
Finally, any information on how Kevin Sharpe's view differs from that of other historians I think would be very helpful

Overall, looking on track - personally I'd prefer a para on portrayals in films etc. but I can see from other monarchs this is generally left as a see also segment at the bottom, so won't let this be a deal-breaker as the article is quite long. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Otherwise[reply]

Thanks for those suggestions. Amendments made. DrKiernan (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this stage: Support

  • Overall, a rather nice piece of work.
  • My key concern was that I found the Civil War section rather too short. Even bearing in mind that this should be summarising events, this is arguably the most critical part of Charles' life, covers a span of five years and what is almost a single paragraph struggles to describe it sufficiently. As a result, it was unclear from the text why Charles lost his war or indeed what his role during the wartime years were. Compare and contrast with the length and detail of the Trial section or the Bishop's Wars section (both also backed by main articles), and you'll see what I mean.
  • More minor points:
  • The first, single sentence para in the lead looked odd (and with five paras, runs counter to the general guidance in the MOS). I'd advise combining the first two paragraphs.
  • "After his succession, Charles engaged in a struggle for power with the Parliament of England, attempting to obtain royal revenue while Parliament sought to curb his royal prerogative." - something about this didn't read smoothly to me. I think it is the "engaged in" - could this just be "Charles struggled for power with..."? - and "attempting to obtain royal revenue" - I'd argue that "attempting to raise royal revenue" might be more natural.
  • "and thought he could govern according to his own conscience. " - "could" or "should" here?
  • "Many of his subjects opposed his policies, in particular his interference in the English and Scottish churches"- I'd question where "interference" is a POV term here (Charles would have seen this as a justified "intervention" by the head of the Church).
  • "such as Richard Montagu and William Laud, whom Charles appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, " - I think this can be read two ways (either that both were appointed Archbishop, or that just Laud was)
  • "and failed to successfully aid Protestant forces during the Thirty Years' War."- "and unsuccessfully supported Protestant forces"?
  • After his defeat in 1645, he surrendered to a Scottish force" - repetition of "force". Could be "army"?
  • "Eventually, Charles apparently conquered his physical infirmity,[11] which might have been caused by rickets,[6] and grew to a peak height of 5 feet 4 inches (163 cm)." I'm not certain you can actively conquer a shortness of stature?
  • "Even so, he was not as valued as his physically stronger and taller elder brother" - valued by who? (I'm guessing his parents)
  • "However, in early November 1612, two weeks before Charles's 12th birthday, Henry died at the age of 18" - the three dates/times here made for an uneasy flow
  • " As the eldest living son of the sovereign" - I didn't quite understand this. Are there titles which the eldest dead son can acquire or are granted?
  • "an enforcement of recusancy laws" - "the recusancy laws"?
  • "Parliament's attacks upon the monopolists for their abuse of prices" - given that this is the first mention of monopolists, "the monopolists" is probably the wrong article
  • "The Infanta thought Charles" - Again, the first mention of an infanta, and the reader may not know that this is the person that Charles is being possibly married to.
  • "to the king's marriage to a Roman Catholic" - the MOS would have this as "King's marriage", as its a substitute for Charles's name (see WP:JOBTITLES)
    • I wrote that part of the guideline [20] because lower case was being enforced but there are occasional circumstances where upper case is almost always used. It was not my intention to instigate the enforcement of upper case in all circumstances. How unfortunate. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hoping for the capture of the Spanish treasure fleets" - worth linking treasure fleets?
  • " in the king expelling the vast majority" - ditto, should be "King" I think
  • "drove a wedge between the English and French crowns that was not surmounted for the duration" - I don't think you can surmount a wedge.
  • " found that the king had a prerogative right to imprison without trial - again, should be capitalised (ditto later)
  • " Charles was deeply distressed, throwing "himself upon his bed, lamenting with much passion and with abundance of tears". - unclear who this quote is from in the main text
  • "Notwithstanding Buckingham's short lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was little economic capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas." - I think "financial capacity" rather than "economic capacity", given the context (unless the economy of England, rather than Charles's ability to levy taxes, was the handicap).
  • On my screen, the left and right images in the Trial section "letterbox" the text in the middle
  • I'd encourage OCLC references for volumes without ISBNs.
  • The Higgins, Charlotte article needs capitalisation of the title (it should be " "Delaroche Masterpiece Feared Lost..."). Similarly "Lockyer, Roger" in additional reading needs the capitalisation fixed on the second half of the title. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Charles_I_AR_Sixpence_722625.jpg: need licensing tag for coin as well as image (should be PD)
  • File:DelarocheCromwell.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:The_children_of_Charles_I_of_England-painting_by_Sir_Anthony_van_Dyck_in_1637.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a check for consistent citation style and reliability of sources at Talk:Charles I of England/GA2. DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick scan of the citations and sources myself and nothing untoward stood out. It looks to me however that you need to install Ucucha's Harv Errors script, as everything in Further Reading is problematic. I believe you can solve the errors in this case by altering the templates to Cite Book instead of Citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted[21]. Thank you for looking at the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, last thing that I forgot earlier, pls make sure you've run the duplink checker -- some of the repeated links might be justified by the space between them in a longish article but others perhaps not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is being addressed so will not hold up promotion. FTR, I was considering reviewing this in earnest at one stage but decided that it had enough eyes on it, and a quick spotcheck of prose the other day revealed no clangers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Bohemian Waxwing

edit
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its Bohemian name, this waxwing gets drunk rather than indulging in wacky baccy. It may bring the bubonic plague, but it's a beautiful bird, familiar on rowans in deepest winter if you live far enough north.

I am indebted to Aa77zz for commenting on and improving the text prior to nomination, for finding sources I had missed, and for trashing the OED's claims of earliest use. All remaining errors and omissions are mine alone. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was involved with an informal peer review mentioned by Jim above and believe that the article fully meets the FA criteria. The article is comprehensive, well organised, and clearly written in good English. The text has appropriate citations and the sources are reliable and consistently formatted. The pictures all appear to have appropriate licences as does the sound file. Also, the map is based on a suitably licensed source. I have a comment that doesn't affect my support:

  • Thanks for support. In the text it says that juveniles do have a few red tips, but I omitted to say any thing about moult, now added a sentence. I've said that it's only in the third year that Cedar Waxwings have lots of red tips; it's likely that that is the case for the larger species, but nobody seems to have done the research, so I can't actually say that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

Feel free to disagree with any of the following—I'm not always unreasonable. I don't know anything about birds or animals, so don't be surprised if some of the following is gibberish:

  • the taxobox could image could use an "|image_alt=", and the other images could use alt text per WP:ALT
  • sometimes conversions are done with {{convert}}, sometimes by hand. I don't think it's actually an issue, but consistency would be nice.
  • "a [[Common Starling|starling-sized]] [[passerine]]": I'd go with "a [[Common Starling|starling]]-sized [[passerine]]", so as not to create the impression there's a "starling-sized" article, and to break up the links (it looks like "starling-sized passerine" is one article until you hover over it)
  • "Females are similar to males, but young birds are less well-marked": "but" implies a contrast. If the females are similar to the males whether they are young or mature, then what's the contrast?
  • "large numbers of Bohemian Waxwings erupt": should this be "irrupt", as in the map caption?
  • "The genus name Bombycilla comes from the Greek bombux, silk and the Modern Latin cilla, tail ... of the German Seidenschwanz, silk-tail": I'd put "silk", "tail", and "silk-tail" in quotes, to distiguish signifier from signified.
  • "with a 32–35.5 cm (12.6–14 in) wingspan. and an": that period should be a comma
  • "mainly brownish grey,": not sure, but isn't "brownish grey" hyphenated?
  • "The red waxy tips are modified feather shafts": "modified", as in deliberately?
  • "A study of Cedar Waxwings shows that in that related species": is that one "that" too many? If not, could this be reworded so it doesn't appear to be a typo?
  • "The range of the Bohemian Waxwing": was there meant to be a line break here?
  • "The Cedar Waxwing is smaller than Bohemian": should that be "the Bohemian"?
  • "is just short of the treeline": worth linking "Tree line"
  • "this waxwing irrupts south of its normal wintering areas, sometimes in huge numbers. The fruit on which they depend": starts singular ("this waxwing"), and then goes plural ("they depend") for the rest of the paragraph
  • "They will then stay until the food runs out and then move on again.": I'd drop both "then"s
  • "largest ever eruption": again, is this not "irruption"?
  • "wet areas such as lakes, peat swamps with dead and drowned trees": I think that should be "lakes and"
  • "35·6 birds per square kilometre": should that not be a "." rather than a "·" in ""35·6"?
  • "the commonest prey": there are those who frown on "commonest"; others insist it is only used when "common" refers to "uncultured, dirty, lower-class", rather than "plentiful"
  • "They can ... than a human": if the bird is plural, than shouldn't the animal it's being compared to be plural as well?
  • "12.8 million km<sup>2</sup> (4.9 million mi<sup>2</sup>)": I think it would be better semantically to use ² (unicode U+00B2) rather than cosmetically superscripting "2"
WP:MOS has "Write powers of unit symbols with HTML, e.g. 5 km<sup>2</sup> not Unicode superscripts and subscripts." Unicode symbols are very small. Aa77zz (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it looks like the Unicode standard itself recommends against using the superscript characters. That's gonna bug me forever. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this species' population now appears to be declining": probably want an "as of" there.
    Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "{{Reflist|2}}": personal preference—not a fan of hard-coded number of columns, as they can can force a column offscreen on particularly small screens, or result in tons of whitespace on particularly large screens. I'd love to convince everyone to use "|colwidth=".
  • I've no objection, but I have no idea what follows the = sign. Feel free to change as you wish Jimfbleak - talk to me?
    • Like I said, it's a personal preference and not rquired. If you do, though, you'd pick a width that comfortably fits your reference style—for instance, I find with a short reference style that "20em" looks nice. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a {{Portal|Birds}} would be nice.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support, I've settled on 30em since I only use short form for books, and 20 makes journals and websites too cramped for my tastes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

edit

Looking through now.....queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Bohemian Waxwing's range overlaps those of the Cedar and Japanese Waxwings, it is easily distinguished from other waxwings by size and plumage differences. - would use "them" instead of "other waxwings" as repetitive
I'd link irruption, maybe to wiktionary
The waxwings are short-tailed stocky birds with soft plumage, a head crest and distinctively patterned wings and tails. The family contains three species, the Bohemian, Cedar, and Japanese Waxwings. - hmm, bit stilted. I think I'd rephrase as:

The waxwings are a family of short-tailed stocky birds with soft plumage, a head crest and distinctively patterned wings and tails. There are three species, the Bohemian, Cedar, and Japanese Waxwings.

I'd also use the word Bombycillidae earlier in the para - looks odd using it so late.

Support (moral or otherwise as wikiproject birds member..) Otherwise looking on-track. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Is Vieillot 1807 or 1808?
  • Gesner or Gessner?
  • FN12: page formatting
  • FN13: short cite style doesn't make sense with what you've got under Cited texts, but then "OED" isn't an author anyways. Also, that entry isn't from the 2002 edition, it's dated 1926
  • FN16: title should use endash
  • FN24: why is date italicized?
  • FN26: author formatting

Note -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Thanks for image review, Nikkimari. I've added the full stop, removed the first authorlink in File:Bombycilla_garrulusII.jpg (the second, to his website, is OK). The third comment has me baffled. There is no image with a name even similar to that in the article, and the source links appear to work for those images that have them. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've found it in the link at the bottom, I can't fix it, so I've removed the link for now, will discuss at project. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the link on Commons. Snowman (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support...just ran citation bot and I have nothing to add to the above comments. I did see the word irrupt followed later by irruption which is new to me...thought it was a spelling error but if course it isn't. Nice job on the article and it covers all the bases. I see Cedar Waxwings in Nebraska in the spring but have never seen a Bohemian Waxwing.--MONGO 14:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support. It looks as if they occur there. but I've no idea how common they may be. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Nigersaurus

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though this dinosaur was named relatively recently, it has become rather famous, and several scientific papers have been devoted to it. We have added most information available about the dinosaur, as well as many interesting images. The dinosaur project has long been silent here at FAC (only one dinosaur featured since 2009), but that'll hopefully change soon, starting with this and Dromaeosauroides. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

Warning: my paleontological knowledge is limited to what I learned in primary school. Feel free to disagree with anything—some of the following are merely my preferences.

  • Can we get some alt text for the images?
done
Lead
edit
  • "reptile", "dinosaur", and "subfamily" (x2) don't need to be linked (WP:OVERLINK), especially since they obscure what is being linked by having so many links bump up against each other
I only found subfamily to be ovelinked. done
I think you're confusing overlinking with duplinking. Overlinking is linking common words. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it. done
  • "4 tonnes": we have a conversion for metres, but not tonnes?
Done
  • "with many fenestrae": What is "fenestrae"?
Explained
  • "The jaws may have bore": "born"
done
  • "and all its teeth were located far to the front": you can drop "all"
done
  • "Its sense of smell was underdeveloped, but the brain size was comparable to that of other dinosaurs": what is being contrasted here?
done
Sorry, I wasn't clear—I meant the "but" is unnecessary, as the sense of smell is not being contrasted to the brain size. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was. I find it makes sense that way. I think FunkMonk's saying "Its sense of smell was underdeveloped even though its brain was a comparable size to other dinosaurs." Iainstein (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, sense of smell is related to brain size? Which is why humans have such a higher developed sense of small than, say, dogs? again, I'm a lay reader, and the contrast seems random to me—if sense of smell is related to brain size, then this needs to be made clear. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Its sense of smell was underdeveloped for a dinosaur even though its brain was a comparable size to other dinosaurs." Iainstein (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the area in the brain that is responsible for smell that is very small, that's why there's a contrast, but it doesn't have to be contrasted here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "There has been debate ... but this is contested,": I think we can assume it has been contested if there has been debate.
done
  • "shared its habitat with other dinosaurian megaherbivore,": does the plural of "megaherbivore" not take an "s"?
done
Description
edit
I'm pretty sure this can be evaluated on a case by case basis, here it doesn't make sense on the right (taxobox in the way), I've never had problems with that before in 10+ FAs. And I never liked that guideline, I'll see if I can lobby for its removal! Seems like I'm not the only one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location_.282.29 FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a sauropod; with a body": change semicolon to comma
done
  • "4 tonnes": again, conversion for metres but not tonnes
done
  • "Nearly all rebbachisaurids": this is the first mention of "rebbachisaurids" in the body (rather than lead), so it should be linked
done
  • "often being only several millimetres thick.": you can safely drop "being"
done
  • "only", "merely", etc: are these necessary?
done
  • "the length of back legs,": "the back legs"
done
  • "as in most diplodocoids.": first mention of "diplodocoids" in the body, so should be linked
done
  • "robustly built": I'd prefer just "robust"
done
  • "The skull of Nigersaurus was delicately built": ditto, I'd prefer just "delicate"
done
  • "Another unique trait, it had among sauropodomorphs": drop the comma
done
  • "shearing of the teeth": I wonder if there's something ot link to here
I couldn't find anything. Iainstein (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been 20-30% smaller": need an endash (MOS:ENDASH)
done
  • "being ten times thicker on the outwards facing side.": I think you can drop "being"
done
  • "otherwise only known": I think "otherwise known only" might be better
done
History of discovery
edit
  • I might shorten the header to "Discovery"
Well,, it's a convention of sorts in other dino FAs, so that's why I kept it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remains now thought to belong": I think "now" is unnecessary
done
  • "of several other individuals": I think "several" is unnecessary
done
  • "disarticulation": is there something to link to here? If not, is there a way to phrase this for a lay reader?
Well, articulation is when the skeleton is still more or less connected, but that word doesn't really cover the meaning well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no complete skulls and articulated skeletons": "no complete skulls or articulated skeletons"
done
  • "Nigersaurus was only named and described in more detail by Sereno and colleagues in 1999": I'd move "only" to before "in 1999"
done
  • "of newly found individuals.": "newly-found"
done
  • "A scapula and limb material": I'd reword "Limb material and a scapula", not because it's incorrect, but because I initially read the "a" as applying to both nouns, thus (mentally) "A scapula and a limb material"
done
  • "was dubbed a 'Mesozoic cow'": those should be double quotes, no?
I don't think so. Iainstein (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually fairly certain. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "A lower jaw referred to the titanosaur Antarctosaurus": I'm not sure what "referred to" means here
It means assigned to.
Yup, it is a convention within taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it hurt to reword it so as not to leave lay readers like myself scratching our heads? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand it perfectly well. edit this page to see hidden info. Iainstein (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a 36-year-old grownup, and it confused me. Of course, I would expect the author to understand it, especially if they are a subject expert. Not knowing the expert terminology, if theis weren't an FA, I likely would have "corrected" it to something that follows standard lay usage (one doesn't normally think of things like lower jaws referring to things, unless those jaws happen to be in the act of speaking). In other words, to a lay reader it appears to be a typo. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
Classification
edit
  • "is the basalmost family&nbsp... as a basal": move the link to "basalmost"
done
done
done
  • "Federico Fanti and colleagues, 2013,": in running text, I think the "2013" should be in parentheses
done
  • "The closely related genus": "closely-related"
done
  • "was described 2003": "in 2003"?
done
  • "that span across the Cretaceous of Africa and Europe": "across" is redundant
done
done
Palaeobiology
edit
Likewise as above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the rationale at WP:IMAGELOCATION? It's not for aesthetic reasons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a highly contentious line (see above), and it will probably be removed soon. The rationale is flawed, in my opinion, and see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location_.282.29 FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I remember watching that discussion as it unfolded. I also seem to remember certain of the participants had less-than-congenial things to say in other discussions about those with disabilities ... regardless, I do not intend to take a hard line, as long as you are aware of the guideline yet still feel your position ... "justified". ;) Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within one meter or less": what brand of English is being used? Should this be "metre", as "tonne" is being used?
UK. We were two guys writing this, so I guess that's the reason! Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(externally facing)": "externally-facing" (or "external-facing"?)
done
"A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb", per WP:Hyphen (ditto for some other examples above). Sasata (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "It also bares signs": "bears"
done
  • "low angle tooth-to-tooth wear": "low-angle"
done
  • "faster than other dinosaurian herbivore": "herbivores"?
done
  • "with each tooth being replaced once every 14 days.": see WP:PLUSING (not that I fully understand it)
Then please tells us what to do about it. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "and each tooth was replaced once every 14 day."? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "brain to body-mass": " brain-to-body mass"
done
  • "limited the up and downwards movement": "up- and downwards"
done
  • "oriented 67°": drop the link
done
  • "close to the ground level": I think the "the" is unnecessary
done
  • "been restored; with their": change semicolon to colon
done
  • "contested that this would have been the habitual posture": "contested that this was the habitual posture"
done
Palaeoecology
edit
  • "The Elrhaz Formation mainly consists": I'd prefer "consists mainly"
done
  • "coarse to medium grained": "coarse- medium-grained"
how about "coarse to medium-grained". Iainstein (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on whether you meant "coarse-grained" to "medium-grained" or not. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant coarse-grained to medium-grained. Iainstein (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then as I suggested. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "fine grained horizons": "fine-grained"
done
  • "mid Cretaceous": "mid-Cretaceous"
Done
  • "Aptian-Albian age": Is this a time span, or a single age? If a span, then we need an endash, and "ages"
done
  • "and a yet unnamed": "yet-unnamed"
done
Bonus points that will not affect this article's FA eligibility in any way
edit
  • It would be nice to have a {{Portal|Dinosaurs|Niger|Paleontology}} thrown in there.
Added {{Portal|Dinosaurs|Niger}}. Iainstein (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review! We should be able to grind through these within the day. And it is quite alright that you're not a palaeontology buff, I think improvement of wording is just as important for us, since we're not really copyedit-kinda-guys. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. As far as I can see, these guys have dealt with all my concerns appropriately. You might want to remove those {{done}} tmeplates, those, as per the guidelines at the top of the FAC page: "The use of graphics or templates is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives." Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

edit
Resolved issues
  • I don't know much about skeletal pneumaticity, but when you say "Its skeleton was highly pneumatised and hollow", is there a meaningful difference between the adjectives? If "hollow" simply restates "pneumatised" for the lay reader, I would reword as "highly pneumatised, or hollow,".
"Filled with air" would probably be a better explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence should be reworded a bit: "There has been debate on whether its head was habitually held downwards, based on reconstructions of the skull, and that it likely held its head like other sauropods." Do you mean "or whether it", instead of "and that it"?
Fixed
Still not right. The error becomes clear when you imaging replacing the complex clauses with simpler ones. Consider: "There has been debate on whether [it walked], or that [it ran]". The "that" isn't grammatically correct. – Quadell (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?[24] FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great lead, by the way.
  • It looks like there is a grammatical error in "The vertebral arches were 2 mm (0.079 in) intersecting laminae", but I'm not sure, since the articles on Vertebral arch and Lamina of the vertebral arch are not very clear. Should this be "2 mm of intersecting laminae" or "2 mm long, made up of intersecting laminae", or what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source states "No other herbivorous tetrapod has evolved a skull of comparable size with as little bone that is able to withstand sustained impact from tooth-to-tooth shearing." This article states "No other known herbivorous tetrapod has a skull of comparable size with as little bone and the ability to resist the impact of sustained shearing of the teeth." I'm sympathetic to the difficulty of rewording such a specific claim, but I think you'll have to find a way to get a little further from the source's wording. (Your rewording is fully sufficient for the article's other sentences that come from that source.)
Yeah, that was a tough one. How about now? FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed a little further. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Due to the lack of sources in the Wiki article, I'd think the name used in the paper is more apporpriate. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rd fixes it, and can be changed in the unlikely event that evidence shows it to be a different museum. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. "Course- to medium-grained". Iainstein (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The skeletals in Sereno papers are all made by the same woman (Carol Abraczinskas), I think she's credited in the paper, I'll have a look. As for "Arthur Weasley", he's the same user as Nobu Tamura (his real name I believe, he uses it on Facebook), but he left Wikipedia a while back, though he was previously a regular at the dino project. The anatomical errors in the image were fixed by myself. He has made many images of the same animals, but he started out at Wikipedia years ago, before he made his own site. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a double-fullstop in reference 2 at "Wilson, J.A.."
I checked and it was "Wilson, J.A.;". Iainstein (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant later in the ref, at "In Curry Rogers, K., and Wilson, J.A.." – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Got it.
  • Since Taquet's book is in French, the reference should say so.
Added.
  • The first paragraph of "Description" seems to assume a knowledge of sauropod anatomy. It starts with how a Nigersaurus is different from a typical sauropod. For instance, the text says it "had a comparably short neck", but it was short compared to other rebbachisaurids, and it certainly wasn't short compared to most vertebrates; the comparison with other sauropods is implied, but not stated. I'm not sure the best way to fix it; you could either rewrite the paragraph to introduce the Nigersaurus' appearance to someone who was not already familiar with sauropod anatomy, or you could include a quick description of typical sauropod anatomy somehow.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel like the "Description" section should start with at least a sentence describing Nigersaurus in the most basic way, saying what it has in common with other sauropods, before contrasting Nigersaurus with other sauropods. Consider something like this. "Like all sauropods, Nigersaurus was a megafaunal quadruped with a small head, thick hind legs, and a prominent tail." (There may be a better wording, but that demonstrates what I mean.) That can probably be covered by the Sereno et al cite, or there are plenty of others at the sauropods article. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something went wrong there, but I fixed it. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the phrase "within one metre or less", the "or less" is redundant. I'm not sure the most accurate way to rephrase it, but it should be rephrased.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I tweaked. It's good now. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider: "Its brain-to-body-mass volume was average size"... Are we comparing its mass, its volume, or its size?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I tweaked, removing "size". It's good now. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made several bold changes to the "Head posture" section. For instance, the holotype specimen is by definition a single specimen, so I reduced the redundancy. I removed the word "traditionally", since it seemed to imply that tradition is a reason other sauropods were oriented differently. Et cetera. If you disagree with any of these, please, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a reference starts with "d’Emic", it should be capitalized.
Done. Had to correct Template:Cite doi/10.1371.2Fjournal.pone.0069235 to change got it but done. Iainstein (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's something wrong with the retrieved date of "19-16-2007" in reference #8. Also, other dates in the references are formatted YYYY-MM-DD.
I think I fixed it, although how can it be the 16th month? Iainstein (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that must be a typo. Since it's just a retrieved date, you could fix it by checking that the link still contains all the material sourced to it, and then change the date to today's date. – Quadell (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • This article uses the serial comma in some places (e.g. "skull, jaw, dental battery, and brain" and "conifers, cycads, or aquatic vegetation"), but omits it in other places (e.g. "ferns, horsetails and angiosperms" and "Mike P. Taylor, Mathew Wedel and Darren Naish"). The "Palaeoecology" section in particular switches back and forth a lot. This should be consistent. – Quadell (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were two remaining places where serial commas were still missing. I added them. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of the issues I identified have been resolved. This article is complete and well-sourced, and fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

All image issues have been resolved. All image use is appropriate, as are all captions. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting check

All source issues have been resolved. No further problems. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - looking through (have read it on my smartphone once already) - looking good/queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only member of the group that reached the size of larger sauropods .... - I'd substitute "family" for group here (we're talking about the Rebbachisauridae, right?) as it is more exacting and less ambiguous.

Otherwise little to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

edit
  • ensure there is a non-breaking space in short-form binomials
done
  • as a monospecific genus, shouldn't the species name be bolded on first occurrence in the lead?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its skull was very specialised" specialised for what? Is "very" needed?
done
In this case, it is likely related to feeding, but it can mean any prominent feature that sets it apart from related species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link fenestrae
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had a shorter neck, with 13 cervical vertebrae." shorter than what, the elephant mentioned immediately previous?
You misread. It states "It had a short neck for a sauropod, with 13 cervical vertebrae". LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 mm (0.079 in) -> too many sig figs (another instance later)
done. Iainstein (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The limbs were robust, as seen in other sauropods," suggest "Like other sauropods, its limbs were robust,"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were not as specialised as the rest of the skeleton" again, not sure what specialised means in this context
  • "the front legs of Nigersaurus were 66% the length of the back legs" exactly 66%, or would "about two-thirds" suffice?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only known herbivorous tetrapod with a skull of its size that was resistant to the sustained shearing of the teeth while consisting of as little bone." awkward construction
This seems to be a very problematic line in all the reviews. It consistently turns awkward when we try to reword it from the source. But couldn't we in theory just use the same wording, since the paper has a free, Wikipedia compatible license? FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't use the same poor, confusing wording as the source just because we can; the article would then fail criterion 1a. I'm sure you guys can figure out a way to reword this elegantly :) Sasata (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the original source, which is released under a cc-by license, states "No other herbivorous tetrapod has evolved a skull of comparable size with as little bone that is able to withstand sustained impact from tooth-to-tooth shearing." This article used to put it this way: "No other known herbivorous tetrapod has a skull of comparable size with as little bone and the ability to resist the impact of sustained shearing of the teeth." I asked that it be reworded, not because it was awkward, but because I thought it was maybe close paraphrasing. So they changed it to "It is the only known herbivorous tetrapod with a skull of its size that was resistant to the sustained shearing of the teeth while consisting of as little bone.", which is admirably far from the source, but is more awkward. What's the best way of wording it? Should they just change it back to what it was before? Use a direct quote from the cc-by paper? I'm honestly not sure. What would you recommend, Sasata? – Quadell (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under each active tooth there was a column out of 9 replacement teeth within the jaw." confusin ... a "column made of 9 replacement teeth", or a "column of 9 replacement teeth"?; 9 -> nine
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tooth batteries erupt in unison" should be past tense, no? (this event is no longer occurring)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "newly-found individuals" do not hyphenate -ly adverbs
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "large scale palaeontological expeditions" in this case, a hyphen is needed!
Did. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link scapula, taxon, convergent evolution
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's standard practice to bold the article subject name in a cladogram
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then part of the Gondwana supercontinent." then->than ? (not sure; last clause of this sentence confuses me)
Then, as in back then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crop it very close to the ground"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Nigersaurus is estimated to have one of the weakest bites of the sauropods." have -> have had?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is non-coelurosaurian?
Linked coelurosaurian. LittleJerry (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the basis of µCT" probably better to spell out the jargon word
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was supported by a 2013 study which suggested" which -> that
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with almost no fine-grained horizons." what's a horizon?
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • page range for ref#2?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • update accessdate for ref#5, might be good to archive the link too
  • Taquet 1976 is available online
added
  • ref #8 needs publication date (archive would be good too)
Added new date, not sure about archiving. This? https://web.archive.org/web/20131012050244/http://www.ur.umich.edu/0708/Nov19_07/06.shtml FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That'll work; now it goes in the "archive url" parameter. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None given. LittleJerry (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it would be 2007, it seems to be connected to the paper released that year. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's the date in the URL. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • page ranges and issue #'s for refs#11 & 13?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be addressed, awaiting further instructions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look fine, thanks. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, and added link! FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

edit

Very interesting piece. Seem to be more copyediting issues than i'd have expected. Support

  • In the lede: "It weighed around 4 tonnes (Bad rounding here4,000 kg)". First, something is clearly wrong with the underlying script that produced this, and it has been sitting there for a while. Any thoughts? Second, how come the weight is given conversion etc in the lede but not in the text?
Removed, don't think it was even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "closed supratemporal opening". The idea of an opening being closed is pretty confusing, all the more so given that there is no wikilink to help the lay reader work out what this bit of the anatomy is.
Changed to fenestra, with link. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only known herbivorous tetrapod with a skull of its size that was resistant to the sustained shearing of the teeth while consisting of as little bone". What??
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under each active tooth there was a column out of nine replacement teeth within the jaw." I think the word "out" needs to be omitted.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these so-called dental batteries (also present in hadrosaurs and certopsians) comprise a total of more than 500 active and replacement teeth". Should this read "comprised", since the rest of the description is in the past tense? Then later we have "The jaws also contain several fenestrae,..." In fact, the tense used for description is all over the place. Need to pick one and stick to it.
Fixed, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tooth batteries erupted in unison, and not individually." I couldn't quite work out what this meant (also, the term, according to the previous sentence, is dental battery, not tooth battery). A whole battery behind one tooth cannot erupt in unison. Is this meant to say "The teeth from dental batteries erupted in unison, and not individually"?
  • This isn't great: "Therefore, no complete skulls or articulated skeletons are known. These fossils were the first known relatively complete remains of a rebbachisaurid sauropod". I realise "complete" is not exactly the same as "relatively complete" but it gives the impression of being contradictory.
How about "most complete" or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that helps, sorry. Actually, most of this para is stilted and needs improvement. For example, the "this" in "This is because of the delicate..." strictly speaking reads as referring to why further discoveries were made, when it is about why specimens were poorly preserved. I might have a go myself... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had a go at fixing the first issues I saw in this para. The problem I can't fix is this sentence: "These fossils were the most complete remains of a rebbachisaurid sauropod known by that time". First of all, it is not clear which fossils are "these". Second, it is not clear by what time is meant. Third... I'm guessing the whole para may make more sense if this sentence is deleted. But maybe it is trying to make a point I am missing... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is pretty important, which is that it is the most completely known dinosaur (rebbachisaurid) of its kind. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, why not just say that? What is the significance of the past tense? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded, does it make more sense?FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not exactly. Look, the para talks about expeditions in 1997 and 2000. It then says "no complete skulls or articulated skeletons are known" (ie. present tense) and then says "...represented the most complete rebbachisaurid remains known by that time". So I still don't know what the time is to which we are referring, and I'm still unclear why the past tense is being used. Are you saying these are no longer the most complete remains? What displaced them? Should they not be mentioned? I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I still don't get this. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that with the pace new discoveries are made, it'll probably cease to be the most complete specimen ever, so I thought the safest would just be to make it relative. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but i don't think it is worth qualifying in that way. When writing about the Burj Khalifa, WP says it "is the tallest man-made structure in the world", without a qualifier, though I am sure the building will one day be superseded. I suggest this. Would that text adequately reflect the intent? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, yes,thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is further supported by facets on the labial (externally facing) side of the upper teeth, similar to Dicraeosaurus and Diplodocus, which is evidence..." I think if the article refers to facets plural, then it should read "which are evidence?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also bears signs of low-angle tooth-to-tooth wear..." What is the "it" here? The facets? Wasn't clear.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low-angle tooth-to-tooth wear on the inside of the maxillary crowns, which suggest that jaw movement..." Opposite problem from point two above: shouldn't this be suggests if the subject is "low-angle tooth-to-tooth wear"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the team concluded that the head and muzzle were habitually (how it is usually posed in life), and "neutrally" (posture inferred from biomechanic study), oriented 67° downwards, close to ground level, as an adaptation for ground-level browsing." Doesn't work - there's too much going on in this sentence, plus there's no citation at the end of the sentence for a word being presented as a quote. The second bracketed text reads as though written in note form; it is not clear what the conceptual distinction is between neutrally and habitually. It seems to me that what the article trying to say is that "Based on this biomechanical analysis, the team concluded that the head and muzzle were habitually oriented 67° downwards and close to ground level, as an adaptation for ground-level browsing". The subsequent discussion should still flow OK i think.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)

Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll get to these before soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though it had large nostrils and a large, fleshy snout region, Nigersaurus had an underdeveloped olfactory region..." Repetition of both "large" and "region", which is also confusing, since the word "region" is being used in different senses here. How about "Though it had large nostrils and a fleshy snout, Nigersaurus had an underdeveloped olfactory region of its brain..."? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I'm done here. Nice work. Interesting beast! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Sega Genesis

edit
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... Indrian, SexyKick 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC), [reply]
Notified: WikiProject Video games

From the bottom of Wikipedia's worst to one of Wikipedia's best in just a few months, Sega Genesis has been, strangely enough, one of Wikipedia's most controversial articles for years. There's a reason it's listed at WP:LAME: a naming dispute has plagued this article for years, leaving the material to wither. However, with the most recent RFC on the title resulting in stability, finally the article has had the opportunity to receive a total facelift in the last two months. The references were weeded out and ensured to be reliable, the prose was reworked, and the depth of the subject material was explored and reworked as well. In October 2013, this article went through a very tough GA nomination, resulting in a lot of improvements and consensus discussions about aspects of the article as well. It may still need just a tad bit of touchup (in which case I hope the FA reviewers will help to point these out so we can make these changes as need be), but there's a dedicated team of writers behind this article, and this three-person co-nomination should be a great indicator of that. In addition, I'd like to recognize KieferSkunk for his contributions and assistance with the article, though he is currently on an extended wikibreak and has asked not to be involved with discussion about the article anymore. Let's make this one happen, and show Wikipedia that even though an article has been in poor shape and under dispute for years, it can still have a future and be an excellent article with some hard work. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Number 77 isn't working for me.
Looks like they took it offline. I'll change it to a cite journal since it's a magazine.--SexyKick 02:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally inlines should only follow punctuation; saw at least one instance in Aggressive marketing.
  • Remember to only wikilink the first instance of an article in the body (Sega Master System in Launch, for instance).
  • Inconsistent bolding. Consoles are bolded later in the article but not at the beginning. I am of the opinion that they don't need to be bolded outside of the lead anyways.
Yep, like the Sega CD, 32x, etc. I mean the lead is fine of course, but in the body they probably don't need to be.

Will add more later once I've had a thorough read. — Mr. V (t – c) 01:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check

edit

In the lead, first sentence "in most regions", the order can be confusing and in what regions is it not "Mega Drive" 'outside of North America'? Yes, that is how terrible the line reads. Given the worldwide common name is some form of "Mega Drive" I wonder how best to address the situation. I'd almost prefer the Sega Genesis, as a worldwide stand out, be mentioned as the exception to "Mega Drive" and damn the North American release to its fitting place in the worldwide scheme of things. The second part of the sentence is a run on as noted by the logical gap and desire to take a breath after the Ltd: "and marketed by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. first released in Japan in 1988 and later released worldwide."

  • "It is Sega's third and most successful console in terms of both sales and marketshare, selling well in North America and Europe, and less so in Japan." - This sentence has pretty big issues for obvious reasons.
  • "Its arcade game ports, first Sonic the Hedgehog release, wide array of first and third-party sports titles, and aggressive youth marketing greatly contributed to its success." - Same as above, choppy and disorienting.
  • "Two years after its debut, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), which sparked a "console war" that predominated over video gaming's 16-bit era." - Aside from introducing something entirely unrelated to the rest of the paragraph, it places the SNES in front of the topic to introduce this "console war".
  • "The console's hardware is based on Sega's System 16 arcade board." Gosh. That's all I get in the lead? The technical details also gloss over the point, but the history makes the statement from the lead... but the flow is bad.
  • ". Its games are delivered on ROM-based cartridges, the licensing and reverse engineering of which became the subject of a lawsuit." Too many questions raised here.
  • "The console is backwards compatible with its predecessor's game cartridges via an adapter, while its own library consists of over 900 games." Lacking clarity.
  • "Controversy surrounding violent titles like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat led to Sega's Videogame Rating Council, a predecessor to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board." - Surprise link with the "controversy"! How is this relevant to the rest of the paragraph? So far it seems to just spit out the contents in a haphazard way with little regard for the previous sentences.

In short the last paragraph of the lead is no different, but the lead is also very short and doesn't work as a very brief overview of the subject. While it may discuss the contents, it doesn't do so in a way that meets 1a or 2a. The actual contents itself looks better, but I'm going to stop for now simply because the lead alone needs to be completely re-written and expanded to 4-5 paragraphs. I am also noticing some numbers errors. The "40 million" estimate for units sold is not given as an estimate in the infobox nor as an approximate as listed in the body. And yes, there is a difference. I also looked up the Sega Genesis 3, and aside from being mentioned, it is not covered in the third party variations nor along with the other derivations. As part of the comprehensive criteria I am adamant that these releases be covered because the current coverage is inadequete and only raises more loose ends. We barely get a sentence about the CSD-GM1 which was in a "boombox". Many issues exist and I think it is far too soon before this can even be considered featured article candidate. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "most regions" because it was also called something different in Korea. Thank you for the comprehensive lead analysis. I was never a big fan of the current lead, and I guess we need to go back to the drawing board with it. I was curious in what you might think of the lead we had a month ago, (with the lead Red Phoenix had written).
  • The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1988 by Sega in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?)), 1989 in North America, and 1990 in Europe, Australasia, and Brazil, under the name Mega Drive. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung and was first known as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed. The Genesis was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms, including dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), and the competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming. Based on Sega's System 16 arcade board, the console began production in Japan in 1988 as the "Mark V", and later achieved market success in North America and Europe. With sales of 40 million units, the Genesis was Sega's most successful console.
  • In Japan, the Mega Drive initially did not fare well against its two main competitors, Nintendo's Famicom and NEC's PC-Engine. However, it achieved much greater success in North America (where it was rebranded as the Sega Genesis) and in Europe, capturing the majority of the market share. Contributing to its success were its library of arcade-game conversions, the success of Sonic the Hedgehog, and aggressive advertisement that positioned it as the "cool" console for mature gamers. The Genesis and Mega Drive also benefited from numerous peripherals and several network services, as well as multiple third-party variations of the console that focused on extending its functionality. Though Sega dominated the market in North America and Europe for several years, the release of the SNES posed serious competition, and the console and several of its highest-profile games gained significant legal scrutiny on matters involving reverse engineering and video game violence.
  • The console and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers are producing games for it. Many games have also been re-released in compilations for newer consoles and offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.--SexyKick 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like that one much better, though some wording could be tightened up. It might be easier to put to the "generation" right in the lead instead of dancing about it with "first of its generation". The SNES takes up a bit too much of the mentality here. I'd almost prefer to place that altogether to avoid making readers venture to the SNES article. Though I'll have to take another look at it tomorrow to pick apart this lead, I do think this is better than the one currently in use. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I have started my own revision of the lead in sandbox that uses this one as a base and incorporates a few other things as well. Feel free to continue offering feedback on this version, however, as I can incorporate that into my revision as well. Indrian (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has always been an issue of awkward compromise; with so many groups of editors fighting over it, especially with the naming dispute that plagued this article for years. I believe that's why the lead I proposed a while back wasn't used, but it is as it is, and I have no complaints with making amendments as needed. I will try to help as much as I can, but I work in retail and this is a busy time of year.
209.255.230.32, while I politely respect your opinion, I strongly disagree with your comments that this article is nowhere near even being worth a candidacy. I disagree with several of your raised points: unless specific third-party variations of the console show significant notability, I don't see expansion as being more than excessive directory-like information. Existence of reliable sources is a good barometer of this; a lack of coverage on the individual third-party variations, including the Sega Genesis 3 which was made by Majesco, indicate that little impact on the impact and notability of the console result from these third-party variations, and no more than a mention of their existence is necessary, such as the case with the emulators in the last section. I don't think it takes away anything by not stuffing it full of information about things that had little impact on the console and its legacy; those units that are worthy of more coverage as units themselves are covered in their respective articles, such as Pioneer LaserActive (and that's not to say another article or two couldn't be fashioned; JVC Wondermega might have enough, for instance. Now, as for the remainder of your notes so far; I'm glad to have such notes on little issues, but that doesn't make it "far from candidacy". That's part of what this process is for; to hash out issues and improve the article to a point where the community can say it's worth being an FA. I seriously doubt every article that comes here is perfect, and that absolute perfection is the standard to bring it here. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to mention, I disagree with "4-5 paragraphs" for the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, lead sections should typically not exceed 4 paragraphs, and in fact I disagree with 4 entirely in most articles I am a major contributor to: three, in this case, I believe is a more appropriate number. Paragraph one is usually an introduction to the subject matter and notes about what makes it notable, paragraph two is a summative abstract of the article's contents (as a video game editor, usually up to the end of the product's life), and paragraph three summarizes the legacy, reception, and closes out the section in a smooth transition to the content. In shorter articles, I combine the second and third paragraphs, and such is my preferred approach. 4-5 paragraphs in any lead section is, to me, always excessive and in few cases does it read smoothly. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per discussions at Talk:Sega Genesis#Lead rewrite, this article now has a new lead section, which was agreed upon by consensus of the article's nominators. This should resolve many issues with the past, ever-so-controversial lead. Speaking from a perspective of an active editor during the lead debates, I think it could be safely argued that issues with the lead before were another result of the long-held naming debate, and that discussions about the lead section could essentially be construed as debate by proxy; debating about one issue to really try and hammer a point about another. I feel pretty good about this new lead, though; more so than I ever have, and I'm sure User:Indrian and User:SexyKick do as well. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from self-locked-out User:Indopug

The lead remains excruciatingly detailed. A detailed release-history stretching to seven years after original release isn't really needed anywhere in the article, leave alone the first paragraph of the lead. The prose is too verbose, studded with several wordy phrases ("developed, manufactured, and marketed", repeated "first and third-party", repeated "North America and in Europe" [can probably just go with "the West"], compounded by "United States and the United Kingdom", "fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts") that don't add much.

Put another way, the lead uses a lot of words to say very little, very joylessly. Just look at the how all the punch of the wonderful phrase "console war" is drained out by the verbiage around it: 'resulted in a fierce battle for market share in those territories that has often been termed a "console war" by journalists and historians'.

Further, the second para seems to be written for advanced engineers ("hardware was adapted from Sega's System 16 arcade board, centered around a Motorola 68000 processor as a primary CPU and a Zilog Z80 as a secondary processor ... delivered on ROM-based cartridges"), not the general reader or even a video-game fan. Things that would interest the general public--how the Genesis' gaming experience was different, what critics thought of it, how it changed the gaming industry, what people think of it looking back 20 years later--i.e. broad, subjective stuff, is entirely missing. It looks to be missing from the rest of the article as well.

Taking a peak at the rest of the article, the prose isn't much better ("Accolade's games if Accolade were to be licensed, preventing Accolade from releasing its games to other systems. To get around licensing, Accolade"). And jargon remains: "lower price point", instead of "cheaper". The article needs a thorough relook that is beyond the scope of FAC.—User:Indopug (122.164.120.100 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wow. Well, if nothing else, I agree with what you're saying about the punch being completely removed from the phrase "console war".--SexyKick 07:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the risk of being undiplomatic I am going to be blunt: if you believe that naming the processor used in the system and mentioning ROM cartridges means this lead is written for advanced engineers, then you have no business reviewing this article for content. None of the major contributors of this article are engineers, so it would be impossible for us to engage that audience. Every general history of video games, all of which are written for the layman, plays up the distinction between ROM cartridges and CDs due to the major changes increased storage brought to the industry, so any reader interested in learning more about video game history is going to know what a ROM-based cartridge is or is going to have to educate himself in a hurry. Pretty much every article written for the layman on a specific console also gives the system's basic technical attributes, and the processor used in each is incredibly important, as all of the early console generations were defined in terms of their processor. The move from 8-bit to 16-bit to 32-bit was hyped in the general press and played a significant role in the marketing campaigns of these systems, which were also geared towards the general public. I have taken some of your prose criticisms to heart and already made a couple of changes (I am embarrassed that triple Accolade sentence was not caught sooner), but since you clearly do not know what aspects of a video game console are important to highlight to insure the article meets the comprehensiveness requirements of FAC and the relative emphasis requirements of WP:LEAD, I am afraid your content critique is off base. Indrian (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Indopug. In response to some of your comments:
  • There's nothing wrong with the prose being "verbose" as long as it's not full of jargon. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia. The idea is to have engaging prose, not simplistic prose; sentence and paragraph fluency are paramount, but if sentences flow well, they need not be simple. In fact, putting together only simple sentences makes sentence fluency terrible.
  • Punch of "console war" - WP:WEASEL, "console war" is a commonly used term by the video game community, but it's important not to directly call it that or else that is original research and pushing a point of view. The way it's phrased now avoids WP:NPOV issues, and possible WP:OR like that which existed in the old Console wars article (now redirected to History of video games).
  • How is "lower price point" jargon? "Cheaper" may be the more common word, but I doubt you'll find someone who doesn't know what "lower price point" means.
  • Completely agree with Indrian's comments on the tech specs above. We actually stripped out most of what was in the tech specs before, but knowing where the console came from is important to understanding it. We've done our best to avoid excessive detail, which I think was done quite well in this article without getting too engrossed in unsourceable and tech manual-like specs.
  • Things that would interest the general public: read the History section for "how the Genesis gaming experience was different" (particularly Launch, Aggressive marketing, and Sonic the Hedgehog subsections) and the Legacy and revival section for "what people think of it looking back 20 years later". How it changed the gaming industry is a moot point; it ties in with what people think of it looking back 20 years later extensively, and the issues and features that did so are outlined in the History, Tech specs, Add-ons, and Game library sections - essentially, the entire article does so, especially subsections like Sonic the Hedgehog, Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade, and Videogame Rating Council. Critical reception at the time is a tougher gig, but at the same point, I think that sales figures say more about how it was received at the time than the opinions of a couple of critics, and this article possesses detailed info on how much market share Sega controlled at periodic times during the life of the Genesis. All four of your points, therefore, have been answered and are in the article.
Respectfully, I must disagree with a large part of your feedback. There are certainly some minor notes such as the triple Accolade sentence mentioned, but I don't think anything major is missing or mishandled in the article. I believe everything has been given its due weight and that subjectively this article covers all of the bases in terms of content without being excessive and unnecessarily detailed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to delve too much into this at the moment, but how is it original research for us to call it a console war, when we have quite the handful of sources that call it such? The way we've weaseled out of referring to it with effective punch in the lead, and renaming the Console Wars section "Aggressive Marketing" when the former is entirely more accurate and descriptive really waters it down IMO. Even Steven Kent wrote a chapter about the 16-bit console war. Its title? "The War". Further more the Super NES article was able to call it Console Wars, and that one achieved FA status with the section titled that. And how effective it reads.--SexyKick 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists have defined it as a "console war", but if we did not specify that, then what is a "console war"? Is it a pair of consoles going at it in a physical fight to see which one can break the other in two pieces first? A little bit ridiculous, but I hope you see my point. It's a jargon term coined by a few journalists, so we have to specify that it is, or else no one will understand and it will appear as though we invented the term, creating an OR issue. The SNES article got by with a section header called Console wars because at the time, there was an article called Console wars and there was a {{main}} template right below it with a link to the article, essentially attempting to be consistent and specify that article as part of the reading material to understand the subject fully. As it turns out, "Console wars" the article was itself redirected a couple of months ago for being full of... you guessed it, OR. When working with a term coined by a group that may not be instantly recognizable, it's always important to tread the waters carefully. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

edit
Resolved issues
  • Per WP:LEAD, a lead should fairly all of summarize the most important sections of on article, without providing important information not covered in the article body. I know I may be stepping into dangerous territory here, but it seems like the first paragraph of the lead is a bit too concerned to list all the names the console has gone by, when that information does not seem particularly important given the coverage in the article's body. For instance, the fact that it was released as Tec Toy in Brazil and Super Gam*Boy and Super Aladdin Boy in South Korea is only mentioned in a brief paragraph at the end of the "launch" section, and the names "Virgin Mastertronic" and "Ozisoft" are not mentioned outside the lead at all. It seems to me that the various names should either be in their own section of the article, or else incorporated into the history section, whichever is most appropriate; but either way, the lead should not devote unnecessary detail on a point that the article body treats as minor.
    • I believe it's there for identification purposes. There's a full paragraph on this in the Launch subsection. I think the reason names have been emphasized so much is that this article has had, for years, WP:WORLDVIEW issues, which were resolved during the rewrite of this article. More importantly, though, it's been a point of contention in the naming debate of "Sega Genesis" v. "Mega Drive" for years on this article. Also, it's not released as "Tec Toy", in Brazil, it was released in Brazil by a company called Tec Toy. I'm sure, though, that we can copy the extra details down, and if you are still sure they should be removed from the lead, we can do that. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Info about Virgin Mastertronic and Ozisoft have been added to the bodies, with sources. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad that the "worldview" issues have been resolved, and I understand that the unfortunate naming dispute has had an effect on the article. It was necessary to include information about Tec Toy and Ozisoft in the body if that info is in the lead, however, and I'm glad to see that that was done. Also, I see that I misread the nature of Ozisoft and Tec Toy due to an ambiguity in the lead's wording. (I'd read it as meaning "...released as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, as Ozisoft in Australasia, and as Tec Toy in Brazil", when it's actually the "by" clause that's listed. Could you make this explicit like this? "...released as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, by Ozisoft in Australasia, and by Tec Toy in Brazil." – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The direct quote "console war" in the lead needs a citation. The term "cool", if quoted, should probably also have a citation. (I would just leave out the quote marks, personally; no one is being quoted, and you're really referring to the general aesthetic, which the linked article covers.)
  • Some facts in the infobox are sourced, and others are not. It seems to me that facts only need to be sourced in the infobox if they are not mentioned (and sourced) in the article body, or if they are particularly contentious. For this reason, it's good that Sonic 1's sales figure (15 million) is sourced in the infobox. But I don't think the fact that 40 million units were sold, or that Sega discontinued sale in 1997, need infobox citations.
  • It's hard to source that something is not known, and speculation needs particularly careful sourcing. I can't read source 19 ("Retroinspection: Mega Drive"), but does it fully support the claim that "The reason for this change is not known, but it may have been due to a trademark dispute"?
    • Yes, the source itself is also speculative and cannot pin it down. Here, I'll help by contributing a quote from Retro Gamer:

Arriving after the American launch, (Sega of America CEO Michael) Katz wasn't aware of the details surrounding the name change from Mega Drive to Genesis. Consensus states it was due to a trademark dispute. The facts are blurred, but point possibly to a US manufacturer of storage devices called Mega Drive Systems, Inc.

  • Is "Sega Mega Anser" a typo, or is that really what it was called? And also... an online banking system? Is that really something that was available for the Mega Drive in 1988? I do wish I could see the source. Can you verify these details for me? (Also, "including" is the wrong word to use, since that doesn't sound like either a game or a peripheral to me.)
    • That's really what it's called—it's a product that was released only in Japan for use with Nagoya Bank, which is likely the reason it seems typoed in English. The source even notes, "Mega Anser (sic)", that that really was how it was spelled. It was a full set with a cartridge, keypad, printer, and modem. I have the issue of Retro Gamer this is noted in and can verify this is all correct. And yes, it really was an early launch product... I'm not so sure it's 1988, the source isn't exactly specific on exactly when it was launched, but notes it in the article just after the paragraph on the Genesis' progress in Japan in its first year. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says "A downturn in the arcade business starting in 1982 seriously hurt the company", but the source only supports the second half of the sentence (that Bally purchased Sega in 1983). I'm not familiar with a 1982 downturn. The North American video game crash of 1983 article indicates that this period was a high point for video games. The Sega article states "In 1982, Sega's revenues would eclipse $214 million... The following year, an overabundance of arcade games led to the video game crash [of 1983], causing Sega's revenues to drop to $136 million." So whence comes the claim of an 1982 downturn?
    • @Indrian: Can you give me a hand here? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can take care of this with appropriate sourcing. As a note of explanation here, there were actually two different market crashes, one in coin-op and one in consumer, two markets that have different boom and bust cycles. By the middle of 1982, sales of new arcade game cabinets came to a virtual halt due to over saturation. This was followed by the end of the year by a decline in coin drop at the arcades. The arcade industry bottomed out in 1984 and then began to grow again. The home video game market suffered a market crash in 1983 as the price of new games plummeted due to over saturation to the point that publishers could no longer recoup their investment on game production. This is the crash covered in the article you linked to above. The home market bottomed out in 1985 and then began to grow again. Indrian (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I have added a link to a New York Times article that discusses the decline of the arcade market in 1982. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good source. I am satisfied that the arcade business had a downturn "starting in 1982", as the article says, even if early- and mid-1982 were good times for the business. – Quadell (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article sometimes uses the serial comma (e.g. "fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts") but sometimes does not (e.g. "Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam"). Either is fine, but the article should be consistent.
  • I'm a bit confused by some of the market share stats in the "Aggressive marketing" section. The article says "Even with the Genesis often outselling the Super NES at a ratio of 2:1, neither console could maintain a definitive lead in market share for several years." Two-to-one sounds like like a definitive lead in market share to me. Do you mean that neither could maintain a sustained lead for years at a time? If so, that would be a clearer wording.
  • Similar to the above, in my opinion, the final sentence of the "Sonic the Hedgehog" section would go better in the "Aggressive marketing" section instead. (That section already attributed some of the Genesis' success to Sonic, and gave a less detailed look at the market share swing of the time period.)
  • This sentence could really use to broken up: "To get around licensing, Accolade chose to seek an alternative way to bring their games to the Genesis by purchasing one in order to decompile the executable code of three Genesis games and use it to program their new Genesis cartridges in a way that would allow them to disable the security lockouts on the Genesis that prevented unlicensed games from being able to be played."
  • The article says "Ratings ranged from the family friendly GA rating to the adults-only ratings of MA-13, and MA-17." I'm not sure MA-13 can be described as an adults-only rating. I would just say "to the adults-only rating of MA-17", (though then you might want to introduce the MA-13 rating somehow so that the next sentence makes sense). Related, I'm not sure "relatively low MA-13 rating" conveys the fact that it's non-restrictive.
  • In my opinion, the "Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade" section goes into a bit more detail than necessary. It's an important part of the history of the Genesis, and I wouldn't cut it in half or anything... but some of the specifics (the date of the written opinion vs. the ruling, the various injunctions, terms of the settlement, etc.) could be trimmed, and I think it would improve the flow of the article as a whole.
  • Question: Why is the Power Base Converter, which allows the Genesis to play older Master System games, a "peripheral" described in the "Peripherals" section... while the Sega CD, which allows the Genesis to play newer games, an "add-on" listed in the "Add-ons" section?
    • Video game media tends to refer to these two as "add-ons" specifically, but leaves out the Power Base Converter, which is essentially a pass-through for Master System cartridges (the Genesis itself is already backwards compatible in its hardware; the Power Base Converter is just a slot adapter for the differently shaped cartridges to allow it to use such functionality.) The Sega CD and Sega 32X, however, add functionalities such as faster processor chips and more storage capability, and in addition are quite a bit more notable, seeing as how each warrants their own article (and coincidentally both Sega CD and Sega 32X are GA-class articles.
    • Now, here's where I play devil's advocate - "Peripheral" and "add-on" are essentially the same thing. The terminology is out of video game media, but they're synonyms. If recommended, I would not have a problem with moving the Sega CD and 32X sections into the Peripherals area, though I'd recommend they keep their subsections. However, it's my personal thought they're quite distinctly different from "peripherals" for the system. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The same was true of the Pioneer LaserActive, which was also an add-on..." I don't think the LaserActive was an add-on. The sentence should be reworded for clarity and accuracy.
  • It sounds like the "Later new releases" section is saying that the versions of FIFA 2008, Need for Speed Pro Street, The Sims 2, and Sim City for the Mega Drive Guitar Idol were originally made as cellphone games. If that's true, then no change is needed. But if you meant that the MDGI included those named games, plus others derived from celphone games, then it should be reworded.
  • Images: The non-free images are all used appropriately, with all required information present. (Although File:Megadrive logo.png and File:GenesisLogo.png could be cleaned up a bit, with rationale templates used a little better.) Nearly all the free images are legitimate, complete, and appropriate. (Evan-Amos is the man, by the way.) But I'm very concerned about File:Xeye.JPG; it looks like the original uploader is saying he got the image off eBay, though the link is now dead. Could it be replaced with a different third-party-model image? Also, this is minor stuff, but a description is needed for File:Console-wondermega.jpg, and it would be better to include an English description and categories to File:Teradrive-2007-05-19-front.jpg.
  • Be very careful about tenses in this article. Any action in the past should use the past tense (e.g. "Sega advertised to a more adult audience" or "The Genesis library was initially modest"), but for descriptions of things that still exist, the present tense should be used. This article does that correctly in some places (e.g. "The console also includes a Zilog Z80 sub-processor"), but I've had to change other parts to use the present tense (e.g. "the Sega Genesis also supports two add-ons"), and there are many other places where the present tense should be used instead of the past (e.g. "a 32-bit peripheral which utilized ROM cartridges", "but was incompatible with some games", "It also provided battery-backed storage RAM", "the Sega Mega Mouse featured three buttons", etc.) Someone will need to make sure the present tense is used when it's appropriate throughout the article. Be careful though; don't change every past tense phrasing into the present tense. For instance, consider "Virtua Racing, the only game released with this chip, ran at a significantly higher and more stable frame rate than similar games on the SNES." It still does run at a higher and more stable frame rate, but in the context of the paragraph, the important point was that it ran better back then. Or consider "this add-on unit also upgraded the graphics and sound capabilities". The add-on still exists, but it "upgraded" the capabilities at the time. It will take a lot of care, but it's important to get the tenses right throughout the article.
    Case study: Consider this sentence. "This version removed the headphone jack in the front, changed the A/V-Out connector to a smaller version that supports stereo sound, and provided a simpler, less expensive mainboard that required less power." It's true that it only removed and changed at the time of its release, but it still provides a mainboard that requires less. Because it's bad style to mix tenses in a list, I reworded the entire sentence with this edit. I'm afraid that sort of change will be necessary in many places. – Quadell (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see that SexyKick's been working on this one. I'll have to spend some time at it too, but it's a very busy season for me at work, and I'm finding free time quite scarce.
Let me know when you think this is done, and I'll check it over. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I found a few issues with the lead, as listed above, since resolved, I have to respectfully disagree with Indopug on nearly all the points he raises. I see nothing wrong with the description of "console war", nor with the description of the hardware in the lead, nor with the use of the phrase "price point" later in the article. I don't think it would be appropriate to use "the West" in place of "North America and in Europe" for purposes of modern console sales information, and I don't think the article is missing subjective descriptions of how the "gaming experience" was different. It seems to me that only actionable opportunities for legitimate improvement should be considered.
  • Images: The non-free images are all used appropriately, with all required information present. All the free images are legitimate, complete, and appropriate. Captions are fine.

Support. This article is thorough, well-sourced, and well-written. It fulfills all are GA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire

edit
Resolved issues

A few quibbles.

  • The "Aggressive Marketing" section seems to be almost all concerned with the North American market. Maybe rename it as such so that it's clear? (I assume that sources for other markets are hard to find.)
    • Politely, I disagree with this, because it's not entirely true. It seems that way, because at the time Sega of America was also over decisions in Europe too—Sega of Europe would not be established until 1991. Tom Kalinske's decisions at Sega of America were certainly targeted for the American audience, but also had impacts over Europe because of this. A quick quote to kind of back this, from Sega CEO Hayao Nakayama to Tom Kalinske after his suggestion to reduce the price of the Genesis per his razor-and-blades model and pack in Sonic the Hedgehog:

"No one here agrees with anything you've said. But I hired you to make the decisions for Europe and the Americas, so go ahead and do it."

— Hayao Nakayama
  • This is a fair point, but I'd cross that bridge when you come to it - if more European material can be found, I agree that shuffling around the name might be wise. As is, the new section title is more descriptive. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nintendo's share of the 16-bit machine business dipping down from 60% at the end of 1992 to 37% at the end of 1993" - Please clarify what Business Week meant with "16-bit machine business" in the text. Is this percentage of console sales per year? Percentage of dollar sales of console sales per year? Percentage of hardware sales? Percentage of hardware & approved software combined? And, if the section is not renamed, it might be worth mentioning "American market" again here.
  • I don't think that should be removed. That change breaks the flow of the sentence / paragraph, and loses the focus of showing how things were progressively through sources of the time. We can clarify because Business Week cites Goldman Sachs, which means it was tracking dollar share of the 16-bit machines business. I also don't think we're hurting worldview by renaming a section, that doesn't change the content of the article itself. We cover Japan, and then Europe right before this section...at least, to the extent of the sources we have.--SexyKick 05:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sega accounting for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales during 1994" - Thanks for sticking it in the footnote, but maybe move up from the footnote to here that "Sega claimed Sega accounted for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales?" Sega talking about its own market share is definitely worth calling out explicitly!
  • "the Super NES to win a handful of the waning years of the 16-bit generation" - This is a weird metric. "Number of years won" isn't really relevant, and considering that the Genesis was released 2 years prior to the SNES, I wouldn't be shocked if the SNES won all of the "waning years" rather than "a handful" of them (how many would that be, anyway?! If we're talking 1994-1996, is a handful 1 out of 3?). I'm not sure exactly what the sources say here so it's hard for me to suggest a rephrase, but if you want to keep the years thing in, just list out the years that the SNES "won" (e.g. "Super Nintendo outsold the Genesis from year X-year Y"), and, more interestingly, list the total sales of hardware, which is what really matters in a sense. Possibly split it out by market; if a total Genesis sales in NAmerica figure can be had, that'd be useful to add. According to the SNES article, the SNES outsold the Genesis by 10 million units worldwide, but you'd never figure that out from this section, which seems to indicate the Genesis "won" the console wars. I assume that better Japanese SNES sales is what tipped the balance, since this article seems to indicate the Genesis did "win" the North American market? Regardless, it'd be good to add to the article.
  • "This success led to Sega overtaking Nintendo in January 1992 with control of 65% of the 16-bit console market, making it the first time Nintendo was not the console leader since December 1985." Wait, what? Didn't an earlier reference claim that Nintendo had 60% of the sales in 1992, and it wasn't until 1993 the Genesis surged? These sources don't add up. Also, wouldn't Sega have had 100% of the 16-bit market in 1989 and 1990, since the SNES wasn't out yet?! What's this "overtaking" comment for the 16-bit market, then? As for "Nintendo not being the console leader," well, what exactly does console leader mean? I would guess something like "hardware + software sales per year" in that Genesis was outselling the Nintendo + Super Nintendo, but please clarify if possible.
  • "Nintendo took in 42 percent of the video game market dollar share despite a continued reliance on the SNES" - "despite?" Despite what? The Super Nintendo & Game Boy were Nintendo's big products in 1995, of course it'd be them. I think this sentence is trying to hint that the Nintendo 64 hadn't been released yet, but say so directly if so. And it's not clear at all that this kind of logic is correct - the PS2 outsold the PS3 for a decent length after the launch of the PS3, so the idea that it's shocking the older-gen system could beat a newer-gen system seems wrong anyway. Maybe something like "42 percent of the video game market dollar share off the continuing strength of the SNES and Game Boy?"
That is how the sources explain it, I think the statement can stand, but some information about how Sony's Playstation was out, and how the Nintendo 64 was being delayed, and that Nintendo decided to focus on their 16-bit system unlike Sega should be added.
Done - I've straightened this out to explain that Nintendo had not released a 32-bit console, and added a little support for reasons behind Nintendo's success over Sega in 1995-1997, including the Game Boy's success over the Sega Nomad in that era. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notably compared to its competition as well, Sega advertised to a more adult audience by hosting more mature games, including the uncensored version of Mortal Kombat." Mortal Kombat counts as a "mature" game? :p I'm pretty sure the marketing there was still aimed at kids, just their rebellious blood-everywhere-is-awesome side, while the SNES was trying to make sure parents bought that system by being kid-safe. So Sega was advertising to kids, Nintendo was actually the one aiming at the adult-holding-pursestrings audience. The way I'd suggest phrasing this is something like "Sega, unlike Nintendo, did not advertise itself to parents as a "family-friendly" system, and included in its library games such as an uncensored version of Mortal Kombat." The reference for the paragraph, Retro Gamer, is offline so I don't know how loyal this is to what was written there, mind.
    • I disagree with this entirely. The emphasis on games like Joe Montana Football; something kids have no interest in playing, should be clear. And how doesn't Mortal Kombat count as a mature game? Purely though, we are reflecting what the sources say with the statement as it is.--SexyKick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the source truly says that Sega marketed to a more adult audience, that is fine, of course, as already noted. I'm rather surprised and personally would disagree with the source - my understanding is that the battlefield of the 16-bit era was still largely fought among kids of all ages, and games were not particularly marketed to adults at all for either side. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a terminology problem here. "More adult" and "more mature" are relative terms and not meant to reflect actual adults. These terms are meant to indicate that Sega was expanding beyond Nintendo's 6-12 demographic to target adolescents. Sony was the first company to really target the twenty-something market heavily with the PlayStation. The wording may need to be tweaked to make this clearer. Indrian (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 32X section doesn't quite seem to communicate the same degree of failure that the main Sega 32X article does. When I read it, I assumed that the 1 million orders were eventually filled once supply caught up, but according to the article, the largest estimate for total shipped was 660,000? This makes the initial 1 million number misleading and almost trivia (if it's even right?) - I'd keep that for the spinoff article and just say "Sega shipped 660,000 by March 1995 despite supply hiccups" or the like. As for the final sentence, every console eventually gets discounted to low prices, and that sentence does not mention any time frame for the discounts (e.g. it doesn't say "and it was selling at 20 dollars X months after launch, an unusually short time), so it's not too interesting. I'd cut that sentence and instead include different facts - the precise date of the Saturn launch, only hinted at currently (only 6 months later, apparently!), that only ~40 games were ever released for it, and (optional) that video game journalists have considered the 32X as one of Sega's greatest mistakes using the ref's from the "Reception" section in the 32X article. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the 32X section of *this* article should focus more on what the 32X did for the Genesis, and less on its failure. It was published at the time that pre orders hit 1 million. That communicates how impactful the add on was at its launch. So I partially agree, and partially disagree. The 32X certainly helped move Genesis consoles in 1994, because people felt it was a console that would be around for a long time, and would grow. We have to remember that initial public reaction to the 32X was extremely positive...certainly we could use the surprise early Saturn launch date to explain why interest in the 32X faded so quickly and why there would only wind up being 40 games published for the system. Certainly more 32X games would have come out if the Saturn had launched 12 months later, instead of 6 months later, like originally was thought.--SexyKick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being too blunt here, is this feedback intended to be biased toward Nintendo? It seems peculiar to me that nearly every bit of it seems to be about downplaying the Genesis and 32X and up playing Nintendo's products such as the SNES. I appreciate your bringing up of a few consistency issues—sources of things such as sales figures tend to be a little squirrely even in established reliable sources and should be fixed, yes—and suggestions to include things such as the timing of the Saturn's release, but some of this is just ridiculous. The comment about Mortal Kombat being an example of Sega advertising to kids is a fringe theory if you can't back it up. I don't necessarily mind the addition of a final SNES figure, as I did something similar for Sega Game Gear, but some of the semantics being brought up, like how the section about the Sega 32X doesn't play up the add-on's failure like the article Sega 32X (which I wrote, by the way) does, are just getting tickytack. I'm trying my best to assume good faith here, but plain and simple, so much of this seems to be pointed that I think a lot of this goes beyond just WP:NPOV issue correction. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that. It was also commented on by other editors when we had the SNES sales figures in there that this article is about the Genesis, and should not overly focus on the Super NES. (something we were already asked to tone down during this FACR) The article does already say that the Mega Drive remained a distant third in Japan...and lists their 3.58 million figure elsewhere in the article. Since wikipedia is not a directory (among other reasons) there is not a comprehensive sales comparison chart made in the article.--SexyKick 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SexyKick: I agree that the article shouldn't get lost with covering the console wars in too much detail, but if the article is going to make direct comparisons between the two consoles, then the sales - and what sales - suddenly become relevant. The SNES figures are already in the article, just implicitly and murkily at the moment. As for the Genesis's worldwide sales, I'd actually missed the line outside the lede that discussed the Genesis's poor performance in Japan. I'm not sure there's a good way around that - North America was clearly the Genesis's most important market, so it makes sense that it should get considerably more written about it in the article than the worldwide market, but it currently takes up so much space comparatively that it's easy to bury the issues in Japan. Did any of the sources actually attempt to explain why the Genesis did poorly in Japan? It could potentially be worth another sentence, at least. I'm curious. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that we have a source that explicitly discusses this issue, as coverage of the Japanese market in English-language sources during that period is really spotty. In general terms, the Japanese market does not often support healthy competition because it is a communal society, so once one console breaks out as a major hit, everybody goes with the crowd. By the time the Genesis was released, Nintendo was such a dominant brand that Sega could not really penetrate that market. The PC Engine had some initial success, but that was due to its excellent shooter ports --particularly R-Type -- which could not run well on the Famicom and were unavailable on the Genesis. Once Nintendo had a 16-bit system on the market, however, even the PC Engine sank pretty quickly. Sega only managed to break through the Nintendo bias with the Saturn (ironically a failure in the U.S. and Europe, the exact opposite of the Genesis situation) because Virtua Fighter was an incredibly big deal in Japan. I have seen sources describe the Japanese "mob mentality" when it comes to buying consoles generally, but I am not sure I have seen anything regarding the Genesis specifically. Indrian (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red, I know that this article has been forced to endure a lot over the years, which can make a guy wary, but I did not sense a Nintendo bias in these comments at all. While I also disagree with the Mortal Kombat comment, the rest appears to come from honest confusion as to the facts after the commentor read the article. I think clarifying some of the market share info is a good idea. Indrian (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTOH, when I saw that SexyKick was reworking the sections, I was immediately concerned about a pro-Sega bias. Looking, I find he added "Nintendo would go to great lengths to control impressions of the market", while the source cited says both companies did so. And given that source, should we be citing as fact the other sources in that section that are basically "Sega said Sega had X% market share"? Anomie⚔ 12:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before you made this comment, I had changed the line for 1994 to say that Sega claimed its market % that year. That's the only number we have that's like that. I am a little confused about your assertion that the source cited says both companies did so. It says "Major video games companies go to great lengths........" yes, but the first example is Super Nintendo (cited), and then they say it happened again in the 32-bit era, citing Sony as the example, not Sega. Those are the only two examples given.--SexyKick 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand now. The earlier page. I can change the wording to more accurately reflect that.--SexyKick 14:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RedPhoenix: No, the feedback was not intended to turn the article into a yay-Nintendo piece, and was offered in good faith. My largest concern by far is that some of the figures on the console war given are not clear what they mean, and phrased in a fashion that is a tad too magazine-articley. I'm not saying we should have a dry recitation of facts, of course, but if this article can give something more precise, it'd help immensely. (Note: Ninja'd by SexyKick. Their changes have helped some of the article already, I believe, like mentioning the years explicitly.) If you're worried about my comments being too "pro-Nintendo", well, I suspect that a clearer formulation of the facts will actually reflect favorably on the Genesis in some matters. To use an example mentioned above, the fact the article uses the odd "years won" metric, and isn't even clear which years were "won", makes the Genesis figures sketchier. There's a big difference between "moved 5 million units vs. 4.5 million" and "moved 3 million vs. 500K" and it's not clear what happened, currently. In the same way, what does "the 16-bit machine business" mean? Saying what it actually implies will likely be more "impressive" for the Genesis than the current mystery. I don't consider such concerns "ridiculous."
That said... I think you're reading something into my Mortal Kombat statement that wasn't there, and regardless, it was something that got both a smiley and a "please ignore if the sources disagree", so uh. Answering questions like these is supposed to be the entire point of a FAC - as SexyKick has done, in a way that directly answered my concerns that it wasn't in the source. What I do believe, which I suppose is what you're complaining about in my POV, is there are a few areas where, in my opinion, the article reads as a little too enthusiastically "pro-Genesis," and I believe that slant should be adjusted to be neutral. The "Nintendo did well despite a reliance on the Super NES" sends the message that the SNES was inferior and it was surprising it sold okay. In fact, if an outside observer knew nothing about the consoles aside from the release date, it'd make perfect sense that in 1995 a console released in 1991 would outsell a console released in 1989, assuming both had a similar pattern of growth followed by a trailing off of sales, since it's 4 years later for one and 6 years later for the other. Fixing this should not be hard, and I am not calling for a radical revision of the article. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good point that there's nothing that really states that the Super NES was going against the PSX and the Sega Saturn that year, and that's why it was a surprise that the Super NES had done so well. Not being of a pro-Genesis thing. I will look at that in a minute.--SexyKick 07:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if I addressed everything. I'm tired now.--SexyKick 07:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I've seemed blunt; it's been a very bad week for me. As it pertains to Wikipedia itself, I am starting to wonder now if six years, four GA nominations, at least two complete rewrites, a GA delisting, years of a brutal naming debate, and this FAC are starting to make me numb to what the text actually says. Let me just say I'll be glad when this FAC is over. Having read all of the following comments from my phone at work, I feel more like things have been put into perspective for me. It's actually a similar approach to what I took with Sega Game Gear and its competition with the Game Boy. In the next couple of days I'll see if I can use that to do some touch up work; my thanks to Indrian and SexyKick for your continued help. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The touch-up work looks good to me. Most of my concerns are met, thanks for the revisions. I made a few adjustments in this edit, please feel free to change if you disagree. One thought, though... Unlike Quadell, I actually disagree with removing the "See also" section. Yes, yes, I know there's the suggestion about "don't link articles already linked in the article," but what that guideline is really touching on is avoiding incredibly bloated See also sections. Restoring the see also would allow the References sections more room due to not having the portal sidebar "alley" and it was short, succinct, and relevant. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, so just chipping in my 2 cents, it's ultimately fine either way. Support. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the See Also section, I didn't like moving the Sega CD Games and Sega 32X games lists up to their sections, hopefully Quadell will comment and we can move forward with that. I also liked your edit, the "amazing original music" was the sources wording, and I was having trouble thinking of a creative alternative wording. You nailed it. ^^--SexyKick 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think "See also" sections should be reduced or eliminated in 90% of cases—I think they're overused, and I have an admitted bias against them. But I would not oppose the article just because it has a "See also" section, so long as you're selective about what is included. – Quadell (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though the SNES and PC-Engine are explicitly listed in the article, perhaps this See also can include some other 4th-generation competitors with the Genesis that weren't worth mentioning in the article, such as Neo Geo (console), Philips CD-i, etc. That would make sense. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also think Atari Jaguar at that point, since the Sega Genesis and Super NES were its first competition, and they wiped the floor with it...--SexyKick 23:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Random Source Check - Source formatting in the article seems consistent, and not plagiarized . I had been involved in this article through contributing a picture no longer used in the article, as well as in the naming debates. I have done a random source check. Sources 7,8, and 9 all reflect the information included in the article. Source 23 accurately reflects the information in the article. Source 27 and 28 have exact quotes cited that reflect the information in the article. Source 39 and 40 referring to Blast Processing could maybe be worded more accurately in the article to reflect the sources, but maybe it's worded the way it is to avoid plagiarism? Source 95 certainly describes the inaccuracy players had to deal with when using the Sega Activator. Source 103, used for five instances of text in the article, accurately reflects the information at those points. Source 107 and 108 check out as well. Source 120 calling the Genesis 6 button the best controller ever, I certainly agree with, and is accurately quoted. So, by and large, no problems. Just that one question on sources 39/40, but not enough issues that I think it would prevent FA status.--BeastSystem (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support and the source check. I'm sure that between the three of us (nominating editors) that we'll be able to continue to improve for a long time to come.--SexyKick 09:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article is well written, unbiased and has a good international perspective to it. It covers most noteworthy areas of the console, from its cradle to how it's used to this very day. Technical sections aren't too hard to understand. I say it deserves to be featured. --Zebbe (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yay. Thank you for your support. I know this article has been through a bit of a roller coaster ride over the years. There are two new books coming out soon that will have things like older controller designs that Sega didn't go with, and lots of other stuff.--SexyKick 09:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did I miss the image review? Graham Colm (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell went over the free images under "images:", there was a more thorough image review in the very tough GA review we had before bringing the article here.--SexyKick 16:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

U.S. Route 8

edit
Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit of a departure for me in that most of it is about a highway that isn't in Michigan. US 8 spans 280 miles (450 km) in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. It recently passed its ACR where it was given an image review and source spotcheck. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - very strong article (I'm particularly impressed by the lead). The writing is clear and conducive to imparting information, with thorough sourcing and decent illustrations. Clearly the most comprehensive and well-presented account of the highway in existence, so I'm glad to offer my support. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Image review - I reviewed the prose at GAN and conducted an image review at the ACR and feel that this article is high-quality and meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this at ACR and can happily say that this meets the Featured Article criteria. TCN7JM 01:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments from a roadgeek (having stumbled here from my FAC)

All in all, good read! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, happy to support now! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide an inset map for File:US 8 map.png, for those not familiar with the geography of the United States?
  • Dabs and ELs check out. Images look okay
  • Not a FA criterion, but there is one lone red link in the article for the Pelican River, can a stub be created?
--AdmrBoltz 15:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think any remaining minor issues can be attended to post FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Japanese battleship Asahi

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese battleship Asahi was built in Britain for the Imperial Japanese Navy in the late 1890s. She served in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. Thoroughly obsolete by WWI, she spent the war on secondary duties. The ship was disarmed in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and was subsequently converted into a variety of auxiliary roles. Asahi served during the early period of the Pacific War as a repair ship. She was sunk by an American submarine in 1942. This article passed a MilHist A-class review a month ago and shouldn't need much work to resolve any issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

I know nothing of battleships, so feel free to laugh at any of the silly things I may have to say.

  • A stanza of Waka: "waka" should be lowercase. Also, why is this not in the body? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing you would want there.
    • Moved.
  • As with the earlier Fuji and Shikishima-class battleships: ambiguous—this could read as "the earlier Fuji battleship and Shikishima-class battleships"
  • 55 water-tight compartments and she was subdivided into 223 water-tight: should this not be "watertight"?
  • Asahi, literally "rising sun", a poetic name for Japan,: "rising sun" is certainly a great translation of "asahi", but "literal" it's not. "Literal" implies a certain fidelity to the letter (rather than spirit) of the original (which would be more like "morning sun"). Rather than change the translation, I'd rather see that ugly word "literally" struck—say, "Asahi, or "rising sun" ..."
  • She carried a maximum of 2,000 tonnes (2,000 long tons): is "long tons" a clarification of "tonnes"? Even if it's not, it reads like a typo.
  • 3.6 feet (1.11 m) of which was: "3.6 feet" is surprising to see—are decimal feet common in battleship measures?
    • I missed specifying that conversions should have expressed themselves in feet and inches a couple of time. Think that I've gotten them all.
  • but reduced to 10 inches (254 mm): I assume "reduced" here means "became smaller" rather than "were made smaller", but the latter definition is the more common, which makes this read strangely at first sight
    • OK
  • laid down on 1 August 1899 in Clydebank, Scotland by the: is this article written in American English? Dosn't American English require MONTH DAY, YEAR dates? If not, I'm thrilled. Also, shouldn't there be a comma after "Scotland"?
    • <Snicker> The article's in BritEng, if I missed anything let me know, but I write all of my ship articles in DMY as per modern American military practice—you can take the boy out of the army, etc.—but date format for American military articles is usually DMY. There are however, heated discussions over the proper format for articles covering earlier times. Good catch on the comma.
  • She participated in the Battle of Port Arthur on 9 February 1904: link Battle of Port Arthur
    • Dang, thought I had.
  • to the 1st Fleet in 1908 and 1910–11: earlier the "1904–1905" style was being used
    • I think that I caught all of the other examples, but I prefer the shorter format
  • The navy decided to convert Asahi into a submarine salvage ship: I assume they actually converted her and didn't jsut "decide" to, so how about "The navy converted"?
    • Nope, then it wouldn't fit the second clause of the sentence that details when the conversion began.
  • fitted with a 19-metre (62 ft 4 in) compressed-air: up until here imperial units have preceded metric ones
    • The IJN switched to metric around the late teens or early 20s, but I can be consistent here if you'd like.
  • ship began conversion at Kure into a repair ship: can we specify that Kure was in Japan?
    • I just assumed that readers would think that any place that the ship was worked on once she'd been turned over the IJN would be in Japan, especially since it's linked, but I can clarify that. Thanks for your detailed comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I believe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive so, too. Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

edit

Support on prose (but agreed with most of Curly's comments above) per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Several infobox details (especially dates) do not appear in the article body and are not sourced in the box
    • Fixed the dates, not seeing anything else not sourced.
  • Complement differs between infobox and article
    • Comes of working with different sources.
  • FN2: page formatting
    • How so?
  • What kind of source is FN1?
    • Are you sure that you didn't make a typo here?
  • Why is one Hackett source in Footnotes and the other in References? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Leaning support. A few things:

Background
  • This and the following section lack dates that would allow the reader to know when they occurred.
Design etc.
  • "Asahi had a complete double bottom with 55 watertight compartments and she was subdivided into 223 watertight compartments in the main part of the hull." I think you should split this sentence.
    • Good idea.
  • There are some figures in the fifth paragraph that can probably use convert templates.
    • I only convert on first appearance; if I missed one, please let me know.
Construction
  • " The ship departed England" While I grant you that Southsea is in England, Clydeside is not. You need to clarify where the repairs took place, if in Scotland please change England to "Scotland" or "Britain".
    • Repaired in Portsmouth added.
Tsushima
  • The phrase "later in the battle" occurs twice in close succession.
    • Rephrased, how does it read now?
  • "She fired more twelve-inch shells," Which she?
    • Clarified.
  • I think the fact that Tsushima was a Japanese victory can be more clearly stated, as it is, it comes in through the British observer.
    • Done.
Post-war

Comments, leaning Support -- recusing myself from delegate duties to review; the ship shares its name with one of my favourite beers so how can I resist?

  • As usual, pls check my copyedits haven';t broken anything; outstanding points:
    • "They were mounted in twin-gun barbettes fore and aft of the superstructure that had armoured hoods to protect the guns and were usually called gun turrets" -- this pulled me up short; aside from the fact that I think the grammar could use some work, I thought such things were always called gun turrets, so what makes this unusual?
      • The difference between barbettes and turrets came to a head with the design of the British Royal Sovereign-class battleships where the differences were directly compared. The barbette mounting used in these ships was basically two guns behind a thick armored bulwark, with little to no protection above the level of the bulwark; essentially naked and semi-exposed guns. The turret used in one of them provided complete protection, but proved to be so much heavier that it adversely effected the design of that ship in comparison of that of its half sisters. Then people started adding hoods, usually armored, to the barbettes to protect the guns and their crews from splinters and the weather and the hood gradually got thicker and became the roof of what we now call "turrets". As this bit of detail is really only of interest to specialists, I've deleted it entirely and called them turrets.
    • Not quite sure of your method for spelling out numerals. You seem to be consistently using figures for units of measurement, which is fine, but then you say "fourteen 45-calibre guns" in one spot and "Russian casualties numbered only 17" in another...
      • I'm relying on these bullets from MOS:NUM to violate the normal rules for spelling out numbers:
        • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
        • Adjacent quantities that are not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes is more readable than 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes.
  • Structure, comprehensiveness and referencing look fine; relying on the image and source checks above.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Florence Fuller

edit
Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, when I learned that the National Gallery of Australia had targeted Florence Fuller's A Golden Hour for its 2013 annual Masterpieces for the Nation Fund purchase, I was embarrassed to discover that this extraordinary artist didn't even have a WP entry. A professional painter while still in her teens, independent citizen of the world, friend to global leader of the Theosophy movement Annie Besant, and beneficiary of the admiration of Sir John Winthrop Hackett, Florence Fuller was an intriguing figure who faded almost out of view. This article has been my most intensively researched to date.

Note on bibliography: the newspaper citation format used here is one generated specifically for Wikipedia use by the National Library of Australia, re-publisher of the materials. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE
  • Is there a page somewhere discussing the NLA citation format?
  • I might just clarify what's happening in this note, and you can let me know the problem. The footnotes that reference online information about her individual paintings (currently 45, 46, 48) are in the format: author name [=painter] (year [=year painting created]). "title" [=title of painting]. work [=section of the website in which it is found]. Publisher of website [=gallery that holds the work]. Retrieval date. Was your concern the fact that a range of years is used to describe when this work was created (which is what the website uses), or something else? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, okay. That raises an issue I hadn't noticed with a couple of other citations as well: you're citing the painting via the gallery (and so using the date the painting was created as publication date), but these citations are being used to support the fact that her paintings are held by several organizations, and so it's the organizations' pages about the artworks that should be cited (which were created much more recently). The paintings' existence and content are not the important bit for our purposes here, it's who holds them. Does that make sense? (Noting that in addition to the date issue, the artwork titles should be italicized). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand and agree, but it got awkward. Only half had any date for the website's publication at all, but all provided the date of acquisition. I have now made the date of creation part of the work title, and inserted the dates of acquisition (along with the word "purchased") in the field for citing the reference year. Do you think that is sufficient, or do you think I should also remove Fuller's name as author, and change that to the gallery name, adding Fuller's name to the title of the work, alongside the painting title? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN12: should include full citation
Comments from Quadell

Question: You list the source for File:Florence Fuller 1897.tiff as "Adelaide Chronicle". Do you have any further information? Was it published in the Chronicle in 1897, or later? – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found it. It was printed in the 17 April 1897 edition, and had no author specified. This is useful information for clarifying the copyright status, and should be added to the image description page. – Quadell (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is File:Florence Fuller - Inseparables - Google Art Project.jpg worth including? I assume it would be in the "Europe and South Africa" section. – Quadell (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly didn't do my homework there. Thank you for seeing that. i have now included it, and will also check a couple of sources for any commentary on that particular work. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice you usually omit the serial comma, buh in some cases you use one. I can help make them consistent as I copyedit, but can I assume you would prefer that the text not use them?
  • "Other Australian artists hung at the same time included..." Oooh, this sounds like the severe enforcement of a new anti-painting act.
Well, okay, but it still sounds jarring to my ear. Can we change it to "Other Australian artists whose works were [hung/presented] at the same time" or something? – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the article says she was described as a "visitor" to Sydney, the citations don't make clear who described her as such. Direct quotes, even one-word ones, need to be explicitly and unambiguously sourced.

A fun article, and as complete as the remaining facts allow. – Quadell (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your recent additions are excellent, and really flesh out the article. I am currently going through and proofreading. Most of my changes are, I think, uncontroversial, but a few are a bit on the bold side. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert and discuss. I should finish up my proofreading and review in the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your close attention to the article. Unfortunately yes, note 1 remains accurate. The major new sources focus overwhelmingly on her period with theosophy, and don't say much about other periods. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This article is excellent. It's well-written, fully sourced, and as complete as possible. I still think it would better to find a way to avoid the "other artists were hung" phrasing, but it's not an impediment to Featured status. This fulfills our our FA requirements, and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support: Another excellent, very readable article on an Australian artist. With the disclaimer that I have no subject knowledge here, this looks as comprehensive as possible and I notice that the GA review covered the area of sourcing (i.e. this has everything that is out there). Just a few minor points before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”In 1892 she left Australia, travelling first to South Africa, where she met and painted for Cecil Rhodes, and then on to Europe, where she lived and studied for the subsequent decade, apart from a return to South Africa in 1899 to paint Rhodes' portrait.”: Quite a long sentence. Maybe it could be split?
  • ”who was regarded as "the leading female artist in the group of Melbourne painters who broke with the nineteenth-century tradition of studio art by sketching and painting directly from nature”.”: Do we need intext attribution here for the quote?
  • ”Fuller first studied at the Académie Julian, where her teachers included William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and later with Raphaël Collin, managing one of his studios for a time.” As written this looks like Collin was managing his own studio. I suspect it was Fuller who did so.
  • ”Despite this, Fuller appeared to develop her skills there, with contemporary critics favourably noting the influence of the French training.”: Why “appeared”? And I’m not sure that a note can be favourable. What about “favourably commenting”? Or just “noting”?
  • The second paragraph of Europe and South Africa has a string of four references at the beginning. It is a bit unsightly, and I wonder if it could be spread out somehow, or if all of them are necessary?
  • ”There were exhibitions in many other locations”: I’m sure there were. But did Fuller take part in them??? What about “She exhibited in many other locations” or similar?
  • ”There was even a painting, Landscape, hung in the exhibition for the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Bendigo.”: Again, presumably one of hers?
  • ”Another source reports that Fuller also travelled and made sketches in Wales, Ireland and Italy.”: Worth saying what source?
  • ”Theosophy”: For lazy readers like me, is it worth adding a few words to say what this is, so we don’t have to click the link?
  • ”When it was announced that Besant would undertake a speaking tour of Australia in 1908, she was expected to stay with Fuller while in Perth.”: From the way this is phrased, I assume we don’t have a source which says that she actually did so?
  • It seems from the article that she found something in India which inspired her, but the quote suggests that she had not quite found how to express it yet. Did she find a way later on? The article sort of goes quiet on this.
  • Unfortunately, the quote i have used comes from the sole source I have located that quotes/reports Fuller's own words or thoughts. I'm not aware of whether she did find a way later on. What I would surmise, but of course can't write in the article, is that the decline in her reputation in her own lifetime suggests that she did not find what she sought, at least not in the realm of painting. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it that nothing more is known about her later life from the 1920s onwards?
  • In the last paragraph, we have “Yet although…” to begin a sentence, then two sentences later “Despite this…”. I wonder are we overdoing the contrasts here?
  • I read it and re-read it, but the two contrasts in this case don't bother me. I would be happy to revise it, but can't think of an alternative phrasing that doesn't fall foul of the opposite problem: failing to draw attention to something that is an important contrast or surprise. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 50: “Robb, Gwenda; Elaine Smith (1993). "Florence Fuller". In Robert Smith”: Should it be “Robb, Gwenda; Smith, Elaine (1993). "Florence Fuller". In Smith, Robert”?
  • Actually, this seems to happen in a couple of references which have multiple authors. I think it can be avoided by using last1, first1, last2, first2… Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well here's the thing: that outcome is what is produced by using WP's own semi-automated referencing template for multiple authors. So my inclination is not to go messing with it, though I am aware different outcomes can be produced. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy with the changes and replies above. I'd still like the lazy-reader-definition of Theosophy, but if it's a horrible thing to define concisely, don't bother with it. Either way, it does not affect my support for this excellent article. A really impressive piece of research, even by Hamiltonstone's standards. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Sarastro, and don't worry I am still planning to do that sentence on Theosophy. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After Hamiltonstone contacted me to inform me that the article had been expanded a little, I've looked at the changes and am still more than happy to support. I only wonder about the use of quotation marks around "discovered", but I know why they are there and cannot think of a better way to achieve the effect, so I have no problem with it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I reviewed this at GAN and note that it has been expanded. I recall this being on the way to FA status - will jot final queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller was highly regarded in her lifetime as a portrait and landscape painter, and it was reported in 1914 that Fuller was represented in four public galleries - be good if we could lose one Fuller here...how about "Highly regarded in her lifetime as a portrait and landscape painter, Fuller was reputedly represented in four public galleries—three in Australia and one in South Africa—in 1914, a record for an Australian female painter at that time"
Did this, and got rid of the "reported| / "reputedly" altogether, as there is no actual reason to doubt this report - it is not inconsistent with any other source. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]

2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

edit
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC), Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm trying to diversify the tropical cyclone featured articles a bit. Most tropical cyclone articles are boring storms that hit the United States. This is an entire season article, covering several unique storms that affected portions of Africa. It was quite active, and had several strong storms, and after I got it to A-class earlier this year, I thought I was done with it. But, Yellow Evan pushed me to go further with it. I said, if you help out an FAC run, I'll do it, and surprisingly he agreed. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed researching these storms and writing about them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming co-nom. This idea all started a month or so ago, and now it's officially at FAC. Hope you all like it! YE Pacific Hurricane 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have only done a skim of the article so far, and have made a few very minor edits (like converting a few hyphens to en-dashes in year ranges).

More soon -- good article! Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! YE Pacific Hurricane 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- an interesting and well-written article. Omnedon (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loathe as I am to read about something other than a boring storm that hit the US, I suppose I can take a look. I'm doing a bit of copyediting as I go along, so feel free to revert me if you disagree with anything.
  • I hate to be "that guy", but I think page numbers on the longer sources are actually quite useful (the WMO and JTWC reports are the only ones that don't, so it shouldn't be too hard).
  • Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin, and several storms either formed or had their origins in the Australian region. - This could probably be condensed; Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin, and several more originated around Australia?
    • Good idea, incorporated. 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • the season was considered comparable to the 1993–94 season. - By who?
  • On December 25, a cold front associated with an area of low pressure dragged over the central Mozambique Channel. - This sentence is a bit funky. Does that mean the cold front was part of a synoptic low (which is a given and need not be spelled out), or a mesoscale low was spinning up along the front?
  • Then on December 30, RSMC La Reunion designated this low pressure as a Zone of Disturbed Weather and then a tropical depression on January 1, 2002. - "Then" twice in the same sentence is kind of strong.
  • It also dropped heavy rainfall, and there were no deaths. - Rather hodgepodge...
  • the precursor to Cyclone Dina quickly developed within a region favoring tropical cyclogenesis. - I think it's obvious that T cyclogenesis was favored if a cyclone formed.
  • Random comment, skipping down. I know the "Season effects" section header is pretty standard, but it doesn't make much sense, since most of the table is about meteorological info.

More comments later. Nice work, just some minor polishing is needed. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review JC; it is good to see you editing. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed around the first paragraph of the Dina section, since that seemed easier than explaining all my concerns. About the heavy rainfall/deaths point, I'm still not enthralled with it; heavy rainfall itself isn't usually an indication of fatalities. Everything else looks decent. Some more comments...
Revised again. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't read the lead initially, but the first sentence strikes me as awkward (probably even a dreaded dangling participle). This is one of those things I'd rather leave up to the primary editors to figure out than fiddle with myself.
  • On January 23, the system intensified into a tropical depression, and intensifying at a slower than normal rate, it became Tropical Storm Eddy on January 24. - "Intensifying" twice, but I don't think simply changing the word would fix the sentence completely. Needs to be reworked if possible.
  • It was turning south over land, and as a result it quickly moved offshore. - Rather confusing.

I think that's about it. As I mentioned above, I did quite a bit of editing while I read. Happy to support once the few outstanding issues here are addressed. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the writing style is generally a bit terse I feel, but I can't argue it isn't professional. That said, this is by far the most comprehensive account of this season anywhere in existence, so I'll support. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Image check

edit

All files look clear to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not far off, but a couple of beefs:

  • The term "basin" isn't adequately explained or specified in the lead, and the ensuing text doesn't help much.
  • "Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin" What basin? I don't see it named anywhere. You link "basin" later in the text but it goes to a climatology article that doesn't name or define the basin.
  • "The dividing line between the basins" What two basins? The Australian basin is mentioned at times later in the article... is that one of the two?
  • "Tropical cyclones in this basin" etc.
  • In at least one place you violated WP:MOSNUM by mixing numbers as words and numerals for comparative quantities: "During the season, 11 systems were named, which was slightly above the average of nine." Fixed but please check for others.
  • Earlier in the FAC, this was somewhat covered. I may be wrong, but yours should be the last remaining outpost of the aforementioned issue. YE Pacific Hurricane

Otherwise looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're still waiting for a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Edit Conflict, go for one source check and you get two!
Source Check The first time I've done one, but I've combed through the references to verify what they say. If a reference is not mentioned, it's okay, I had issues loading Ref 5 so the Dina sections and anything after the second paragraph of Guillaumie still need fact checking. Ref 13 I couldn't verify due to subscription.

Ref 2 - Date on the document says April 1, not June.
Tweaked. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 - If I'm reading this correctly the warnings relate to the Number Issued category in the table? If so then yes this matches up with the article. Also why are there some Tropical Cyclones mentioned in this document that aren't in the text, even in the final table at the bottom?
Good question. Some of the storms mentioned in that PDF did not form on this particular areas of the world, so they are not include. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5 - For Dina winds were a bit confusing to find, I think I read the section a few times and couldn't find it, any chance you could point it out. Dina will definitely need double checking though, I couldn't find all the cited facts. Eddy I couldn't find the wind speed information. Francesca it says wind speed neared 200km/h, but nothing more specific, and I can confirm the first paragraph of Guillamie, but my computer refused to load anything more of this document. This is one of the most difficult documents I've ever encountered, any chance there is a pdf or something?
Yes, it's difficult, but there is no chance for a pdf. I found the info regarding Dina's peak, and found a different ref for Eddy's peak. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9 - It transitioned on the same day, not the next day.
Altered. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10 - Nothing is said about Dec 27, I also wouldn't call 6am late. This is further enhanced by Ref 11 calling it Cyprien by 9am.
Removed. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 12 - I don't see why this is in the Dina section, it collaborates the Cyprien section but not Dina.
This was a ref name error and it has been corrected. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 14 - Supports the agricultural value, not the property value, says there were only five fatalities. Ref 17 says six though.
Ref 17 is squeezed in there to help verify the info. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16 - Appears to support what is being referenced, I couldn't really find anything relating the flooding to record breaking or near record breaking though.
Cut that part out. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 18 - Francesca was updated to hurricane 04/0000UTC, Guillaume was classified as 15S.
Fixed both, second info was likely a mental error. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21 - I can't see the info regarding to the publish date of March 2002, only that it was updated at 5:10pm, however I don't doubt this was the month of publish, all this info is covered in Ref 22 though so I suggest removing this one.
Removed. YE Pacific Hurricane
Ref 22 - According to the article, it was written March 12.
Fixed. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23 - No mention of thunderstorms, unless that's a ragged eye.
There is. "Animated satellite imagery indicated that convection was increasing over the LLCC". Convection=thunderstorms. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 26 - Cites 20 people dying, not 33.
Ref 5 verifies it actually. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 31 - Apparently it dissipated by the next day, not two days later.
No,"03 200111231200 ZONE_PERTURBEE" is the last reference that MFR makes, which is 2 days after November 21. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 32 - I can't see the phrase 04S in this reference.
It's in the url, but tweaked anyway. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 33 - This tropical disturbance isn't referred to by Tropical Disturbance 15 in the reference.
Altered. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General - It appears that all your wind values are based off Australian Severe Weather or the tracking data, and not Meteo-France Ref 5 (unless I'm missing some wind tables somewhere, which is perfectly possible). Also, I'm assuming your maths is right for the knot to speed conversions, if not for the fact that I'm not certain on the calculations.
Your statement is correct. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre -> Regional Specialized Meteorological Center
Okay. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The strongest storm, Cyclone Hary, was the first very intense tropical cyclone since 2000; it hit Madagascar, where it caused lighter damage than expected but three deaths." This number is four in the end table, and three in the Cyclone Hary section, is the electrocution death mentioned one of the three or the fourth?
Yes, but there was 4th death outside of Madagascar. YE Pacific Hurricane
"...was the first very intense tropical cyclone since 2000..." Is it odd to not have a very intense one for a year, is the point that there were two so close together?
Yes. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"During the season, eleven systems were named, which was slightly above the average of nine." Might help to say that eleven tropical storm systems were named. It pushes the points that there was an above average number of storms and a significant number of tropical cyclones.
Good idea in theory, but it's not necessary IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"However, nine of the system attained cyclone intensity..." maybe nine of the systems?
Fixed. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It was renamed Andre, becoming the earliest date for the first named storm since 1992." Was this only after it was named Andre or whilst it was known as Alex too? It seems odd that Meteorological Services of Madagascar can name storms, but not the Australian BoM
BOM monitors an entirely seperate basin, so it was known as Alex outside of the basin. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Two days later, it moved into the South-West Indian Ocean,[8] and was renamed Bako." It became Bako on the 30th according to source 5, so shouldn't this be three days?
Noted. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should Zone of Disturbed Weather be capitalised or not? It is in Cyprien, not in Guillamie or Other storms.
Decapitalized it in Cyprien's. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage in the towns was estimated at $180,000,[12] but there were no deaths." Might be worth moving the reference to the end and saying there were no reported deaths. Also, in the end table it says $181,000.
Did the first, I think the 2nd is not really needed. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Tropical Storm Cyprien also dropped heavy rainfall." Is heavy rainfall unusual? Or maybe add that it was this that caused the property damage, make it add something to the section.
It's something worth noting and I connected it to Cuprien making landfall. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the final table are the aggregates the average or the highest? Cause it has the highest windspeed, but not the highest pressure listed? Also shouldn't the cost column be $281.2 million, since you'd round up?
The highest. I tweaked the rounding, but BTW, it's 287.2 mil, not 281.2 mil. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

====Comments from AmericanLemming====

I'll be reviewing and copy-editing this article over the weekend. Expect a thorough review to come shortly. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a change of plans: I need to study organic chemistry over the next month, not spend hours reviewing FACs on Wikipedia. (Trust me, I would rather be doing the latter.) I sincerely apologize for the disappointment this will cause the nominators of this article as well as the FAC coordinators, but it is what it is. I thought I would be upfront about it (one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is when people say they're going to do something and then do it a month later or not at all). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

SMS Schleswig-Holstein

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my German battleship articles, this is the first pre-dreadnought in the series to appear at FAC. Schleswig-Holstein holds the dubious distinction of firing the first shots of World War II when she opened fire on the Polish forces at Westerplatte early on the morning of 1 September 1939. This article was mostly written back in 2010 when it passed a GA review, and then was reviewed at Milhist's A-class review this past March. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets or exceeds the standards for Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Dreadnought didn't really affect the status of cruisers and smaller ships. Suggest changing the ref to battleships of the German Navy.
  • Hyphenate second most and port side.
  • Link casemates, all of the guns in the main body, torpedo tubes, point
  • submerged in the hull reads oddly. Suggest "below the waterline" or somesuch.
  • which the II Battle Squadron rejoined the fleet. The main battle fleet covered This transition was a little abrupt. I'd suggest something like the squadron assisted in covering the battlecruisers along with the rest of the main fleet or somesuch.
  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • No DABs or problems with external links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

CommentsSupport I had reviewed this at Milhist A-class and the article looks in good shape. The ISBN number for Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz is wrong. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed it myself MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks MisterBee - I had missed this comment when ÄDA commented just after yours. Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I would love to support the article as it is in general well written and sufficiently sourced. My only concern is the single paragraph on Schleswig-Holstein's action in Danzig in September 1939. While there is a blow-to-blow account of Schleswig-Holstein's 'five minutes' at Jutland, the first shots of World War II are merely mentioned in passing. I would suspect, there is more to that part of her history. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I've added a few more details, but I'll have to see what else I can dig up. Parsecboy (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

My interests lie far from anything like warships—my comments will likely seem comical.

  • It appears that the article is in US English. Don't Americans insist on MONTH DAY, YEAR dates? Not that I'd raise a fuss about it.
  • it would be nice to have a pronunciation guide for "Schleswig-Holstein"
  • relegated to guard duties: is there some reason "duties" is in plural?
    • Good point - fixed.
  • and up to 14,218 metric tons (13,993 long tons; 15,673 short tons) at combat loading.: this lay editor doesn't understand the phrase "at combat loading"—can the phrase be linked or reworded?
  • She was equipped with three-shaft triple expansion engines: how many engines?
    • Simplified to "three triple expansion engines" - that can be unclear to you landlubbers ;)
  • while they bombarded Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby: Jesus, it sounds like it was about to attack Toronto!
  • he broke off the engagement and turned for home: or "turned <<the ship|??>> for home"?
  • During the "Run to the North,": kick that comma out of the quotemarks
    • Fixed.
  • if Scheer ordered an immediate turn towards Germany, he would have to sacrifice: "if Scheer had ordered an immediate turn towards Germany, he would have had to sacrifice"?
    • Fixed.
  • Indeed, the visibility was so bad,: I'm not sure if "indeed" falls under WP:EDITORIAL or not, but either way I don't think it's necessary here.
    • Alright.
  • the fleet reformed for the night: maybe "re-formed" would make it clear that the fleet didn't realize the error of their ways and decided to make a new start
    • Good point.
  • Thereafter, the ship was used as a target for U-boats,: this makes it sound like they torpedoed the bejeezus out of it, and then continued to use it after...? Could this be clarified somehow? It's left me scratching my head.
    • Presumably they used torpedoes without warheads, but the source doesn't say. Normally, live-fire targets are filled with cork and whatnot to keep them afloat, and most of the equipment is cut away (see for instance what happened to SMS Hessen).
      • If the source doesn't say I guess there isn't a lot you can do about it ... if you ever come across a source that explains this kind of thing, you might want to come back and throw it into a footnote or something. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Mediterranean on 22 to 30 May ... with Elsass on 1 to 7 June ...to Vigo from 12 to 14 June: with "on", I think the dates should be endashed; is there any reason you use "on" for the first to and "from" with the last one? I don't think it's actually a problem, but ...
    • "From" is probably better."
  • he ship was moored close to the Polish fortress at Westerplatte; at 04:47 on 1 September,: I'm not sure what purpose the semicolon is serving here
    • Reworded to drop the semi-colon.
  • A force of German marines was landed to take the fortress: I'd drop the passive
    • Done
  • and in April 1940, invaded Denmark.: I'd drop the comma (actually a lot of commas, but this one bugs me most)
    • Fixed.
  • ship was now permanently disabled,: I think you can drop the "now"
    • Ok.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, it was very helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Looks great to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Triangulum

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another small constellation. as well as being pretty comprehensive I've had eyes look over it to make the prose more engaging. Let me know what to fix - Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

Feel free to disagree with any of the following:

  • "Its name is Latin for triangle, derived from its three brightest stars, which form a long and narrow triangle.": as a translation, I think "triangle" should be in quotes here.
yeah, I'd normally do that too, except I paused with the "for" before it...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "triangle, derived from its three brightest stars, which form a long and narrow triangle.": delink the second "triangle"
done (dang, how'd I miss that??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with six gaining Bayer designations.": take a look at WP:PLUSING
I do this construction alot - changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an astronomer, but I get the feeling "yellow-white" has some special meaning, rather than just a description of the colour. If that's the case, is there something that can be linked to?
No, it's just a colour, though discussing colours can be a vexed topic in star observation.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a member of our Local Group.": I'm pretty sure we're supposed to avoid "our"
not fussed either way but ok, I can see the case for this...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Δελτωτόν/Deltoton": is this an accepted formatting? It looks weird to me. I'd write it "Deltoton (Δελτωτόν)", the way you did with "MULAPIN (𒀯𒀳)" earlier
I've done that for seven years, but the other way makes sense...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the earlier Greeks": what, Greeks earlier than the Ancient Greeks themselves?
removed - not sure how that ended up there. redundant anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transliterated into Deltoton": as above, needs quotes around "Deltaon"
I removed it as transliterate means the word has already been written, hence no need to write the same word again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then later became the Latin Deltotum": maybe better worded as " "Deltotum" in Latin ".
Even better - Latinized Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ptolemy called it as Τρίγωνον": no transliteration this time?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was Romanized as Trigonum": quotes around "Trigonum"
See I'd stick quote marks around English meanings, and I've sometimes italicized words-as-words, but I wouldn't put quote marks here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree here—it's the difference between the signifier and the signified: it was Romanized as the word "Trigonum", not as the thing signified by that word. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what I do - e.g. Triangulum "triangle" (signifier = word-as-word = italicized, signified = quoted) - trigonum is signifier and hence italicized...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't get myself to agree here, but I can't find a style guideline to back me up, so I'll just have to let this go. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(天大将军, heaven's great general)": quotes around translation
I would here though - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "representing honor": is this in Commonwealth or Unitedstatesian English?
given we've got Romanized, Latinized and color, may as well be US English - can't see any other words in it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, Bayer called the constellation": at this point, Bayer has yet to have been introduced to the reader, so this is pretty jarring
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The smaller constellation was not recognised by the IAU": the who?
Aaah, the International Astronomical Union - spelt out and linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the constellations were established in the 1920s": is there something that could be linked to here?
yup - Constellation#IAU_constellations Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are defined by a polygon": I'm not familiar with the jargon, but shouldn't this be "defined as"?
Yeah, I think 'as' works better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in error by Baily and thus refer": "refers"?
yup - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "16 Trianguli was noted by Baily to be": I'd prefer no passive here: "Baily noted 16 Trianguli was"
activated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Iota Trianguli is an "attractive double star with a noticeable color contrast" whose": quotes should be attributed; is there any reason this can't be paraphrased instead?
On reading I removed it and let the observations speak for themselves, though added "contrasting" to the 2nd component. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doppler imaging": isn't "Doppler" capitalized?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2-7 times as massive as the sun": needs an endash
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as massive as Jupiter that takes 472 days": I can't expalin why, but I feel like "adn" would be better than "than"
the 472 days refers to the companion - I think "which" works better there anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move link for "light years" from "Deep-sky objects" section to first mention in "Stars" section
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and at magnitude 5.8, it is bright": the comman is unnecessary
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of its low surface brightness, low power is required.": the meaning of this is not clear to me. Does it mean a device with a power source is required to see it?
means that low magnification to maximise the light coming thru the lens - can't find anything to link it to though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: in "Stars", "Beta Trianguli" and "Alpha Trianguli"
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 9, we're given: "pp. 301–02, 48": does this mean "pages 301, 302, and 348", or "pages 301, 302, and 348"? If the former, 348 needs to be written in full; if the latter, "48" needs to come before 301–02.
oops, I meant 348 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the infobox details don't appear to be sourced in the article
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • FN17: formatting
  • FNs 20, 21 and similar should use endashes in their titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
all five done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

edit
  • "it was presumed to be 32s in error by Baily and thus refers to 7.4 magnitude HD 10407". What?? What is 32s? A star? A measurement? And when the article says "thus refers" in the present tense, does this mean this is currently considered correct? If so, how come the Flamsteed designation isn't used? Sorry, I was flummoxed by this. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flamsteed designated a star at a point where subsequent observations showed there was no star. Baily concluded he must have been looking at HD 10407 and mistranscribed its coordinates - so later when he looked at his records he wrote it up as in Triangulum. However, we don't know that for sure - all we can be certain is that at the location marked 1 Trianguli there is no star. Make sense...? Will think of how to rephrase Tried a rephrase - hope that helps.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of. I have tried a further tweak to render it thus: "...Baily presumed that the coordinates were mistranscribed 32s in error by Flamsteed and in fact referred to 7.4 magnitude HD 10407." Can you check that this is still correct? However, I had a separate issue: I have no clue what 32s means: i still don't understand whether that is a measurement of something. I may be being boneheaded, but it just doens't look like anything I've seen... sorry if I'm being boneheaded. Oh wait, it means 32... what, arcseconds?! Maybe spell that out... hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks better. Sorry, not arcseconds as such but seconds in Right ascension - linked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the section on history and mythology. I have a minor format question. Currently we have at one point "The Ancient Greeks called Triangulum Deltoton" (ie italicised) , at another point "...Beta, Gamma and Delta Trianguli were called "Teen Ta Tseang Keun"..." (ie. in quotation marks) but later "Johann Bayer called the constellation Triplicitas and Orbis terrarum tripertitus..." (not italicised). What is the criterion for determining the formal of proper names that are not in English? Partly I want consistency, but I also found the correct interpretation difficult at one point later on, where we have "...renaming the original Triangulum Majus." I wondered whether this meant he renamed Triangulum as Majus, or renamed Triangulum as Triangulum Majus (I assume it is the latter)? If the latter, then regardless of formatting you could solve the problem by writing "...renaming the original as Triangulum Majus." hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Italics are used in their words-as-words and also as they are foreign terms - this has cropped up before in sections with many terms where we could feasibly pepper the whole section in italics (which might not look great style-wise...)! I guess as Triangulum (Latin) isn't, I'd then reserve it for words in foreign scripts (in this case Greek, Arabic and Chinese) and have italicized the Chinese term. Regarding the Majus/Minus issue - none of the three stars excised were part of the pattern of the main triangle. Planted an "as" in there now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bordered by Andromeda to the north and west, Pisces to the southwest, Aries to the south, and Perseus to the northeast." I am just wondering about consistency of treatment of the compass points. Because "southwest" and "northeast" are used (ie. you are being specific to the extent of eight directions of the compass) I did kind of feel that there was a big gap to the east and southeast, whereas all other directions are covered (the way you write about Andromeda covers northwest without a problem). Is there any reasonable solution to this, or does one just live with it? :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just describing what is on the map (bearing in mind east and west are reversed!) - changed it to clarify we're not missing anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Thanks. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

edit

Just a few queries, otherwise looks sound Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eratosthenes linked it with the Nile Delta. Alternately, the Roman writer Hyginus linked it to the triangular island of Sicily— why is this an alternation? If you mean "Alternatively", I can't see why that is appropriate either. Also "linked" overworked
agreed, sloppy word now removed and "while" used instead, one "linked" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text from The Ancient Greeks called... to ...Romanized as Trigonum suggests that there was a chronological name sequence Deltoton... Deltotum... Sicilia... Trigonon... Trigonum., but the vagueness of the dating leads me to wonder whether the any of the five names were in concurrent use (especially Deltoton/Trigonon or Deltotum/Trigonum)
The five were not in chronological order (bar the Gk/Latin bits). I guess they could have been used concurrently. I don't have enough information to comment on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latinized, honor, catalogued—AE or BE?
BE Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4.00 around 112 light-years from Earth.[15] It is around double
around --> abouted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of its low surface brightness, low power is required. —Is this right? I would have thought low brightness needed higher power.
low power means larger field of view and more light comes in telescope making it easier to see (as it is large) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duh... you wouldn't think that I did two years of physics as part of my chemistry degree! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: Nice article. The only problem that jumped out at me was this sentence: "It was also called Sicilia, because Ceres, patron goddess of Sicily, was claimed to have begged Jupiter that the island be placed in the heavens." Between the clauses and the subjunctive part, it gets convoluted. Maybe something more like this: "It was also called Sicilia, because the Romans believed Ceres, patron goddess of Sicily, begged Jupiter to place the island in the heavens." --Coemgenus (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx - much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One hasn't been done, but there are only two - one own work (File:TriangulumCC.jpg) and one IAU starchart (File:Triangulum IAU.svg), which copyright information is given here. (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For this image File:TriangulumCC.jpg it says "© all photographs taken by Till Credner, AlltheSky.com" here [32]. Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad - I meant not my own work but the own work of an uploader (rather than someone getting a third party's photos off flickr or elsewhere) - Till Credner has been uploading his photos to wikipedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this resolves the © problem. Graham Colm (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, Cas. I'm sure I've been round this loop as a reviewer of a previous GAN or FAC for another constellation, but i can't find it just now found it. My reading of the sitation is that the copyrightholder, who is the creator of this image, is Till Credner, as stated on the AllTheSky site. That same person has then uploaded the same image to WM Commons and released it under a CC licence. My understanding is that multiple copyrights in an image can exist and that by uploading it to WP under a CC, the copyright holder has validly placed their own image in the public domain. What am I missing? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, I'm inclined to agree with Hamilton's reading of it -- let me know if you still see an issue or believe one of our regular image reviewers should opine... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I'm satisfied with this explanation. Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Stella Gibbons

edit
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Gibbons was a writer famous for one novel (her first), Cold Comfort Farm (1932), a delightful parody which mocks the pretensions of the then fashionable "loam and lovechild" genre of fiction associated with writers like Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence and Mary Webb. She wrote much else besides, but never had a comparable success in the remaining 50 years of her career. She didn't mind; she was content with her relative anonymity, disliked and avoided the literary establishment, and made little effort in her later writing to adapt to postwar tastes. In the early 21st century she is enjoying a modest revival, as works long out of print are being reissued, but to the reading public generally she remains indelibly associated with her one great success, and its celebrated "something nasty in the woodshed". Please comment at will (and if you haven't already, please read CCF). Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your earlier review comments and your support here. Brianboulton (talk)
  • Support I also contributed at PR and think this deserves to be a featured article. I still think it would be nice to mention the sequel to CCF in the lead, since practically everyone will be coming to the page because of CCF and may not know she wrote a sequel, but that won't affect my support. Great work! --Loeba (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to confess that I forgot my promise in the peer review to reconsider whether the sequel should be mentioned in the lead. I've just looked at it now, and have decided you have a point, so I've insertd the mention now. Thanks for your review comments and for your generous support here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A third peer reviewer clocking in. First class article, well proportioned, objective, in the most inviting and readable prose, with resourcefully chosen images. Referenced widely and comprehensively. Top drawer work once again from the Boulton desk and I am envious because I wish I had written it. – Tim riley (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thank you, Nikki. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, this was an enjoyable and informative read, and as impressive as you'd expect from the nonimator.
Small nitpicks which can be taken or left.
  • She became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1950 is placed at the end of the 2nd lead para. Should it end the first or open the third.
  • "loam and lovechild". Red link? Googled this and got distracted.
  • Not too keen to redlink this. Unlike some genres such as "chick-lit" or "sci-fi", the term isn't particularly well known and is rather old fashioned. There might be a suitable term to pipe it to.
  • The Gibbons family originated in Ireland. - Where in Ireland out of curiosity? Gibbons is usually counties Mayo or Sligo. I had a friend Noreen Gib****....who was (I presume still is) far more attractive than that name suggests.
  • The source merely says "of Irish extraction", so no help there. Most of the Irish Gibbonses I knew had a "Fitz" in front. As to Noreen, I think "Noírín NacGiobúin" has a certain poetry in it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • who spent much time in South Africa - dont like "much", maybe "long periods" or something.
  • During slack periods she practised at writing articles, stories and poems. This imples that they were never meant for publication, but did she just say that later? Sounds unlikely; I dont know many creative people that merly "practice". They may say so later of their juvenilia; I'd put in "she claimed", or such.
  • I have to follow the source, which says nothing about publication, or her intentions, merely that she practised. Brianboulton (talk)
  • masquerading as man and wife. This is tantalising and deserves a few words of social context.
  • the abandonment by intellectuals of "the clerks and the suburbs" as subjects of literary interest provided an opening for writers prepared to exploit this underexplored area. - I know what is intended here, but it could be better put; are literary interest now vs writers etc.
  • I am not sure how this can be expressed differently. I understand that by "intellectuals" Carey meant writers such as Waugh, Woolf, Anthony Powell etc who based their books in the upper middle/aristocratic classes rather than among the clerks in the suburbs. I don't think the point can be made more clearly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks performed on the NYC article, Adams & Beard. No issues.
  • The lead image is a fantastic capture of her character.

Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and support, and also for the numerous prose tweaks you effected while going through the article most thoroughly. Most of these look fine; a few need a bit more adjustment which you can safely leave to me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; another from the PR reporting for duty! Yet another interesting, informative and attractive article. All very enjoyable to read and review - thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [34].[reply]

History of Chincoteague, Virginia

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… well, many of you may know I fell ill this summer. Although I've thankfully recovered fully, I did spend several weeks at home afterwards. My first trip that was not business, in late August, was to meet my brothers and their families for a few days in Chincoteague. It was a very pleasant five days, and while there, I had the idea … here is the result. Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda:

I like the article with personal motivation and missed the peer review. Only minor points:

  • In the lead: if Native Americans is linked, shouldn't there be a piped link to Colony of Virginia? "Destination" sounds vague, - island and town?
Isn't there a pipe to Colony of Virginia? I've played with the first sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find one in the lead and could imagine it for "Virginia colonist". Like the first sentence now!
  • Setting and pre-European use: perhaps mention the island first, especially as there was no town for a long time? - map also later, image of nature could go here?
Thank you for swapping the images. You know would have voted against a left one right under the header ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misty and filly Stormy, - moving story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done those things. That map is a bit awkward, it works best in the final section, which already has many images, but it needs to be in the article fairly early or I will get geography complaints.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of a geographic map of the area? I remember the nice historic one in Yogo sapphire, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the best free map I was able to find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A clear, well-written and detailed article about one of Virginia's most interesting towns. I gave the article a full once-over and seen nothing that I feel needed updating or changing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I had the considerable pleasure of peer reviewing this article; I can't think when I enjoyed a peer review more. This is a delectable article, and in my view the current version meets all the FA criteria. It is hard to imagine how the subject could be better handled. Top-flight stuff – loud applause. – Tim riley (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also for your work, and for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images review

  • All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and there are no apparent format issues
  • All images appear to be in the public domain, and are properly licenced.

I missed the peer review and have not read through the article yet. On the basis of the images alone, this looks to be a likely pleasure. I will add general comments when I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will enjoy it. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Quadell

I wish I had more of substance to offer, but after reading the article carefully and checking for the usual nominee shortcomings, I can't find much to criticize. (It's as if the nominator had extensive experience with bringing article to Featured status, and he spent a great deal of time and care on the article over the last couple of months, and the article was peer reviewed and GA reviewed by two of the most diligent reviewers around... it's almost precisely like that.) Here are my paltry contributions.

  • I made some minor copy-edits, and all were simply wordings I thought slightly better, rather than error corrections.
  • This article says "one smuggler's ship was burned in the engagement known as the Battle of Cockle Creek, and another captured." Was the capture a part of the battle? If so, I would reworded it as "one smuggler's ship was burned and another captured in the engagement known as the Battle of Cockle Creek." But then again, the Battle of Cockle Creek article says that "two accompanying sloops were captured", so I'm not sure if there's a contradiction there.
It's complicated. The Union accounts of the battle mention two small boats captured and sent to Hampton Roads as prizes, the Southern accounts do not. But in any event, the ship I am referring to as captured was captured two days after the battle, the schooner S.T. Garrison, taken off Wallops Island. See p. 51 of Mariner.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added "two days later", to try to avoid any ambiguity. – Quadell (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compared to the other facts about Chincoteague's growing publicity, the fact that it was mentioned in a Jeopardy! question feels really trivial (no pun intended), almost like a typical "In popular culture" factoid. Is it really notable?
As now two reviewers (one at the PR) have touched on that, I think it's dodgy enough to get rid of.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. – Quadell (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the very nice things you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this article is clearly FA-worthy. – Quadell (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: as I anticipated, this was a most engaging read. I have a number of comments, all relatively minor (some are merely recommendations). You will see from the edit history that I have made a few prose tweaks, though I'm leaving most of them for you.

Lead
  • Is there any date indicator that can be applied to the initial activities of the Native Americans?
I can't give an earliest date, but I gave an until.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph, the multiple short sentences create a somewhat jerky effect for the reader. Perhaps combine the second, third and fourth sentences?
I combined two of them anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although a few people lived on the island by 1700" – "lived on ... by" → "were living on ... by"
Done.
  • "in the postwar years" – perhaps clarify you mean the post-Civil War years
I think the previous sentence makes it clear and a repetition of "Civil War" unneeded.
  • Last paragraph: I don't think "the" is needed before "seafood", and perhaps the first "major" could be "significant".
I think the "the" has to stay. Major changed.
I huff and puff at "significant". What does it signify? If two "majors" in close proximity won't do, then how about "Neither is important in the island's economy today"? Tim riley (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, with a slight amendment.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colonial Chincoteague
  • I would clarify the "two islands" mentioned at the end of the section
Done.
Antebellum period (1776–1860)
  • First paragraph: was the "petition to repeal" successful?
Yes. Clarified.
  • "about age 100" might be common usage but it is not grammatically sound. Recommend "aged about 100".
Civil War (1861–65)
  • "Referendum on succession": shouldn't this be "secession"?
Nice catch.
  • We somewhat lose track of the fate of Whealton's mission. Were the confiscated goods returned.
Yes, clarified.
  • Passing comment: "800 inhabitants", yet only 135 votes in the referendum. A somewhat resticted ballot, then, which rather weakens the "near-unanimity" to which you refer, and offers an explanation as to why some islanders supported and fought for the Confederacy.
The source does not go into detail, other than discussing a few who supported or went south. It was clearly not a secret ballot. I've changed to "lopsided tally". The franchise was likely restricted to male landowners.
Postwar and prosperity (1865–1908)
  • "began to come to an end" is a bit cumbersome: "began to end"?
Fair enough.
  • My dictionary tells me the usual US style is "barbershop" (one word), against the BritEng "barber's shop".
Fair enough.
  • "Gas illumination arrived by 1900" – needs to be "had arrived" in view of the "by". Alternatively, "arrived in 1900" is more consistent with the rest of the sentence.
Causeway and carnivals: Chincoteague takes its modern form (1908–46)
  • Not sure of the MOS status of this rather elaborate section heading. Simple would be: "Entering the modern era (1908–46)"
OK
  • "By 1900, the residents began to seek to be incorporated as a town". It has to be "In", not "By", in this construction
Rephrased.
  • "Almost all" used twice as a sentence opener, in quick succession
  • Presumably John B.Whealton has some family connection with the earlier Whealton? Perhaps worth a mention.
Mariner does discuss this, and the Whealton family tree is a bit uncertain due to multiple people with identical names. John B.'s father was also named John, but was not the John Whealton of the Civil War expedition. So it is not a direct descent anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused by some of the fifth paragraph. The parenthetical "the auction began later" – later than what? Then, "Fifteen thousand people attended..." – attended what? I am guessing a carival and pony swin, but the nature of "the 1925 event" needs to be more specifically defined.
Pretty much. I've clarified. It doesn't sound as though things were as organized in 1925 as they later became, but the "festivities" I mention included pony races, foot races, swimming races, and baseball, plus food.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any explanation for the population decrease (3295 in 1910, 2130 in 1930 - that's more than a one-third drop?
My fault, the 1930 figure is not for the whole island, but only the town.
Misty and changes (1946–62)
  • It's a nitpick, but I wonder whether all of the incidental detail is really necessary, e.g. "Staying at the bed and breakfast of Miss Molly Rowley on Main Street", and the naming of the grandchildren.
The B&B still exists, and the grandchildren are characters in the novel. That's also why Beebe is given his nickname. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("Henry fell in love with the horse..." Hmmm, I'll say no more)
Shall I get the horsey set to opine? :) --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyle Maddox doesn't need naming in full twice in the paragraph.
Because of "Maddox Boulevard" in that sentence, I felt the need to give him his first name a second time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a possible contradiction in "many young people left Chincoteague in the years after World War II" and "The town remained busy and prosperous in the postwar years".
I guess enough young people were leaving that they were concerned. I doubt there was even television there in the 1950s, though, and it would have been very isolated before the bridges to the Eastern Shore were built.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth paragraph: I would reverse the order of the penultimate and ultimate sentences and slightly change the wording and organisation, thus: " When oyster parasites and overfishing combined to destroy the oyster industry in the 1950s, clams became the island's major industry. The Burton Clamming Company claimed to be the largest in the world, sending 1.3 million clams to market on a typical day in 1957."
Changed as noted below.
Tourist destination (1962–present)
  • "the local decline in oystering," – previously "Oyster parasites and overfishing combined to destroy the oyster industry"
Changed to "devastate".

I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught everything. Thank you for all your work on this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: See above note about one final tweak that I've done myself. All well, now; a soothingly untopical article which was a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the nice words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Full disclosure: I might be too involved to be a neutral reviewer, as I helped edit some sections a bit (reviewed horse stuff, mostly) but Wehwalt did the bulk of the editing, and I fully support this article as an FAC. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Home (The X-Files)

edit
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC), Bruce Campbell 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third time is the charm! This is an extremely infamous episode of The X-Files, noted for its extreme violence and horror. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the early part of 2012, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. Bruce Campbell submitted it for FA consideration, but at the time, it was not considered. Since then, it has undergone extensive editing and copy-editing, courtesy of Bruce Campbell, myself, Sarastro1, and JudyCS. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated. This article was just nominated a few weeks ago, but the discussion closed due to lack of comments. I'm hoping this time, we can get some more comments! As a note, I am co-nominating this in Bruce Campbell's name. She contributed the most to this article, but isn't very active anymore.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Glimmer721 talk 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*" Despite this, some reviewers felt that the violent subject matter went too far." Perhaps clarify what "too far" means: "that the violent subject matter was excessive" or "not warranted" or something
  • "They took inspiration from" → "They were inspired by"
  • "small town" is mentioned in the lead: link it to Home, Pennsylvania?
  • "Mulder and Scully investigate their now-abandoned residence..." "their" seems to be referring to Mulder and Scully, not the Peacocks
  • "In retaliation, the brothers break into Sheriff Taylor's house in the middle of the night, bludgeoning him and his wife to death with baseball bats." Should "him" be "he"?
  • I think Morgan and Wong maybe should be linked again in "Background" - they're linked in the lead and the infobox, but they haven't been linked in the actual body of the article yet
  • " Morgan decided to use this incident for the basis of the screenplay, though Wong suggested that they change the son into a mother.[11][20] It took a long time for the concept to finally be featured in one of his episodes." The first sentence suggests that the incident was specifically picked out for "Home", whereas the second suggests he had been wanting to use it for a long time. They don't go together very well.
  • "Elements first appeared in the episode "Humbug", written by Morgan's brother Darin Morgan, which featured a cast of circus sideshow performers and incorporated several themes that had an influence on "Home," including the use of a "benign soul trapped in the body of a monster".[5][23]" Same problem as above, but also I'm not sure repeating "Morgan" is necessary. "Morgan's brother Darin" with the link should work fine.
  • Link British Columbia, and perhaps add "Canada" after
  • "Surrey, B.C." first of all adds an extra period to the end of the sentence, but second of all actually has an article
  • "... showcasing the conflict between classic American values, and more modern culture." Comma not needed
  • "In 1997, when the channel FX ran an all-day marathon of the most popular X-Files episodes, the "Home" episode was the number one choice.[14]" The "Home" episode? Why not just "Home"?
  • "A writer from DVD Journal commented that this was because it "was initially buried by the network after its first airing".[52]" I'm not sure this is all necessary; the previous sentence sort of suggested it. Perhaps "In 1997, when the channel FX ran an all-day marathon of the most popular X-Files episodes, "Home" was the number one choice,[14] likely due to its lack of reruns.[52]"
  • "Author Dean A. Kowalskin, in The Philosophy of The X-File" isn't it "The Philosophy of The X-Files"?
  • 2 consecutive sentences in "later reception" use "listed it"
  • "In 2008, Starpulse gave the installment an honorable mention as one of the 10 best X-Files installments.[61]" Repetition of "installment"
  • The caption says that William B. Davis is a "series regular" - but is that quite true? His character is recurring...

No major comments. The article is for the most part FA-worthy. Glimmer721 talk 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed all the issues, save for the last. I think "series regular" is fair, considering he was credited as "also starring" whenever he appeared (which is different from how guest stars are credited, I believe).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I just wasn't sure how technical the term was. You have my support. Glimmer721 talk 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Just a few issues that have been introduced since the last FAC:

Comment. (This is the only thing that I've looked at.) The MoS states "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." There are 16 examples of ," and some of them are from titles, so those at least should be ", EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected these instances. Thank you for the catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Ruby2010
Resolved comments from Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning support: I'm on a bit of an X-Files run at the moment! I copy-edited and review this article some time ago, and it is much improved since then. There are very few problems with the prose or content, and I have copy-edited a little more to trim redundancy where necessary. An impressive piece of work by all concerned. I will happily switch to full support once these final points are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mused that Morgan and Wong were unfamiliar with the direction that the series had taken during its third season.": Could we state what direction that was? Otherwise it's a bit of a tease.
  • "Elements of the script were mirrored in the sixth season episode "Terms of Endearment", which also featured child-murdering antagonists.": This seems tacked on at the end of the writing section, and doesn't really fit with what is around it, unless I'm missing something.
  • "Because the town was a "mix of new and old" buildings, careful reverse angles were employed to preserve the "small-town American illusion".": Why the quotation marks for relatively common phrases? Maybe better rephrased as "Because the buildings of the town comprised both old and new styles..." and "...the impression of "small-town America". (And what is a reverse angle?)
  • "The filming of "Home" was an unpleasant experience for Tucker Smallwood": Does he say so? I'm a little uncomfortable with the editorial voice here. What about something like "Tucker Smallwood remembered the filming of Home as an unpleasant experience"?
  • "Upon its first broadcast, "Home" received moderately positive reviews...": Hmmm. POV? Why not "several positive"?
  • ""Home" has often been cited as one of the best of the series.": The best what?
  • As I said some time ago, I think we overdo the reviews, but it is not a problem for me if you want to keep them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with a copy-editing disclaimer): Changes look good. I do wonder if "deliberately wanted to go back to the stylistic origins of the series" is still a bit of a tease. It would be nice to know how the series style had changed since then so that we can see why the episode was such a departure. But this does not affect my support if you want to leave it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean by "tease". The problem is, I don't have the source anymore, since BruceCampbell added that bit, so I didn't want to change or add anything since I wouldn't know what I'm doing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose - no prose-clangers jump out at me....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the prose is sorted out. I shouldn't be finding things like "Mulder and Scully investigate the their now-abandoned residence ..." after three weeks at FAC. And here are examples of some other stuff:

  • "In retaliation, they break into Sheriff Taylor's house in the middle of the night to murder him and his wife." That's their motivation, but did they actually murder the sheriff and his wife? A reference to "the Taylor murders" suggests that they did, but they could be different Taylors as things stand.
  • "I'm not at all fond of "intended for" as in "The duo intended for their first episode back to be as ambitious and shocking as possible".
  • "... and was surprised when he first received the screenplay". When did he receive it for the second time?
  • "During the sheriff's death scene Smallwood insisted on performing his own stunts, but he quickly changed his mind after hitting his head on the ground while performing a dive." That repeated "performing ... performing" is rather awkward.
  • "After omitting the controversial audio and applying some careful editing, the censors eventually approved the episode." What that's saying is that it was the censors who did the work, which seems rather unlikely.
  • "However, some reviewers felt that the violent subject matter was excessive." Shouldn't be starting a sentence with "however".

Eric Corbett 22:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While looking through and doing some more copy-editing, I noticed that "Heim (2008)" is not in the reference list but is used as a reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent article, would make a good contribution to our FA collection. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have I missed the image review? Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has done it yet.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

All images outside the one in the infobox are legitimately freely licensed or PD, and all required information is present. The infobox image is a non-free screenshot. It also has all required information present and has a rationale, but it is not clear to me whether the image's use fulfills all of our non-free content criteria. Screenshots are often listed for deletion at FFD, and are usually only kept if the contents of the image are mentioned in sourced commentary in the article body. The claim is considerably stronger if the contents are mentioned outside the "plot" section, since those sections are only loosely sourced. In this case, it would be easy for the "Initial ratings and reception" section to briefly mention that a scene shows a family burying a child alive—there are places where this would fit naturally—and doing so would strengthen the non-free use claim immeasurably. (Without that, the contents of the scene are not mentioned in clearly-sourced commentary, and the use could be held to violate our WP:NFCC.) – Quadell (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it and added a blurb in the "Initial ratings and reception" section. How's it look now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 07:02, 7 December 2013 (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/December_2013&oldid=588351601"