Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2010

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

May 2010

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:50, 28 May 2010 [1].

Lemurs of Madagascar (book)

edit
Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Every book review found by me, Ucucha and Sasata has been included. If anyone finds any other book reviews, particularly for the second edition, it will be added promptly. I have also briefly covered the controversy this book has helped stir regarding taxonomic inflation. All red links I feel should stay. Stephen Nash is a noteworthy illustrator for Conservation International, and Anne Yoder is a well-known lemur researcher. I'm currently writing subfossil lemur, taxonomic inflation is generally needed, and Lemur News is a noteworthy publication of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. I will try to create each of these articles in the near future.

I considered holding this nomination until the third edition was published, but it's been delayed for over a year now, and every time I inquire, the publication date gets pushed back three to four months. Once the new edition is released, I will update the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails FAC "Illustration purposes only" is not valid grounds for the use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that summary field. I had copied it from some other non-free content as an example when I uploaded it, before I started learning more about fair-use. I thought there were grounds for using one cover image. Let me review and see if I can properly update that field. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Field has been changed to read: "The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic." This appears to comply with what is recommended at WP:NFURG. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Use {{Book cover fur}}. Valid fair use. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FUR fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for changing it. You beat me to it. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some stuff I'd like to see in the article if possible. More later. Sasata (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many species did the 1982 Primates of Madagascar recognize?
  • who is Russell Mittermeier, and what qualifications did he have for writing this book? (something like the lead sentence of his article would suffice)
  • how many copies of the 1st and 2nd editions were sold?
  • how many pages in the first and second editions?
  • For comparison, how many lemur species does "Mammals of Madagascar: A Complete Guide" (2007) have? Are there any other competing lemur field guides?
    The requested information has been added, except for the copies sold. If you know where to find that information, please show me. Even the second edition didn't mention sales totals for the first edition. As for other major lemur guides, there is only Goodman & Benstead's book Natural History of Madagascar from 2003 which gives a list of lemur species. Would it really be needed, or has the trend already been established? Alternatively, I could provide a See also link to the appropriate section in Lemur evolutionary history. Otherwise, let me know whether or not you approve of how the requested information was added. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sales figures are not normally available for books, unless the publisher chooses to release them. They have not been included in most FA book articles I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The additions look great; the only other thing I can think of to add is a few words about the publisher Conservation International. The presence of this article at FAC is tempting me to do a similar job on Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy, the "mushroom equivalent". Sasata (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some info about CI... but it was hard to state is briefly. If I should expand into a full sentence somewhere, just let me know. It's a very difficult organization to summarize briefly. Anyway, I strongly encourage you to write an article on Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy. I think it's very helpful, especially if we're referencing it over and over in our articles. If you write the article, I'll do your GAC review and comment at FAC. Just keep me posted. Otherwise, thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe this article covers what there is to cover for the book, and covers it well. I made a few copyedits, but saw no other problems. Ucucha 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support COI declaration, I did the GA review. I can't see any problems now that I didn't see then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources/referencing all look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jill Lucena of Conservation International has managed to track down a rather lengthy review of the 2nd edition. I will be adding this review tonight. Upon completion, a quick copyedit and general review would be appreciated. Sorry for the extra trouble. Otherwise, she and her colleagues are unaware of any other major reviews of either edition. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new review has been added. As stated above, a small copyedit by a second set of eyes is probably needed. Otherwise, let me know if there are any problems. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I also read the review, and think it's fairly represented. Ucucha 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • Comprehensiveness: As this is a book after all, I would have liked to read something about the organization of the book (chapters), similar to Lisa Gould's review or Stacey Tecot's summary of "Each chapter, section, and appendix".
      Before I get too far into this one, how should I reference my summaries? Do I simply reference each the 1st and 2nd editions themselves? Unlike Gould or Tecot, I cannot assess these parts of the book, but can only list what they contain. Consequently, the similarities will only be superficial. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, my time is too limited this weekend to wait for a response. I've added a Content section. Please let me know if it is lacking in any way. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Content is definitely on the right track. "I cannot assess these parts of the book" is not too reassuring. Though I appreciate your honesty; For a fair representation, contents must be summarized only after assessing and going through these parts. If these parts were not assessed, why is the reference the book? (Confused) --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was saying that the reviews spend a lot of time praising the book in their assessment, section by section. Obviously, I can't assess the book's quality. I have reviewed all section of the books, giving descriptive detail. Just forget about the question regarding referencing. I'm not used to giving my own description of something. I'm used to having to find a source that describes something in detail. Anyway, for the Content section, I've simply referenced the editions I was looking at. I hope this makes better sense. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is: Why don't you also use Lisa Gould or Stacey Tecot as references too? Do not add the praise, but add notable illustrations/examples. I got use of references as editions (They are your own summaries). Current "Discovery and Study of the Living Lemurs reviews the history of exploration and field research regarding lemurs." Combining with what Lisa Gould says: "Discovery and Study of the Living Lemurs reviews the history of exploration and field research regarding lemurs, starting from the 1625 description of a ringtailed lemur to contemporary Western and Malagasy scientists." This is much more concrete, the earlier is a little vague. Maybe, specific praise for a "Chapter 4, The Extinct Lemurs" may fit better in Content (which is an assessment), BUT on second thoughts, Maybe you are right, assessments can be kept limited to review. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, as I suggested below, I'll have to reply tomorrow when my BAC is a little lower. From my current intpretation, we should be fine. I did not reference the reviews because a) they are already covered in the appropriate section, and b) they were full of praise, with limited descriptions (not already covered). As I said, I'll look again tomorrow and see what I can do. Sorry, but my Tuesday nights are a night to relax and indulge. I apologize for bringing it onto Wiki. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I went back and reviewed the most detailed review (by Tecot) and was able to expand on some detail about the content. She has been cited as a reference. I have also used what you suggested as a more concrete example. I will look into adding more details like it when I get home from work. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more concrete examples similar to the one you provided. I have also added two quotations to the article, one about the book's purpose (from the "Introduction") and another as a sample of how the "Where to See It" section reads. If anything is wrong with the quotation formatting, or if the quotation is not needed, please take the liberty to adjust. I am also going back now to do a thorough proofread. As always, a second set of eyes would be appreciated. And if the references in the "Content" section need to be more precise, just let me know. I haven't adjusted it because it would litter the section refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comprehensiveness: Though Russell Mittermeier is the primary contributor, IMO other contributors (at least those who were significant enough to be noted on the cover) should be named in the text (not necessary in the infobox) and a 1-line summary about their importance e.g. "Russell Mittermeier, president of CI and a well-published primatologist"
      Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • " She was particularly fascinated with Chapter 4, which discusses extinct (subfossil) lemurs" Add chapter name and include about extinct
    • Neutrality: "As a field guide, the Lemurs of Madagascar is more portable, affordable, and updated than Tattersall's book, intended to assist lemur researchers and tourists in the identification of lemur species and subspecies." Questionable neutrality, reads like a book ad. If it is the view of somebody notable, then name that person. Same applies to "entertaining and informative", "excellent source", "fascinating". If a review uses this terms, put them in quotes, else can be considered as WP:PEACOCK terms. It is perfectly done in "Alison Jolly praised the first edition for its "contribution to knowledge in general" ... "most significant and most appreciative" "
      I have added quotations and re-stated sentences to avoid issues with WP:PEACOCK. I feel that the sentences are worded in a way that clearly indicate that they are the opinion of the reviewer, and if ambiguous in any way, quotes were added. I do not feel citations need to be redundant, just to put a citation close to such content. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very busy all day today and most of the weekend due to work. I will address these concerns as soon as my schedule permits. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the caption on one of the pictures to a quote from the book. Let me know what you think. I've never seen a picture caption be a quote before, so I'm not sure how to make it look. If you don't like it, we can always revert. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works well. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prose doesn't yet meet 1a in my opinion. Tone, style, and grammatical issues. Examples from the the "Content" section:
    • "The difference is due to the Introduction counting..." Overly long and tedious. This entire sentence can be tightened and simplified (e.g. "The second edition does not assign a chapter number to the introduction.". Also, is this really how you want to lead off this section? With a discussion on a rather trivial difference in number of chapters? Why is "Introduction" capitalized here and later?
    • "to help locate the appropriate sections" Appropriate sections of what?
    • "There is also an extra section entitled How to Use this Field Guide is also included between the Introduction and the first chapter." Something went wrong here. "also...extra...also" <-- no need for any of this. Chapter titles should not be italicized, but enclosed in quotation marks.
    • "The section The Living Lemurs is discussed in great detail, including each section heading used for all the lemur species" Eh? So the "How to Use this Field Guide" section discusses the "The Living Lemurs" section in great detail?
      Yes, you interpreted that correctly. If you can suggest a better way to word that, I'm all ears. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Introductions in both editions were written by Peter A. Seligmann, Chairman of the Board and CEO of CI, and Mittermeier." Great...so? What does he discuss?
    • "Each species is provided distribution map" Provided? Missing articles for some of the items in the rest of this list.
    • "Identification provides information to help identify and distinguish species." What is this "Identification"? A chapter? Can we be a bit more specific here on what kind of "information"?
    • "Geographic Range offers textual information to accompany the provide distribution map." Proofread!
    • "In many cases, little or nothing is known, while others have been studied extensively." This tells the reader nothing.
Seems clear & useful to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last half of the third paragraph is quite a snooze with the repetitive sentence structure.
    • "Where to See It aims promote ecotourism" far too many typos for an FA.
    • " helping travelers find the best sites for spotting each species in the shortest amount of time possible" Shortest amount of time? What does that even mean?
    • "provides various color maps providing information about towns"
    • Would really advise a copy-edit throughout. TwilligToves (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The "Content" section was recently added per a request at this FAC. You were the first person to offer a thorough review. I appreciate the list of problems and have done my best to address them. I'm sorry that I didn't catch some of the obvious mistakes, but I'm not very good at proofreading my own work. I know what I intended to say, and thus I read it as I intended it. I'm going to go over the wording for both the section and the entire article one more time, but it may have to wait until after work today. If you have issues with other sentences or any of my changes, just let me know. You're always welcome to do a little bit of copyediting if you feel you can do it better. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I have finished proofreading and copy-editing the article. I found a few more typos and clarified a few things. Let me know if you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, striking for now (though I haven't re-read the article). Hopefully I get a chance to revisit later this week. TwilligToves (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Where are the page numbers for the two editions of Lemurs of Madagascar? Collectively, both books are cited more than twenty times, and although I see you have used the {{r}} template, no "page1" field identifies what page numbers the article is referring to. You can see this template used to its fullest, with page numbers, at Boy Scouts of America. LOM states that the first edition has 356 pages, whereas the second has 520... yeesh! Can you please specifically note what in the book is being cited, to help readers/researchers narrow it down? María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry... the use of those references started very small and general and gradually grew. I knew it needed fixing, but your comment prompted me to make it a high priority. Anyway, the citations have been updated. I hope you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better, although it's unfortunate that the template forces single page-citations to be listed as "pp." rather than simply "p.", which is technically correct. I'm not a fan of {{r}}, so I'm not sure how to fix it. Perhaps someone else can help with that? María (habla conmigo) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was my error, not the template's. They should all be fixed. If I missed one, just let me know which ref number. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:50, 28 May 2010 [2].

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit
Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On of the main players in the team, one of the two frontline attacking fast bowlers, a frontline batsman, and the best slips fielder in the time (and the best fielder overall after Neil Harvey it was generally thought). Also a colourful character who wasn't worried about losing or winning, he had a few fights with captain Bradman, and turned up drunk at one match, and deliberately didn't try during another match because he didn't agree with massacring the opposition. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fattened YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Early tour: "Australia traditionally fielded its first-choice team in the tour opener, which was customarily against Worcestershire." Sounds a little clumsy and not sure about "customarily"; traditional would be better, but it's already in the sentence. What about "As was the custom, Australia fielded its first-choice team in the traditional tour opener against Worcestershire"?
  • "Bradman did not bowl him in the first innings, but he briefly rolled his arm over in taking the last two wickets ..." Did not bowl him and rolled him arm over sounds a little like jargon to me, particularly the latter. However, not a big deal.
  • Link use of "short-pitched" (first use in main body), rather than "short" later in the sentence?
  • "However, Miller was able to account for Bill Edrich and twice claimed Jack Robertson..." Do you need to explain why this is significant?
Yeah sure, Edrich scored heavily the year before and JR was a Test candidate YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MCC—who ran cricket at the time..." Would "administered" be better? I know why the word "ran" has been used, but it sounds too informal. Not sure of a better word, though.
  • "This left the county with a 78-run headstart for the second innings, but Miller again rose to the challenge..." Not sure about "headstart" but not that bothered. However, "rose to the challenge" implies judgement of his performance. Or am I being pedantic?
  • Is there anything about the reaction he got from press or spectators? For example, was he seen as a big threat before the Tests or did his short bowling attract any comment before the Tests?
Quoted Fingo YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First Test:"Compton's fall at 7/405 exposed the bowlers": jargon? Might confuse the non-cricketer.
  • This section seemed a little too detailed to me, particularly the early part, but not a big deal. And the short bowling part is very good.
  • Did Miller hit Hutton on his bad arm? I can't remember, but will check in a day or two.
  • Second Test: "Miller was given a life"; jargon?
  • "who dived and parried the ball up in the air before falling on his back and catching the leather sphere as it came down". This doesn't work at all for me, leather sphere sounds a little silly. Maybe rephrase it such as "who dived and parried the ball up in the air, fell on his back and caught it coming down."
  • "Bradman noticed this and addressed Miller by his name, rather than his nickname"; presumably this is significant. Does it need spelling out?
  • "Miller had a quiet period on the field during July": being pedantic, but is "on the field" a bit too much like jargon? I recently had an amusing misunderstanding by a non cricketer using this in an article!
  • Who noted that Miller was more known for celebrity stuff than his cricket in July?
Tweaked to refer to column inches YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match against Surrey was immediately followed[12]" Ref in middle of sentence. Also, is it necessary as the same ref is used twice in the next sentence?

More later, hope this helps. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Third Test: Can Miller really be given credit for the dropping of Hutton? As I understand it, he was dropped because he drew away in the Second Test where Miller didn't bowl.
I thought it was bumpers generally, thus a cumulative effect, especially as Miller was going to bowl again at OT YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but he again caught Compton.[34] He again earned the ire of the crowd": Repetition of again.
  • "apparently in retaliation to the Englishman's bouncing of Lindwall": Should it be "in retaliation for..."?
  • The poker and money brandishing. Was there no reaction from Bradman (or anyone else) to this as it seems a fairly severe breach of discipline.
Nothing found there. But saw some extra stuff in a bio of Fingo about Bradman shouting at him at Lord's. Inserted YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradman ordering Miller to stop. Frith, in Bodyline, claims that Bradman said to Washbrook around this time that he didn't want the bowlers to bowl short, but he couldn't stop them. This came from a book by Washbrook. Can both of these be true?
You should add the different versions then. I hadn't heaard of this YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth Test: "He then took another boundary ... cover for four." Uses "then" three times in three sentences.
  • Later tour matches: "Miller had gained a high profile in England ... subject of much media speculation." It is not clear whether this part refers to 1945 or 1948. What kind of social functions did he attend? And the Princess Margaret thing is mentioned in the lead, and I think it needs exlaining more here. At the very least, what kind of speculation and by whom?
  • Role: "Productivity with the willow" does not work for me.
  • "Miller was Australia's third-leading Test wicket-taker behind Lindwall and Johnston, who took 27 apiece." Sounds a little clumsy; third highest number of wickets?
  • General: Were there any come-backs for what seemed like his frequent bouts of arguing with Bradman?
  • Any judgements by others on his performance? E.g. the press, Wisden, Fingleton?
  • A very good article; possibly too much detail about scores at different points, but not a problem for me. There may be some bits of jargon which a non-cricketer wouldn't understand, but I haven't noticed any others. Will have a last check of the article in a day or two. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
did the rest YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great stuff! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Fixing Ashley Mallett YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miller played as a right-arm opening fast bowler and a right-handed batsman who batted in the middle-order. - could you say "Miller played as a right-arm opening fast bowler and a right-handed middle-order batsman." to avoid repetition?
Victory Tests is in quotes in one place and not in others. Need to figure out which is the one you want to use.
Thanks. Attending YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • Miller took 13 wickets at a batting average of 26.28... -- wouldn't we normally just say "at an average"?
Already done by Giants I think, couldn't find it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pedantry: Australia amassed 4/414 declared in their one effort with the bat -- "Australia" should take "its"; "Australians" would take "their". Likewise, The MCC—who administered cricket at the time -- "who" really should be "which"; "MCC players" (or "MCC administrators" in this case) would take "who". There may be other examples...
Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
There were others; think I took care of them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pls check for overlinking, for instance Sid Barnes is linked twice in the space of a few paragraphs in the Second Test section.
Yup YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't want to hit this too hard but there are a few occasions where you could substitute Miller's name with something else. For instance in the last para of Second Test, you start successive sentences with his name, which shouldn't be necessary. Again, don't go overboard in your response to this, I don't think it's too bad but there are a few places that could stand some mixing up to avoid it.
Doing, although I've been told using anything other than Miller and "he/him/his" is too flowery/informal/indirect YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood/agreed -- wasn't a big issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that his friendship with Margaret is given some prominence in the lead, there's not much on it in the body of the article -- anything else we could add?
Heh. Given the gentlemanly nature of the media in those days, nothing specific is ever given, except that he had a few royal dinners....but nevertheless people always harp on about it over and over without giving any details. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we can only explain what we know... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed pic YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought 300px was fair -- a size that works for a portrait-shaped image doesn't always for landscape. Anyway, happy to support -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Read it from beginning to end, while making little copy-edits along the way; note that I got some of the overlinking that Ian described above, including the specific example. Overall, it's another fine piece of cricket work. I do, however, have a couple things that simple copy-edits couldn't help:
    • In the First Test, it's a little unclear to a cricket novice why what Miller was doing was looked down upon by the spectators. The one explanatory bit given is "including shouts of Bodyline", but as a non-cricket expert, I had to look at the Bodyline article to get a better understanding of the reaction. Did the fans think that Miller was trying to intimidate the English cricketers? In the article, that doesn't come across as well as it could.
    • Just found a little copy-edit issue while looking at this section for the comment above. The block quote says, "Let us show them how pleased we are and give a warmheated greeting this morning." I don't have the books that include this quote, but I wonder if that is meant to be "warmhearted". Also, the quote is like this in the main article on the Test.
    • In the references, there appear to be Roland Perry books from 2005 and 2006. The 2006 book isn't included in the bibliography, and if it is meant to be included, it's unclear which book most of the cites come from. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. They're the same book, there was some earlier mixup about the year of publication. Explained shortpitched bowling and typo and overlinking YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 28 May 2010 [3].

Banksia menziesii

edit
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Hesperian (talk · contribs) [reply]

Bombs awaaayyy, as usual this banksia has had the attention of all of us at wikiproject banksia in astop-start manner over the past four years. It had a very thorough going over at GAN and input from a few. I think it is of equivalent standard to the ten existing Banksia featured articles. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I removed two less common names from lead - they are still in the body of the text Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can tell but shouldn't be hard as gnangarra and I took most of the photos ourselves :). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
theres 2 by Cas, 1 by Hesperian, with the balance by me including the distribution map. no issues with any of them Gnangarra 01:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until some things fixed.

Lead

  • "A distinctive banksia, it has had an uneventful taxonomic history" - if the lead is meant to summarise the most important info, then cut this out - it isn't important, and to a lay reader, "an uneventful taxonomic history" is just a mystifying remark.
good point. removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "The anthocyanin pigments cyanidin-3-galactoside, cyanidin-3-glucoside and peonidin-3-glucoside have been detected in its flowers." Everything was going fine up to this, when we are bamboozled with information that is incomprehensible to a lay reader, lacks wikilinks to most of the terms, and the significance of which is not established. I suggest deleting this, unless someone can explain in language a lay person will understand, why it matters what pigments have been detected.
let me think about this a bit. Will advise. I will double check with the original paper. If it proposes the pigments are responsible for the colours, then a statement along the lines of "the flower colours are due to anthocyanins might be okay I think. If the source does not do this, then I might remove. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
update - changed to "Anthocyanin pigments are responsible for the red and pink shades in the flowers" - I feel this is notable and easy to understand (and supported by source). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "separated by a woody separator" - is there a way to avoid this clunky word repetition?
tried something different Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current placement

  • The taxonomy section seems generally pretty long and only just able to be followed by a lay reader, but the long table/list demonstrating its current placement under George's scheme seems completely unnecessary to a non-specialist.Just have the one genus, one subgenus, one section, one series, one species name. Ditch the rest.
I removed the non-hierarchical ones, but did think showing the most closely related species was informative (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

  • This section begins with a weird factoid para that starts "A 1994 study by Byron Lamont..." The ecology section should begin with important info, not this.
good point - reorganised section for flow (flowering/pollination/pollinators etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Twenty-one species from several orders of myxomycetes" - the last term is wikilinked, but couldn't this be given a plainer english explanation, eg adding (slime molds) in brackets?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another order, the Physarales, was unusually rare—other studies have demonstrated that the order is typically abundant on the bark of various species around the world" not sure this is important enough to be included at all, but if it is, then please explain various species of what? Banksia? Tree? Plant?
different trees. I hope this is clear enough that they are other than banksias(?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • support Comment leaning to
  • One remaining thing. Can you re-examine the text under "Description" and "variation within the species" and think about one point? I would like the article to be clearer about whether the species has two distinct forms, or whether there is a a gradation in form according to climate etc. The description: "grows either as a gnarled tree to 10 m (35 ft), or a lower spreading 1–3 metre (4–10 ft) shrub. In the latter form,..." indicates the former - two forms of the plant. But then in "variation" we have this: "First, it varies in habit, growing as a tree for most of its distribution, but usually as a shrub at its northern limits in the vicinity of Eneabba-Mount Adams; thus, it declines in size as the climate becomes warmer and dryer further north". This makes it sound like a gradation. Then the sentence after that sounds like two forms. I think the language needs to be more unambiguous. The main problem is the first sentence under "variation". Maybe use a phrase in there somewhere like "...the tree and shrub forms can be found growing side by side...". hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon looking at it, that section is much better integrated into the main description section as it reads funnily. I am not sure how the "graded" sentence got thus but have reworded and incorporated it. Essentially, it is saying that the trees gradually get smaller as one goes north, and when they get quite stubby, they are more often multistemmed shrubs, and that there is no sharp disctinction (this is what was meant by the graded bit but came across oddly) - incorporated and rejigged now Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Menzies banksia, is a species of small tree or large shrub in the genus Banksia. It is a gnarled tree up to 10 m (35 ft) tall, or a lower spreading 1–3 m (4–10 ft) shrub in the more northern parts of its range... — bit repetitive, I’d remove the underlined.
changed to "of flowering plant" - just leaving it as "species" scanned funny Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the latter form... — rather detached from item it refers back to, I’d put in the shrub form...
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...with new leaves paler and finely downy. — ...leaves being paler...
tweaked to "The new leaves are paler and finely downy" Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ovoid to cylindrical in shape, the can — missing word?
strange, how'd that disappear? "flower spikes" reinserted Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...pinks, plus chocolate..., — don’t use “plus” when you mean “and”, not a maths addition
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plant is dependent on fire to reproduce as the follicles open with fire, — bit repetitive follicles require great heat to open or similar?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hybrids — I can't see the point of a one para subsection that would be fine as the last para of the previous text
good point. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural references— I can't see why illustrations are cultural references, what about In art or similar
okay. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banksia menziesii was the subject of a book by botanical artist Philippa Nikulinsky, which showed the progress of an inflorescence from bud through flowering to fruiting and seed release over 22 watercolour plates.[48] It was one of several wildflowers depicted on a series of plates produced by the British pottery firm Wedgwood in the early 1990s.[48] Noted wildflower artist Ellis Rowan was another to paint it.[49] — I'd put the two illustrators together, rather than have the pottery between them. A bit unbalanced, we're told a lot about Philippa, and poor old Ellis just... painted it
flipped to align. Will look into it, but Philippa did a whole book vs one painting by Ellis...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ceremonies where the beverages were drunk. Hard to elaborate as there is not too much more in the source quoted (which is online). I am musing on how I can rejig. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment sorry Cas, this one bugged me about its Nyoongar use, personal experience I've had water sweetened by dipping the flower into it but hadnt come a cross a source I like besides Daisy Bates, any I just stumbled onto this source which also cites Bates and says the plants nyoongar name is mungyt. Personally have little faith in Bates as a source because much of her work was sensationalised to increase/ensure sales. Gnangarra 06:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! I was hoping some material like this would come up as I feel many bio articles published miss this sort of material. I am indebted and the mateiral added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done Cas its got my support, oh it has wonderful photographs :) Gnangarra 03:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hesperian added that, I'll ask him. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. was an accidental copy-paste. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "coincides with Perth's expanding metropolitan area and surrounds"—not sure what "surrounds" means here.
good pick up. that is redundant. As I was typing I was thinking of metropolitan as 'city' instead of 'city + suburbs' - removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia menziesii is a facultative phreatophyte, and is able to grow in a wider variety of places within its native banksia woodland habitat around Perth;"—wider than what?
than Banksia ilicifolia and Banksia littoralis - I thought that was clear from linking up of the sentences with the semicolon. rejigged to make clear. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed you (Cas) wrote in the GA review that "Menzies banksia" is not a commonly used common name. If so, why is it in the taxobox?
good point. replaced. firewood banksia is overwhelmingly most common name Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • Clifford93 ref is missing title.
Pistil Structure of Banksia menziesii R.Br. (Proteaceae) in Relation to Fertility - added (how'd I miss that....?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 09:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parent site indicates it is a periodical magazine. I figure it is on par with some newspaper material. Not a great source but I feel appropriate for some cut flower trade names. I wouldn't have used it for, say, ecology :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 28 May 2010 [4].

Henrik Sedin

edit
Nominator(s): Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Sedin is the most recent winner of the Art Ross Trophy as the NHL's leading scorer. I've worked on his article extensively for the past year or so and believe it is as comprehensive as possible, including information on his early life, personal life and early career in Sweden. I believe it is as close to FA standards as I could have possibly made it, but am looking forward to the comments and suggestions I'm sure I'll receive in the FAC process. Cheers! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenghty Comments:
  • "Henrik began his career in the Elitserien with Modo Hockey, winning the Golden Puck as Swedish player of the year in 1999 as a co-recipient with Daniel." This makes it sound like he both started his career and won the Golden Puck in 1999. It should be started that he began in 1997.
  • "Selected third overall by the Canucks in the 1999 NHL Entry Draft, Henrik has spent his entire NHL career in Vancouver and has led the team in scoring the past three seasons, from 2007–08 to 2009–10." I would make that into the past tense: "was the team's scoring leader from 2008-10."
  • "Internationally, Henrik competes for Sweden and has won a gold medal at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, as well as two bronze medals at the 1999 and 2001 World Championships." Again into past tense: "Internationally, Henrik has competed for Sweden..."
  • The images switch between calling him "Henrik" and "Sedin." As the article refers to him as "Henrik," I'd change the images to reflect that as well.
  • I'd consider merging the Early life and Personal life sections, as they are both rather small, and the Early life is mostly under the scope of his personal life.
  • "They were ranked first and second among European prospects with expectations for each of them to go in the top five." To clarify for readers unfamiliar with the NHL Entry Draft, change to: "expectations for each of them to be one of the top five selections."
  • " Alternatively, Barnett suggested that either Henrik or Daniel opt-out of the 1999 draft and hope that the same team can selected both players by that route." Should read "same team select both players by that route."
  • "Nevertheless, Henrik and Daniel both entered the 1999 draft with the expectation of being selected separately." They would have had "the expectation of being selected by seperate teams."
  • "Henrik struggled to produce offensively in a career-high 12 games in the playoffs, however, managing four points as the Canucks were eliminated by the Anaheim Ducks in the second round." There is no reference for this.
  • "He completed the season as the Canucks' leading scorer with 76 points,[23] earning the team's Cyrus H. McLean Trophy for the first time." Should explain what the Trophy is for.
  • In the sixth paragraph of the section, Henrik is named the "NHL's second star of the month," without capitalisation. Two paragraphs later, he's titled the "NHL's First Star of the Month," with capitalisation. I'm fairly certain that it is a capitalised title; regardless, it should be consistent throughout the article.
  • "It marked the first time in nearly five years that a Canucks player held the league-lead in point-scoring since Näslund was tied with Robert Lang on 18 February 2004." This is an awkward sentence. I'd suggest: "It marked the first time in nearly five years, since Näslund was tied with Robert Lang on 18 February 2004, that a Canucks player held the league-lead in point-scoring."
  • There is no mention of Henrik setting the Canucks record for assists in a season. As it's listed in the lead, it would be good to include it in the body of the article.
  • The second and fourth paragraphs of the International play section are missing references.
  • "Consequently, he has recorded the first two 20-goal seasons of his career in the past two campaigns, while also increasing his shot totals." Once again in regards to keeping in past tense. I'd reword it to say: "Consequently, he recorded the first two 20-goal seasons of his career in those two campaigns..."
  • "With his offensive skill marking the prime component of his game, Henrik is known to avoid initiating aggressive contact with opposing players, as well as Daniel." The flow of the sentence is disrupted at the end. I'd move that part up, so it reads: "... prime component of his game, Henrik, as well as Daniel, is known..."

That should be all from me. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more I forgot about. As the article is about an international subject based in Canada, it should probably use Canadian English spelling and date formats. Now that should be all from me. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks for the comments. I'll make sure I get to em soon. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've taken care of all the above issues. In regards to date formatting, I had a pretty lengthy dispute with another user in attempts to revert it back to the standard Canadian format before just leaving it alone after some time. You can see the discussion here: User_talk:LarRan#Date_format. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my issues taken care of. The date formatting comment was more opinion, and my unfamiliarity with that system, so nothing major. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Reliability of the references looks fine throughout. I'd like to review the prose as well, but I want to wait for the above comments to be addressed. Don't wait too long, as leaving them unaddressed without any support may lead to archival. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I see those have been taken care. Now time for me to look...
      • Early life: I'm pretty sure the hyphens should be removed from "eight-years-old".
      • Playing career: "with expectations for each of them to go be one of the top five selections." Feels like "go" is one word too many here.
      • Overlinking is something to watch for here. I see multiple Vancouver Canucks links in a paragraph; one is fine for that purpose. Also, I'm not sure the North America link is that beneficial to readers (everyone should know what it is).
      • "Gradin notified them five minutes before the draft of the Canucks intentions." Apostrophe needed at end of team name.
      • Non-breaking spaces should be used in high dollar amounts, like this: 1.125 million (click edit button to see formatting). This is incredibly annoying, but should still be done.
      • "awarded to the player deemed to be the most valuable on his team, alongside Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin.." Double period; one is after a citation and is the one to remove.
      • Last sentence of the section needs some attention: "as voted by members of the NHLPA [47]." In addition to the spacing issues, the NHLPA link goes to a disambiguation page, and the initials should be spelled out regardless.
      • Playing style: Consequently, he recordeded...". Typo. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gone ahead and taken care of those. Thanks very much for the comments. Cheers, Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – With my comments taken care of, this looks like a nice article, and good enough to meet FA standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment

Looking through the covers.com website, there's an 'about' page that says the Covers Media Group has been referenced by some pretty reliable publications (ie. USA Today, New York Times, etc.) You can see it here. If that doesn't suffice though, I'd be happy to find a different reference. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be part of a double citation of the three words "often without looking", so unless other editors object, I don't think there's a problem here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With User:Resolute bringing Jarome Iginla and Theoren Fleury to featured article status, and now this, I may need to write an FA about an Oiler one of these days. This looks generally good; I did some fairly extensive copyedits, so another set of eyes to make sure I didn't screw anything up might be advisable. Some notes from the pre-copyedit version:
  • Some of the phrasing was quite awkward.
  • Some of the wording, particularly "notched" but also "reeled off", was far too colloquial for an encyclopedia article.
  • Henrik's name was overused, and pronouns were correspondingly underused.
  • The image captions lacked periods even when written in sentence case.
  • There were a fair number of misplaced modifiers and the like ("Playing as tournament host at the junior tournament, Henrik improved...", "Henrik's 61 assists ranked fourth overall in the league for the second consecutive season.", "Henrik began to expand his skill-set as solely a passer...")
  • I haven't done anything about this, but to my mind there are too many dates that are essentially irrelevant; the specific date Sedin achieved various milestones might be relevant in some cases, but I'm doubtful that the specific dates contracts were signed is of much interest, and they disrupt the flow somewhat.
Two exceedingly minor outstanding issues:
Thanks very much for the copy-edit; looks really good. In regards to the first issue you raised, I reorganized the phrasing, but let me know if it still seems awkward or confusing. In regards to the second, I managed to find a reference for Valter's year of birth. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'll have to complain about undue weight. In the last four or so years, he has played 82 games, and his scoring total ranged from 75 to 112 (50%) variation. But one season has two lines and the recordbreaking one has 17 on my screen (equivalent to about 20 if you consider the width of the lines). It's true that in record-breaking years there will be more comments, punditry, records etc to talk about so there won't be a strict proportionality, but this really sticks out....As for his second and third seasons, they get one sentence in total. In those seasons he scored about 35 points, so it wasn't as though he was completely injured or something. Some of the years seem underdeveloped. With the 2010 Olympic games, presumably as he was the leading scorer in NHL, there would presumably have been a lot of expectations that he would score many for Sweden, but he scored none at all and they were bundled out as defending champions in the QF. Was there not any press commentary on the discrepancy in his club/country form? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on the first few years of his NHL career, adding a few paragraphs of prose. Hope that at least begins to address the undue weight issue. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy with the prose. It needs treatment throughout. Here are examples from the top.

  1. "identical twin" needs a link? WP is not a dictionary, the pillar says. And I see it linked again 20 seconds later.
  2. "Henrik began his career in the Elitserien with Modo Hockey in 1997 and was co-recipient, with Daniel, of the Golden Puck as Swedish player of the year in 1999." Could you insert "Stockholm team" or "in Sweden" early in the sentence?
  3. "and led the team in scoring the past three seasons"—you score a season? Or do we need a preposition somewhere?
  4. I'm not one for flag icons, since the country name is already emblazoned next to it. But it's no big deal.
  5. Chain-linking undesirable: the town has a link to Sweden in its article, surely? Örnsköldsvik, Sweden.
  6. "Henrik began playing organized hockey with Daniel at eight years old." Native speaker needed to sift through this whole article: "at the age of eight".
  7. During is better: "Henrik recorded a goal and five points over 39 games in his rookie season." If there were only 39 games in the season, make it "during the 39 games of his ...".
  8. "and were expected to be top five selections"—hyphen? Unsure, but it's not clear at the moment.
  9. Please, no "in order to". Just one word. I see another further down, too.
  10. "opt out", no hyphen—it's a verb, not a double adjective here (opt-out clause). And "alternatively" needs to go immediately before "opt out" or "either".
  11. "were signed by the Canucks to three-year contracts"—not idiomatic. Were they kids? Normally, you'd say "H and D signed up for three-year contracts with the Canucks", in a more equal relationship. Tony (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS and this nomination has languished here for nearly a month? Too long! Tony (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I went ahead and addressed 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. In regards to the rest of your suggestions though, I'm just not convinced that the current prose in question is necessarily wrong. If it was up to me, I'd simply leave it, but I likely wouldn't object if you went ahead and changed it yourself. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlandkurtenback, if you haven't already, you should probably contact a copyeditor. These are just examples "from the top", so I'd assume that means the prose needs some fine-tuning throughout. Cheers! ceranthor 19:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I go about doing that? Although the article's already been copyedited once by Steve Smith through this FAC nom. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just contact a copyeditor. Tony knows precisely what he is talking about, so you should probably consult someone who hasn't seen the article before - maybe Resolute (who does hockey, I believe) or you can ask around? After reading over it, I'll throw a support behind it, though. ceranthor 01:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't consider myself an expert copyeditor by any stretch of the imagination, but I did take a pass through the article, and may look again within a couple days. I do have a couple additional comments:
    It is stated that the Sedins signed a contract with the Canucks but returned to Sweden anyway. I am aware of how the rules allowed for this, but the statements are confusing as constructed.
    I agree with the issue of recentism on the 2009-10 season
    The transactions section doesn't offer much value, imo, as it is just a repeat of what is in the article body. Resolute 03:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. I've added a mention in the article that the contract did not require them to begin playing immediately. Hope that addresses the first concern. In regards to recentism, I added a couple paragraphs of prose to Henrik's early career in Vancouver to try and balance the article out when the issue was first brought up by YellowMonkey. I'm just unsure of how to account for recentism any more given that the past season was a record-setting one. I'm open to any suggestions though. The only reason I have the transactions section in there is cause it's part of the MoS delineated in WP:Hockey. I'd like to keep it there for this reason, but I'm willing to part with it if you still think it's particulary unnecessary. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is compeltely unnecessary (and don't use it at all when I write player articles), but its use is not something I'd ever get hung up on. Just my personal opinion, and if you feel the transaction list is beneficial, keep it. Resolute 01:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on 1a after taking a look through the changes since Tony's comment the other day and making a few edits myself. It's not a subject area I've dabbled much with, and I lack the time to do a full check on the other criteria (hence only the 1a support), but it doesn't seem to miss anything I'd be asking about, and a random check of some of the online sources didn't throw up any problems. Best, Steve T • C 14:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlandkurtenbach, can you please request an image review from an editor such as User:David Fuchs, User:Fasach Nua, User:Stifle, User:Awadewit, or User:Jappalang? The copyright status of the images needs to be checked. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Images seem to be in order:

SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 19:53, 25 May 2010 [9].

Parthian Empire

edit
Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 08:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After much preparation and research, I believe this article is ready to hit prime time. The images are properly sourced, the main body is well-cited using multiple academic sources, and the article is highly informative of the time period. And lest I forget, I should thank User:Scapler once again for copyediting the prose! He did a great job with my earlier FAC on the Chinese Han Dynasty.Pericles of AthensTalk 08:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just fixed them. Also, I'm glad you like the article, Per Honor et Gloria! Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ucucha 15:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. You are absolutely right about the opening on one side; I have added such a statement in the prose. Brosius goes a bit further to say that an iwan is "a barrel-vaulted rectangular room opening on one side into a courtyard" (Brosius, 2006: p. 128). Thanks for noticing this! Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But as a definition Brosius is not very good. Many iwans, like the one you illustrate, operate as in effect entrance porches, so don't open to a courtyard but the surrounding space, whatever that is. Also most later (Islamic) ones have pointed-arch vaults, though the Parthians used barrel-vaults. I also think calling them "audience halls" is too narrow; the one illustrated would make a strange site for such a use. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is rather loose usage of "portraiture" in this section - the Dura Europos frescos are pretty clearly not portraits of anyone (btw, the article dates them 1 year differently). "The depiction of the human figure" is one rather cumbersome alternative.
    • "In comparison with the earlier Achaemenid Empire, the Parthian government was notedly decentralized.[133]" seems rapidly contracdicted by "However, the satraps of Parthian times governed smaller territories, and perhaps had less prestige and influence than their Achaemenid predecessors.[138]" I'm used to the idea that the Achaemenid Empire just wanted you to pay tribute & not rebel, and as long as that lasted they left you pretty much alone, compared to the Romans & Greeks.
    • There is very little on the economic life. I'm slightly failing to get a sense of how they lived - how urban were they for example? What was the typical legal status of the peasantry? Did they share the enormous % of slaves in the Roman Empire? That sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Since I agree that this is not a portraiture painting per say, yet is an example of Parthian frontality, I have fixed the caption by striking the word "portraiture"; I believe it is fine now. Also, as to the date of the painting, Schlumberger (1986: 1052-1053) claims that it should be dated around 245 AD, so I will take his word over a non-sourced Wikipedia entry at Dura-Europos synagogue. Still, he says c. 245, so perhaps 244 AD is acceptable as well.
    • (2) The Parthian government was notedly decentralized due to the amount of large, semi-autonomous kingdoms within its empire. It is true that the few areas directly controlled by Parthia's central government were carved into smaller administrative units than seen in Achaemenid times, but this is merely part of the explanation as to why large, semi-autonomous kingdoms were formed in the first place. Keep in mind, many of these semi-autonomous kingdoms existed in areas where the Achaemenids once maintained centrally-controlled satrapies.
    • (3) Although international commerce is mentioned in regards to the Eurasian caravan trade (i.e. Silk Road) and the national currency (i.e. the drachma) is given its own subsection, I'm glad you noticed the lack of information on Parthian socioeconomics. This was intentional, since Parthian sources do not provide an adequate picture of socioeconomics. This should come as no surprise, given the detail I laid out in the section "Native and external sources." However, I did try to provide some information on socioeconomics, such as in the military section regarding commoners and wealthy aristocrats who were conscripted into the infantry and heavy-mailed cavalry, respectively.
    • I hope you find these responses sufficient. Let me know otherwise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the prose needs a further polish; I've changed a number of things in the first couple of sections. More points:
    • "Phraates I expanded Parthia's control past the Gates of Alexander and into Apamea Ragiana.[21]" sounds merely obscure until you follow the links & discover that where both these places were is now very unclear, and that Apamea Ragiana was a city, not a region as "into" suggests.
    • "Ctesiphon may not have become the official capital until the reign of Gotarzes I of Parthia (r. c. 90–80 BC), and Ecbatana serving as the summer residence for the Arsacid royalty."
    • I know it's difficult, but the history section falls too much into a list of one damm thing after another. What is going on here:" Following the Seleucid withdrawal from Mesopotamia, the Parthian governor of Babylonia, Himerus, attempted to conquer Characene, then ruled by Hyspaosines at Charax Spasinu. When this failed, Hyspaosines invaded Babylonia in 127 BC and occupied Seleucia...." Is this an imperial iniative? "from" Charax Spasinu would be better.
    • more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again John. I changed that sentence to read "occupied Apamea Ragiana" instead of expanded "into", but I am still thinking about how to handle the issue of their locations and how to mention this in the article without getting too wordy. I fixed the sentence about Ctesiphon and Ecbatana, as well as the sentence regarding Himerus and Hyspaosines. However, your concern that the article provides too much data (i.e. this person, in this year, in this place, etc.) and not enough big-picture analysis (I hope that I'm interpreting this correctly) presents a larger problem, which I have recently started to tackle. For example, in addressing Charles' concern below regarding Carrhae, I recently added a sentence clarifying the great importance of Carrhae in Roman-Parthian relations.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the unknown places, might "Phraates I is recorded as expanding Parthia's control ..." at least add a bit of distance to the sentence? You are right about my larger concern; I know all this stuff needs to go in, but the narrative needs shaping as you suggest. I've seen suggestions in books on Roman history that the Romans did not absolutely need to have all those wars with the Parthians, & some may have been driven by the desire for plunder and a politically advantageous triumph. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although she does not mention military triumphs in particular, Maria Brosius (2006) does say something to this effect after describing minted coins and new monuments built to commemorate victories, real or symbolic, over Parthia (pp. 137-138): "The irony of mints like these was that the Roman emperors claimed victory and hence control over an empire, which they never had. Augustus pretended to have won a military victory when in fact no battle was fought. Even though Trajan took Ctesiphon and some territories east of the Euphrates, it did not amount to a conquest of the Parthian empire. It was inconceivable within Roman propaganda that Parthia could stand on an equal political footing with Rome — which it did. Therefore, in contrast to the political reality, Rome emphasised the image of Parthia as a barbarian country, its inhabitants as uncivilised, without order, culture or political strength...Curiously, at the same time as the Parthian was depicted as uncivilised, he was also 'orientalised' in traditional fashion, being described as luxury-loving, leading an effeminate lifestyle, and demonstrating excessive sexuality. These traits were not new. The Romans discovered them in history to justify and legitimise their anti-Parthian sentiments. For that reason the Romans regarded themselves as the new Greeks, especially the Greeks of 480/479 BC who had won victories against the Persian army of Xerxes at Salamis and Plataea. To make this connection, Medes, Achaemenids, Persians, and Parthians were all conflated. The terms 'Parthian' and 'Persian' became interchangeable; any historical differentiation was denied to present the 'East'. It was no longer Greece versus Achaemenid Persia, it was West versus East, Europe versus Asia, Occident versus Orient, the defence of western values against the despotism of the East. The fact that this image did not stand up to reality was irrelevant. Public spectacles restaging the naval battles of the Greek-Persian wars, the inclusion of Spartan auxiliaries in Trajan's army, Nero's bridge across the Bay of Naples resembling Xerxes' bridge over the Hellespont, the parading of Parthian 'hostages' to show Roman superiority, if not victory — all these were ideologically infused demonstrations of Rome's power and Parthia's weakness. For Rome, there was only one world power; the existence of the other was plainly denied."--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point about politically advantageous triumphs, which are mentioned here or there in the sources I've used, but aren't given any special attention. I think another trip to my university library should be fruitful, as I will try to hunt down sources which cover this subject in detail. I'm thinking Otto Kurz (1983) may be of some help.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went to the library today! I had no time to scour Kurz's work on Roman-Parthian relations, but I did add large chunks of valuable material to the article using Kennedy (1996) and a couple other sources. Using Kennedy, I addressed your concern about Rome's motivations to some extent. However, this is in regards to Rome's ability to invade Parthia after their military reforms, which not only established a permanent auxilia force, but also regiments of Roman-style horse archers and cataphracts (evidence for the latter is seen by Hadrian's reign). I am kind of upset, however, that I was unable to use Rome’s Wars in Parthia: Blood in the Sand (2010), a new publication by Rose Mary Sheldon. The library has ordered the book, but unfortunately it has not yet arrived. Darn! It sounds absolutely perfect.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I am at the library now, where I have used both Kurz's work and have finally gotten my hands on Rose Mary Sheldon's new book which is AWESOME. It's a shame I have to leave soon, because I've already gleaned some valuable analysis about Rome's motivations for war. This is what I've recently added to the article using her text: "Yet the Romans had no discernible grand strategy in dealing with Parthia and gained very little territory from these invasions.[117] The primary motivations for war were the advancement of the personal glory and political position of the emperor, as well as defending Roman honor against perceived slights such as Parthian interference in the affairs of Rome's client states.[118]" Pretty nifty, huh?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Obviously, take into account that I copyedited the article, so I am biased on the prose requirement. However, copyediting the article forced me to read it through very carefully. In doing so, I found it factually accurate and thorough; I learned a good deal from reading the article, and think it qualifies under FA criteria. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you big time, buddy! Thanks for copyediting and supporting the article. You've been a great help. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

This is a marvelous article on a topic I am actually quite familiar with. Very nice job on it. I do have a few comments

  • In the lead, it states "Iranian/Persian", I suspect there may be some sort of compromise behind that phrase. I think it would be beneficial though to reword that to avoid the need for a slash.
  • There are many citations throughout the article, but primarily in the first paragraphs, were references are not following punctuation points.
  • The term "roughly" is employed throughout the article were "about" or "approximately" would sound more authoritative and are more likely the term used by the sources.
  • "During the reign of Artabanus II, two Jewish commoners and brothers, Anilai and Asinai from Nehardea (near modern Fallujah, Iraq), revolted against the Parthian governor of Babylonia." - perhaps "led a revolt", there was more than just the two of them :)
  • I'd add just another sentence after the defeat of Crassus explaining the Roman Government's reaction. This was one of the worst defeats Rome ever experienced. (The article explains their military response, but the defeat shook the leadership of Rome quite badly)
  • "There is only scanty archaeological..." I think this should just be just "scant", not positive though.
  • In the lead, you mention how the Sassanids continued in power over the same region until the 7th century, but this fact is also not mentioned of elaborated in the body. I'd suggest a brief paragraph at the end of the section on Parthian talking about the Parthian successor state.

Fantastic! This article does a marvelous job of summarized a vast amount of data. I wish it included more information on Parthian interaction with China and India, but I am aware little is know of that compared to their Roman interactions. My points above are relatively minor, and won't prevent me from supporting.

Support, —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles, nice to meet you. Thanks for showing an interest in the article, and for pointing out a few of its flaws. After editing the article for the past hour or so, I believe that I have now fully addressed all of your concerns listed here with one exception: Crassus and Carrhae. I will need to hunt down a decent source or two which describes the Roman reaction in full. However, at the moment I have other things to tend to; I will return to this topic shortly. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've added a bit of basic analysis on Carrhae using Brosius and Bivar: "This victory over Crassus at Carrhae cemented Parthia's reputation as a formidable if not equal power with Rome." However, I don't want to weigh the article down with too much analysis on one event, albeit one of the most important events in Roman-Parthian relations. Also, Carrhae is mentioned again in the following section, where the returning of the lost military standards via diplomacy was hailed by Augustus as a triumph over Parthia in the typical propaganda of the day.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some minor comments about the references. Ref #56 doesn't link to its title. Refs #117 (Frye) and #119 (Yarshater) are not listed in the references section. Also, the article has the red-linked category, Category:AD 224 disestablishments, for which I cannot find the source code. Do you know how to remedy that? Thank you for this beautiful article. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I just recently added Frye to the article in order to address Charles' concern about the Sasanians. I also added Yarshater's reference; thanks for pointing that out. However, I can't figure out why that Bivar citation (ref #56) isn't working properly. I checked it by editing that section, but there seems to be nothing wrong with how the Harvard-style citation is written. Let me know if you spot anything. Cheers and thanks for reading the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know why it wasn't working earlier, but a second look showed me that the Bivar reference was missing a "p=".

The article still has the red-linked category I mentioned above, and I don't know how to fix it. Is it transcluded from somewhere? Cunard (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Template:Infobox former country appears to add the article to a category corresponding to the date it has listed under "disestablishment". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that missing "p=", Cunard! Also, thanks to Scapler for pointing out the infobox template; I'll try to see if this can be fixed. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I created a new category for Category:224 disestablishments and I fixed that red link in the article. The only problem is that in order for it to work, you have to strike "AD" from the field in the infobox. I'll try to figure out a way to include "AD" alongside the year, without ruining things. Somehow the infobox for articles like Han Dynasty are able to use "BCE" and "CE" yet do not have problems.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I fixed the problem. I just simply created a redirect page, with "Category:AD 224 disestablishments" redirecting to my new category "224 disestablishments". It's perfect! Red link gone. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have you got independent confirmation for the Parthian provenance of the "barrel vaulted iwan" depicted? As I said earlier, the ashlar masonry points at Hellenistic or Roman influence (the Parthians typically built with either mudbrick or roughly hewn stone). You may want to check out the following literary reference I provided you: "H. S. Issa, who is studying the architecture of Hatra for a Ph.D. under my supervision, for information on Hatra's vaulting techniques". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gun. Unfortunately no, but when I go back to the library I will have time to look at two sources which I really only had time to skim before: (# 1) Downey, Susan B. 1988. Mesopotamian religious architecture : Alexander through the Parthians. Princeton: Princeton University Press. <--- This is an excellent academic source which I hope to utilize; it covers the Parthian iwans from what I've already read, although I didn't have time to view info on Hatra (since I had to leave the library prematurely). (# 2) Curatola, Giovanni and Gianroberto Scarcia. 2007. The Art and Architecture of Persia. Trans. Marguerite Shore. New York: Abbeville Press. <--- This latter source has a chapter I'm interested in titled "Arsaces: the Parthians and Time Denied". Also, just to let everyone know about H.S. Issa, Gun Powder Ma is citing R. A. Tomlinson: "The Architectural Context of the Macedonian Vaulted Tombs," The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 82 (1987), pp. 305-312 (310). Don't worry Gun, I'll try my best, and I will scour these two sources in hopes of discovering the true level of Parthian influence versus Roman influence in Hatran architecture. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, your article is good so this minor question should not detract from its general quality.
For Trajan's motivation, and many other aspects of his Parthian campaign, this article is also useful: C. S. Lightfoot: "Trajan's Parthian War and the Fourth-Century Perspective", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 80 (1990), pp. 115-126
Have you checked out the two maps in Roman Armenia? Useful? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Do you have a PDF file of that article, perchance? It could be very useful in addition to the book about Trajan's Parthian War that I'm going to check out at the library. As for the maps in the article Roman Armenia, I like this map a lot; it is well-sourced, licensed, and is very clear (without too many text labels crowding the viewable terrain). I may have to make room in the article for it somehow, although there are already a good amount of images crowding the available space. As for the 1907 map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent, it states that this was Rome in the 3rd century AD, but Septimius Severus invaded Mesopotamia at the very end of the 2nd century, not the beginning of the 3rd. Although Caracalla subjugated Armenia and Osroene and made them Roman provinces at the beginning of the 3rd century, he did not do the same for the Mesopotamian heartland, so the map wouldn't accurately reflect his territorial gains either. In the meantime, I've listed the article "Roman Armenia" as a useful link under the section "Continuation of Roman hostilities and Parthian decline".--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this map. I know Cplakidas to be a map creator as scrupulous and neutral as one can be. You definitely need to link to Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, too. Drop me an email for the Trajan article. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I sent you an email and can't wait to read Lightfoot's article. The wiki link for the 58-63 war (during Nero's reign) is actually already located in the article, i.e. in the second paragraph of the subsection "Continuation of Roman hostilities and Parthian decline". As for the 58-60 AD invasion map, this DEFINITELY needs to be in the article! It looks fantastic; plus, the general reader may get confused from time to time about the ancient place names in the article, so more visual aids such as this detailed regional map would be very useful. I'll see if I can make some room for it in the subsection I just mentioned. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, GPM. I have read Lightfoot's article and cited him in the article. I found the source useful in reaffirming a few things, as well as clarifying when Nisibis was taken; however, I was a bit disappointed to see that he did not go into lengthy discussion about Trajan's personal or political motivations for war. For that I will probably have to head back to the library. As it stands now, however, the article is in very good shape and I don't think there are any major hangups as of now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comprehensive and neutral (in contrast to the expat nostalgia of some other articles on Iranian empires and kings). The general approach may be a bit too descriptive (long stretches are event history), but this can be put mostly down to the necessity of the author to play by the constraints of the WP style which harbours a naive belief in 'just let the facts speak' and suspects more serious attempts at analysis to be subjective and interpretative. This aside, personally, I would like to know why the Parthian empire has beeen traditionally viewed by Iranian historography as kind of step child, much less in esteem than the great Achaemenids and the aggressive Sassanids, although the Parthian were more long-lived than the former and smarter than the later dynasty. But this may, of course, be again a task judged to be too interpretative for the WP format. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is, although I suspect that this might have something to do with the Arsacid dynasts themselves. That is, their Parni origin and not hailing from Persia proper, along with the heavy adoption of Greek culture during the first half of the empire's history and the Arsacid line ultimately living on through Armenian kings instead of Persian ones. Again, this is only my conjecture. Cheers and thanks for reviewing the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

The Walter Posch book looks like a German-language text. If so, this should be stated: (in German)
Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks for checking and suggesting the use of the icon; it has been added. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have the images been reviewed? If not, please locate an image reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if I knew where to locate a reviewer! :) Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jappalang often responds to requests. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wrote a request for an image review on his talk page. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underwhelmed, but not opposing. Tony (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC) It's just hard to engage with. I haven't looked properly after the lead. It's narrative language is clunky, chocked full of unfamiliar names and places. I suppose it's hard to avoid, but I'm not even interested yet, and my brain is choking with them. The prose is OK, I suppose. Sorry to be so unhelpful.[reply]

  1. Lead caption: The extent ....
  2. Why caps for Monarchy in the infobox? And Antiquity? Do we really need the currency to be named in the infobox? That's for modern nations, surely? Check the MoS: it would be nicer to write the BC and AD on the same side of the numerals in the infobox.
  3. "Satrapy"—the readers shouldn't have to hit the link to know what it means. Insert (province) after it? Then we see a linked "satraps": same issue, and why do we need to cope with two very similar words that lead to the same article?
  4. I think a link to (modern) "Iran" is misleading. Why not just leave it at the linked "Iranian peoples", at the opening?
  5. Beware that most readers, me included, will easily become cluttered with all of these names and places and moves and this and that. It's very mechanical in that respect, right at the start. It's not inspiring me to read on: the lead might position more interesting points first? I mean, why should we give a toss about the Parthian Empire?
  6. Chain-linking of "Iraq" just after a more specific city link? Try not to bunch. Tony (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "incredibly"—not an encyclopedic epithet.
  8. The "also" in the last para could be binned.
  9. "Parthian art also reveals much about the lifestyles and traditions of the Parthians." Well, what art doesn't reveal a lot about the society in which it was produced?
  10. "Arsacids"—these were the subjects of Arsaces I?
  11. The MoS says double quotes.

Hi Tony. You write: "but I'm not even interested yet, and my brain is choking with them". Well, if Near Eastern and Iranian history bore you to tears, I truly have to wonder why you're bothering to review this article! Lol. It sounds like you're having a stressful day; perhaps a Wikibreak would be helpful.

  1. Fixed the caption.
  2. Fixed the words needing small caps; I see nothing wrong with including the form of currency, which is discussed in the article. WP:MOS says: "AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC)." Therefore, I see no outstanding reason to change it. The rest of the article does place "AD" after the year, but when you do this in the infobox, for some reason you get a red, dead category link at the bottom of the page for Category:AD 224 disestablishments.
  3. I inserted (province) in parentheses and delinked "satraps" in the following paragraph.
  4. If you're referring to the first paragraph in the lead, it actually doesn't link to Iran, but a much more relevant article called Greater Iran, which discusses a cultural sphere, not a modern nation-state. Again, I think you need to take a Wikibreak.
  5. ??? I'm sure most readers who are not interested in Iranian history will visit the page due to their interest in the eastern wars of the Roman Empire; this is not only mentioned heavily in the third paragraph of the lead, but also discussed at great length in the article. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm detecting a bit of unnecessary biting at the editor. To put it another way, could you imagine if someone reviewed an article about Australian history, and then asked the author: "Why should I give a toss about Australia?" I'm sure you would be dumbfounded by this, as would a student of Iranian history if asked a similar question about Parthia or any period of Iranian history.
  6. There is only one link in the article to Iraq, so the single link you see in the lead is certainly not excessive. Also, there is a comma between "Baghdad" and "Iraq," so I fail to see the bunching problem. Regardless, since even Iran does not have a link, I have delinked Iraq. Plus, the article for the modern-day nation state of Iraq is not highly relevant to this article, as you suggest.
  7. Removed "incredibly" as suggested.
  8. I rewrote that sentence about artwork: "Parthian artwork is viewed by historians as a valid source for understanding aspects of society and culture that are otherwise absent in textual sources."
  9. "Arsacids" usually refers to the rulers and royal family members; "Parthians" usually refers to the peoples living within the empire. I can clarify this if you'd like, perhaps in the first section since I don't think a wordy explanation about this belongs in the lead.

Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should I give a toss about Australia?" I don't know: I certainly don't, and I've had to endure it for 54 years. On my difficulty in engaging with the content and style, well, I did imply it's my problem, not yours.
"if Near Eastern and Iranian history bore you to tears, I truly have to wonder why you're bothering to review this article"—I review because I care about the standards. Otherwise, I can assure you I wouldn't touch most of the nominations, including anything to do with pop culture. But I do review them. Mr Anderson below certainly shows his knowledge of the subject as a content reviewer. If only I had the knowledge. Tony (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. Leaning over backwards to cheer on the Parthians, isn't it?
    • The Parthian incursion of 40 BC was much less impressive than the lead makes out; it was a raid, not an attempt at conquest, and it was only as successful as it was because the Romans were divided and the Roman commander in the East (and his armies) were off post, at Brundisium in Italy. The article and the lead say nothing of this; of course the same excuse can be made for most of the Roman successes against the Parthians.
  • On the other hand, the treatment of Trajan and Hadrian is opaque. Hadrian abandoned Trajan's conquests as untenable; this could be said (and is not) in the space now wasted on the issue of which provinces Trajan actually declared before his death - wasted space, since, declared or not, none of them actually functioned.
  • Why are we given birth and death dates for Pompey, Antony, and Caesar, and disputable regnal dates for Augustus? All of the transactions involving these men occurred in known years, which would be better stated; a reader wanting to know how old Pompey was when he settled the East can click on the link, which is what it is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Septentrionalis. You write "Leaning over backwards to cheer on the Parthians, isn't it?" I'm sorry, I do not follow you at all. I'm pretty sure that the article is quite neutral and well-balanced; my purpose in writing this article was not to glorify or cheerlead, only to inform and learn a few things in the process. I think you need to assume good faith.

The Parthian incursion into Roman Syria in 51 BC was certainly a raid in the truest sense; however, the incursion of 40-39 BC was much more significant. I shall quote Bivar (1983: 57-58) to clarify my point:

Quintus Labienus, an officer of Brutus and Cassius, had been sent to Parthia for reinforcements, to aid the republican cause. When after the defeat he learned that republican supporters had been condemned under the proscriptions, he joined the Parthians; and in 40 B.C. a Parthian army, under the command of the Parthian prince Pacorus and of Labienus, invaded Syria. Apamea was quickly taken, and there the invading force divided. Labienus turned north to penetrate far into Asia Minor. At the same time Pacorus, who had already gained a high reputation in the Near East both for his military talent and for justice and moderation, turned south along the coast through Syria, while his general Barzapharnes led another force further inland. All the cities along the coast, as far to the south as Ptolemais (Acre), admitted the Parthians, with the single exception of Tyre. In Judaea the leader of the pro-Parthian party was Antigonus, nephew of the High Priest Hyrcanus. The latter was in turn under the control of two Roman supporters, the Idumaeans Phasael and Herod. Antigonus sent a large subsidy to the Parthian prince, in return for military help to gain control of the province. The combined Jewish and Parthian force defeated their opponents and advanced on Jerusalem. When Hyrcanus and Phasael were persuaded to go down and negotiate with Barzapharnes they were taken into custody. Herod, hearing of their arrest, fled to his impregnable stronghold of Masada near the Dead Sea. Thus Antigonus was installed as king of Judaea, while the two prisoners were carried away to Parthia. For a moment, the whole of the Roman East seemed to be either in Parthian hands, or on the point of capture. Yet though connections between the Jews of Judaea and the Parthian empire, more especially through the Jews of Babylonia, were long to remain an important political factor, the conclusion of the second Roman civil war was soon to bring about a revival of Roman strength in Asia.

Antony, at that time the most powerful of the Roman generals, had already sent Publius Ventidius into Anatolia to oppose Labienus. Soon Labienus was driven back into Syria, and though his Parthian allies came to his support, they were caught at a disadvantage in the hill country by Ventidius and heavily defeated. When Labienus tried to escape his men were ambushed and himself taken prisoner soon afterward and put to death. At the Amanus Gates between Cilicia and Syria, the Parthian officer Pharnapates, after a fierce fight, was defeated and slain with most of his men. Late in 39 B.C., the Parthian crown prince Pacorus withdrew from Syria, and Ventidius was occupied in trying to reduce the cities that still remained pro-Parthian, but though he approached Jerusalem, did not attack it.

So the Parthians gained control of nearly all the settlements in the Levant and set up an ally in Judea by military force, and you call this a raid? If their purpose was to raid, then why did they occupy the Levant for over a year? The Parthians only withdrew from Syria after the stunning string of military successes by Ventidius. And just to let everyone know, I do make it clear that there was a civil war in the Roman world at this time; merely discussing Labienus is sufficient for that purpose. If I remember correctly, I believe Kennedy (1996) calls this invasion of 40-39 BC the only serious attempt by the Parthians to expand their empire into Rome's eastern territories, although I'll have to go back to the library to fetch a page number for you. I don't believe any of my sources mention the Roman commander being in Brundisium at the time, but I'll take your word for it; better yet, if you have a source, be bold and feel free to add this to the article.

As for Hadrian abandoning the conflict with Parthia, I shall add something to that effect in the article, since I believe my sources concur with your assertion. And for birth and death dates, I suppose you are right, although it is useful to include reign dates in order to give the reader a sense of time frames.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Ronald Syme's Roman Revolution - or any competent history of the Roman Civil Wars; we even manage to mention the Treaty of Brundisium ourselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've read Syme before, although I do not own his work. That could be another book to look at after I head back to the library. I forgot about Antony leaving the East to convene with Octavian in that year; does Syme explicitly mention his absence as a reason why Parthia's invasion of Syria was (briefly) successful? In the meantime, I have addressed your concerns about birth and death dates, as well as Hadrian's decision not to drain Rome's valuable resources with another invasion of Mesopotamia.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; as I said, Antony brought his armies with him (and did not choose to give laurels to his subordinates while he was gone). The Parthian invasion may well have affected the negotiations between the Triumvirs, btw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Now that is interesting; it also makes perfect sense. I'll have to take a close look at Syme when I head back to the library, possibly by tomorrow.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm here at the library, and I've got Syme's Roman Revolution (1939) in my lap as I speak, or rather, type. :) You were right about Antony; Syme does state (pp. 214-217) that Antony had to ignore the Parthian threat for the time being to face a more pressing threat from Octavian in Italy. I've added a statement to the article using Syme which now reflects this idea. This is a very interesting episode, and Syme does a wonderful job describing how the soldiers pretty much mutinied and refused to fight, forcing the triumvirs into negotiations.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As usual, an excellent article from PericlesofAthens. Wikipedia would certainly benefit if the Persian dynasties became elevated to FA's, just as the Chinese dynasties were. One question though: where is the section on the Parthian economy? Or was there too little information on it to work with? Anyways, good and well-researched work.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teeninvestor, thanks for the support! If you look above to my conversation with Johnbod, you'll read about why I did not include any significant amount of information on socioeconomics: there's just not enough source material available! But this is a systemic problem for Parthian history that extends beyond coverage of economics. We still know so little about the Parthians, most of it from Greek and Roman historians. Although I already have a small section on currency, let me see what I can do about economics, although I can't promise much since there's not much to say. In the meantime, I've added some new things about commercial trade items in the history section. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Few quickies from me, having looked at the first few sections...

  • "However, Mark Antony led a counterattack into Parthia; these continued...". I don't see the plural element that would support "these"; is this meant to say there were multiple counterattacks?
  • Origins and establishment: "spoken at the time in Parthia. Parthia...". Try to avoid word repetition in this manner.
  • "After spending some time in exile amongst the nomadic Apasiacae tribe". For simpler language, switch "amongst" to "among", if the meaning will remain intact.
  • "but he negotiated a peace settlement with Arsaces II. Arsaces II...". More repetition like the example above.
  • "and his newly-founded city". No hyphen after -ly, unless there's a compounding element; I don't see one here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giants. I've addressed your immediate concerns with the article's prose; I hope my copy-editing will suffice. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some work needed for images:

Forget this one! Book of Esther is clearly linked in the caption & it is ridiculous to demand a full iconographic analysis for a caption to a picture making a purely stylistic point. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; the image's purpose is to demonstrate Parthian-style frontality in artwork; particularly to demonstrate that such a trend was still alive at Dura-Europos in the 240s AD when the images were painted. It is important because Dura-Europos was originally a Parthian city that was captured by the Romans during Marcus Aurelius' invasion in the 160s AD and deserted by the Sassanids in the 250s AD. Luckily, structures like the Dura-Europos synagogue were well-preserved for almost two thousand years by being literally buried underneath sand. In any case, the 2-D image clearly belongs to the public domain given the age of the artwork.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the provenance of the fresco; it is about allowing the user to verify where the image comes from (and as such to the nature of the image, not the fresco). This has nothing to do with the caption, it is about the statement on the image page: "Illustration: Scenes from the Book of Esther". Thus, it is quite unclear whether this image is a scan from a book, a photo taken of the work at Yale, or from somebody's web page. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, the description does seem a bit ambiguous. I have contacted User:Udimu on his talk page over at Wikimedia Commons and posted a message about this issue; hopefully he will follow up with a quick response.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That was not exactly clear from your first comment, to put it mildly! There is no source on the photo, but the washed-out colour etc makes it pretty clear that is a scan from one of hundreds of books that have printed the picture library images over the years. The work is now in the National Museum of Damascus, & I don't think it has ever left Syria. "Scenes from the Book of Esther" is a title for the image; I'm not quite clear what your problem with it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to sort them out. Jappalang (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalang, how's it going. So far I've left a message on User:Quadell's talk page over at Wikimedia Commons about File:LocationParthia.PNG and File:Map Parthian Empire-fr.png. While I'm waiting for a reply, I'll take a look at these other images you've mentioned. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) For now, just to be safe, I've removed the Seleucid and Sassanid maps from the article's infobox. Over at Wikimedia Commons, it appears that many of the available maps for the Seleucid and Sassanid empires are not properly sourced! At least not from what I've seen.
(2) As for the dates of the artworks seen in (2.1) File:Marcus Licinius Crassus Louvre.jpg, (2.2) File:Augustus Prima Porta (detail).PNG from File:Statue-Augustus.jpg, (2.3) File:Iran-bastan-32.jpg, and (2.4) File:Arm less man edit 3.jpg, I shall address each one separately. (2.1) First, Marcus Licinius Crassus's bust at the Louvre, Paris, France: it is a genuine Roman-era bust of Crassus, so who cares what exact date the artwork was commissioned? It is ancient, perhaps contemporary with his life, that's all that matters. (2.2) As for the quite famous statue Augustus of Prima Porta, it was not discovered and studied by modern art historians until the 19th century, but it is a genuine Roman work of art made during Augustus' reign period; it is in fact a giant marble piece of propaganda aimed at convincing fellow Romans that Parthia had submitted to Rome without a fight (see Brosius: 2006). (2.3) I think pinpointing the exact year that a ceramic oil lamp was crafted is a pointless pursuit unless one has direct evidence (such as inscriptions on the object itself) providing at least a clue or hint, such as a person's name or historical event, if not an actual inscribed date. The fact that this ceramic oil lamp was made in Khuzestan sometime during the Parthian Empire is all that matters, especially considering the dating and chronological problems we have with many Parthian source materials and events. (2.4) Again, the very same thing could be said about the Parthian bronze statue from Khuzestan province, Iran. This statue certainly doesn't need an exact date, since even the clothes and hairstyle the man is wearing has been analyzed by historians (Brosius: 2006; Curtis: 2007; Schlumberger: 1983) and described as the typical Parthian riding outfit, the same one worn by figures in raised-relief images on various Parthian drachma coins.
Having a simple provenance (i.e. estimated year[s]) of the items stated on their pages would be helpful to re-users of the images; we cannot expect them to wander to this article to learn of it. The image pages should contain brief information to inform other users of the subject's nature. I brought up this issue for informative purposes more than of copyrights (if any). Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(3) We'll see about the Mithridates II coin image; I suspect that everything is fine if it has already gone through OTRS and been verified at Wikimedia.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Update: I've decided to replace File:Map Parthian Empire-fr.png with File:Parthia 001ad.jpg, which lists its sources as John Nelson's Interactive Historical Atlas of the World and Encyclopaedia Iranica's article on Parthia. It has a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. I believe this removes the last truly questionable image from the article, in terms of reference problems.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Take your time; you're very good at restructuring long sentences with clear, concise language. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heh, cheers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous sources have been used to reconstruct Parthian history, including local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts - why not "Local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts have been used to reconstruct Parthian history" ?
Good suggestion! I've replaced the original with your version.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*notedly -> notably?

You know what? It was originally "notably" but it was changed when someone copy-edited the article. I didn't think much of it, but now that you mention it, I've switched it back to "notably". Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get a good feel for theThe Religion section about the mythology of the Parthian people and who worshipped what. I am guessing because our knowledge is a little flimsy. Are there any uniquely Parthian deities and/or legends that can be linked to? Do we know whether the religions followed geography - i.e. Persian in the east and Greek in the west?
These are great questions! There was nothing "uniquely" Parthian per say, unless there were gods exclusively worshiped by the ancient Parni tribe (i.e. the nomadic ethnic group of the ruling Arsacid dynasty). There were certainly unique local deities worshiped in the small region known as Parthia in what is now northeastern Iran and Turkmenistan. However, I don't believe there were any national deities apart from deified Arsacid rulers. Whether or not Greek cults were more widespread in the western half of the Parthian Empire is unclear to me; keep in mind that Greek culture was spread into Iran as much as it was Iraq during the Seleucid Empire.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points - thanks for clarifying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the prose is good and I think it is nearly there barring a couple of queries above. Nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and the excellent work you've done! Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish support after my comments at the top. I rather share the concerns of Tony and PMAnderson, but on a big and unwieldy subject I think the article meets FA standards. I suspect one could read most of the big fat books used without being much the wiser on the obvious gaps in coverage. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're an honest dude; thank you. I felt that this topic was deserving of attention at the least, since so many here will be interested in Roman history, or Iranian history for that matter. I just hope that my work stands as a solid, useful article for anyone wanting to acquaint themselves with the history of the region at this particular point in time. I tried to include a bunch of different sources in order to avoid bias or worse, interpreting one source incorrectly. Perhaps there is a lack of economic information, but that seems fairly natural given the lack of primary source material we have on Parthian history. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article and respond thoughtfully. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My passing scan of the above text suggests there's no image issues there that should stop this from proceeding, though i've not gone through them myself. I did some source checking of Bivar 1983, which appeared to check out. I have one prose quibble: "...married his daughter Rhodogune of Parthia to him" is an odd phrase. Apart from sounding cumbersome, and the subject not being named in the sentence, it sounds as though Mithridates was the actual celebrant, which is hardly the point (and probably wasn't true). Can someone have a stab at reconfiguring this? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hamiltonstone! I just got back home from a bar in D.C., am quite sloppy drunk at the moment and have to work in the morning (yikes!), but somehow, by the beard of Zeus, I managed to rewrite (or reconfigure as you awesomely put it) the questionable sentence: "Despite early successes, the Seleucids were defeated and Demetrius himself was captured by Parthian forces and taken to Hyrcania. There Mithridates treated his captive with great hospitality; he even married his daughter Rhodogune of Parthia to Demetrius." This sounds pretty clear now, right? A semicolon works wonders; like it did just now! Cheers and beers from the US to Australia; I'll have to see Canberra one of these days!--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010 [10].

Lycoperdon echinatum

edit
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a mushroom—an edible puffball with spines. I believe it's comprehensive and would make a good addition to the growing repertoire of fungal FACs. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments—no dab links, no dead external links. The lead seems on the short side, and do you really need those subsections for single paragraphs under "Description"? Ucucha 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you be packing boxes or something? I've expanded the lead, but am reluctant to remove the subsection headers... I'm stuck in my ways and like to present the descriptive info in digestible chunks. I will remove them if others agree they should be gone, but those subsections will probably be expanded slightly over the course of the FAC anyway. Sasata (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing will prevent me from clicking the links in the toolbox. I think the "Description" is as digestible as the mushroom itself even without subsections, but I am fine with waiting to see what other reviewers think. Ucucha 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young specimens resemble another edible spiny puffball, Lycoperdon pulcherrimum, but this species does not turn brown as it ages. The fruit bodies are edible when young... — Slight ambiguity which species the fruit bodies belong to
  • Clarified.
  • Subsections — I don't like one-paragraph subsections either, and it's not consistent. On your reasoning "Habitat, distribution, and ecology" should have a subsection for each of the three aspects (but please don't go down that route)
  • Okay, I'm being swayed by the forces of consensus... I've removed the "Edibility" subsection header from the Description section, and bumped the "Similar species" sub into a section (would be somewhat out of place in the description section). Sasata (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This species has been collected from eastern central Africa,... — do we really need a reference for each area? I wouldn't have thought these were likely to be challenged
  • Unfortunately, I don't have a secondary source that give location information in as detailed a manner as I've done in the article, so I've had to compile it from mostly primary sources. I suppose I could just say "Europe" rather than listing each country individually with the source, and that would eliminate several refs. Is this preferable? Sasata (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea what substances are responsible for antibacterial activity?
these are all pretty minor points, I look forward to supporting soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work as usual. Ucucha 14:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • Do you need a link for "bacteria" (not sure myself)?
  • Does the Peck quote perhaps need a translation into understandable English? Also, what's the point of the ellipsis at the beginning of the quote?
  • Any information on when hoylei was synonymized, and where it is from?
  • Not anymore, but in my understanding, back in the "old days" it was commonplace to capitalize epithets that were based on people's names. I'm just reporting the naming as it was published. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it cluster with Hadkea to the exclusion of other Lycoperdon?
  • Nope, it clustered with the three other Lycoperdon species listed. It was separate from L. pyriforme, but that will be the subject of a different article. Sasata (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should clarify that, as the current text makes it sounds like only this species clustered with Handkea in the Krüger and Gargas study. Ucucha 07:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specific name echinatum is derived from the Latin word meaning "with spikes"."—please cite. Echinos is Greek, at least.
  • What is a pedicel?
  • A few references said to be in foreign languages don't have their original titles given.
  • I've done the best I can with this; there's a couple of original language titles missing, but those journals either don't have websites, or don't have those particular volumes indexed. Sasata (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref Holden1997 is said to be from 1973.
  • Is Kueng 1973 not in German?
  • Images and sources look good.

Ucucha 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few sources:
Title: KEY FOR DETERMINING SPECIES OF THE GENUS LYCOPERDON PRESENT IN SOUTHERN EUROPE
Author(s): DEMOULIN V
Source: Revista de Biologia (Lisbon) Volume: 12 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 65-70 Published: 1980
Cannot access this one. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, doesn't seem too promising. Ucucha 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: MACROMYCETES IN ARTIFICIAL STEPPE FORESTS
Author(s): DOBROVOL'SKII I A
Source: Lesovedenie Issue: 1 Pages: 62-66 Published: 1977
  • Might be a Russian record?
  • The summary for Kers 1975 suggests it may have some interesting biological data in addition to the first Swedish record.
  • Well, I found the source, but it's in Swedish, so I'm not getting much out of it. The English abstract hints that whatever conservation program was in effect in 1975 will "certainly result in a deterioration of most of the existing habitats for this ecologic group of fungi", but without reading the text I don't think there's anything I can add to the article. At least I was able to insert the Swedish title. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: CONTRIBUTION TO THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF GASTEROMYCETES IN THE CZECHOSLOVAKIAN STREDOHORI MOUNTAINS PART 2
Author(s): KUBAT K
Source: Ceska Mykologie Volume: 26 Issue: 4 Pages: 238-241 Published: 1972
concomitantly transforming - strikes me as needlessly polysyllabic - why not just "Initially white in color, the puffballs turn a dark brown as they mature, at the same time changing from nearly round to somewhat flattened shape."
Tweaked for reduced polysyllabicity. Sasata (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is edible, there is no section on eating it. It would be good to note whether one needs to cook it or can it be eaten raw, and does one eat the spines. Some suggested recipes or ways of eating it would be a bonus. I can check in Arora and other books later on tonight.
That info was previously cordoned off in a digestible subsection until consensus (see above) axed the headers. Your point about edibility of the spines is interesting, but I don't recall it being mentioned specifically during my research. Any additional information about edibility would have to apply to puffballs generally, but I'll look around and see what I can do. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can find tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again, but but couldn't find anything specific to this this species. The only decent info I found on ways of eating pertain to the giant puffballs (fry in butter if you can find a big enough frying pan). I did, however, add a standard "disclaimer" about slicing in half to check for gills. Does Carluccio have anything to say about puffballs? Sasata (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little but useful general info, so added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good pending these minor and easily surmountable tasks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010 [11].

HMAS Australia (1911)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC), Saberwyn[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the criteria and it is a Milhist A-class article. Dank very kindly copy-edited it. This is a co-nomination between myself and Saberwyn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have one quibble about the article, and I'd like to have it clarified before casting in my support. I notice that here, we have the reference section arranged like so:

== Footnotes ==
== Citations ==
== References ==

I'm not quite sure what the MOS standard is here, but what I think looks much better is something like this:

== References ==
;Footnotes
;Citations
;Bibliograpy (etc.)

Anyway, this is the only quibble I have, and a very minor one, but finding out what's Supposed To Be would be a great help. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I don't see anything wrong with your organisation of Footnotes, Citations and References. The one thing I would change is the subheading "External references", which should be "Online references". A couple more points:

  • It is not necessary to include the title of the work in the citation, when this title is already listed in the references. Thus, for example, "Jose, pp. 24–5" rather than "Jose, The Royal Australian Navy 1914–18, pp. 24–5"
  • When the citations are to online sources, it is best to include a link in the citation. Thus, for example, [33] could read: "HMAS Australia Built by John Brown Clydebank Clydebuilt Ships Database".

The sources themselves all look good. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding use of the title in the short-form citations, this is a habit I've fallen into because I've often had to use multiple works by the same author in other articles. If some have to be clarified, I think that all should be standardised in their appearance, because consistency looks better (have a look at HMAS Melbourne (R21)#Citations for a "only-where-necessary" approach...how it has ended up there looks poor, but I concede that its not a major enough issue for me to go and change it). Having two points of reference (author and title) instead of one also makes it easier to identify the full source.
    • In regards to the "External/Online references" heading and the use of external links in citations, I am completely indifferent to these: if anyone changes it in the article, I won't complain, or if there are a few more observations here in support of these changes, I'm happy to do it myself. -- saberwyn 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a copy-edit throughout. But it's not bad; will be promotable, I think.

  1. "as well as the overcautiousness of the Admiralty"—"as well as an overcautious Admiralty".
    • Is "as well as Admiralty overcaution," an acceptable rephrasing? -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer "an overcautious Admiralty", too, with the caveat that I know diddly-squat about style issues outside the U.S. and Canada. I'll reply to a few more of these, with some trepidation. My top priority is working on a track record of writer/copyeditor relationships, while Tony's working here to set a certain standard for FAC. Relationships require some amount of deference, humility and compromise; standards don't. Still, I think we'll get this fixed up in no time, and I'm glad to see Tony shares my optimism. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Its destruction: of the squadron or the ship?
  3. Do we need "repeated"? Isn't this assumed? And it's the second time in four lines.
  4. twice collided with.
    • I don't understand what you mean by this comment...could you clarify? -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence is: "During this time, the Australian ship collided with friendly warships on two occasions (the first caused her to miss the Battle of Jutland), she was involved in early attempts at naval aviation, and eleven of her personnel were involved in the Zeebrugge Raid." He's saying that "twice collided with friendly warships" is tighter than "collided with friendly warships on two occasions". But if you make that change, something else will have to change ... which is fine with me, I thought the sentence was a little unwieldy. There are several ways to tackle this; if I were the writer, I'd go with "During this time, she missed the Battle of Jutland after colliding with her sister ship HMS New Zealand, and later collided with another friendly ship, HMS Repulse. She was involved ...". - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've rewritten the relevant sentances to read :"Australia was then assigned to North Sea operations, which consisted primarily of patrols and exercises, until the end of the war. During this time, Australia was involved in early attempts at at naval aviation, and eleven of her personnel participated in the Zeebrugge Raid. The battlecruiser was not at the Battle of Jutland, as she was undergoing repairs following a collision with sister ship HMS New Zealand." This way, we mention what the ship did before what she didn't do. I've dropped the mention of the second collision from the lead because, while both were relatively minor collisions, the New Zealand one caused more damage, and was responsible for keeping Australia away from the major battlecruiser action of WWI. -- saberwyn 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 11, normally.
    • Do you mean that the word "eleven" in the second paragraph in the lead section should be replaced with the numeral? I think that the word is an acceptable usage under WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (emphasis mine)" and all other non-date numbers in that section are rendered as words. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Per Wikipedia:Mos#Numbers_as_figures_or_words, and since there are two-word numbers in the article that aren't written out, this was a MOS violation. Whether it should be a MOS violation is another question; this one is complicated, and I'll discuss the issues as they come up in future copyediting, and see if we can get everyone on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on this, I've gone through and changed all the numbers larger than nine that I could find from prose to text, unless the number precedes a measurement. I still think it looks wrong, and that the phrasing of both MOS and MOSNUM permit the usage, but I'll concede to consensus. -- saberwyn 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. So "fired in anger" excludes defensive fire? I've not seen this expression before; will our readers wonder?
    • It would depend on what you mean by "defensive fire"...a Phalanx or Goalkeeper type weapon designed to put a large quantity of metal in the path of an incoming projectile, or in terms of "They're attacking, we're defending, let them have it"? My understanding of the term "fire in anger" is that its a deliberate, non-training, non-exercise use of a weapons system with intent to do damage and/or harm to the target. Although this is the phrase used by the sources, I have been unsuccessful so far in finding sources that describe or define the term (as opposed to simply use the term) for the article I promised during the A-class review. I'm open to suggestions for an alternate term to replace the two occurences in the article until such time as this is successful. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I heard it in a naval documentary once, and I've seen it in the kinds of sources we use for these articles; I'm reasonably sure that I haven't seen or heard it otherwise. I don't know if this is helpful, but it seems to me the issue is a tradeoff between getting the really interested reader up to speed on phrases that they really ought to know if they want to learn this stuff, vs. not confusing the general reader. I agree with Tony that there's a reasonable chance that it will sound a little strange to the general reader. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "loan personnel"—is that the standard term? If not, "seconded" would be more widely understood.
    • "Loan personnel" or "personnel on loan" are the phrases I'm used to seeing in works describing the involvement of Royal Navy personnel in the RAN's early years. In a quick readthough of David Stevens' chapter on the battlecruiser in The Navy and the Nation I saw "loan personnel" once, but no occurences of "seconded" or any variants to describe this practice. That said, I'm removing the word "loan" from the sentance...I think we can get away without it. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's a microscopic diagram; even if we need to double-click to read the text, a much bigger size is required even to give the reader an idea of the basic design. Generally, try to minimise the proportion of readers who forgo double-clicking because they can't bothered or their connection is slow. Try 260px and down a para?
  9. Why are imperial units given as the main ones? This is a MOSNUM breach. And there's "ft" third time.
    • During the time this ship was in service, imperial units were in common use in Australia: Metrication did not occur until the 1970s and 1980s. Imperial units are also given in several of the sources consulted as the primary unit (if not only). As such, I think it meets MOSNUM#UNITS, particularly the points "For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. (emphasis mine)" and "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. (emphasis mine)" -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment "And there's "ft" third time" is ambiguous, could you clarify its meaning? -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I'm really not comfortable weighing in (haha) with disputes over units; we need more consensus, and I need to learn more about the current sorry state of affairs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "but she reached 26.89 knots"—you could ellide "she" this time; it's occurring a lot.
  11. "centralized"—Australian spelling, please.
  12. "Dominion"—I thought Canada was the Dominion; was this term applied to Australia as well?
  13. "second class battleships"—is this a technical term, or do you really mean "not much good"? If technical, surely S and C? And a hyphen anyway? That sentence is long and cumbersome.
    • As a comment - "Second Class Battleship" was a technical term of the time; cruisers were also designated as First (aka Armoured), Second (usually = "Protected") and Third (what we would call Light) cruisers. The system made a good bit of sense, although admittedly it can be a bit hard to penetrate nowadays. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there should be a hyphen for second-class battleship; it's a compound adjective. So how would you suggest breaking the sentence up?
        • I shortened the sentence to make it a little easier to read ... I like the balance of "small battleships and large battlecruisers", which is more or less the idea, but feel free to revert or tinker, anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No hyphen after an -ly adverb.

And more. Tony (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it helps, several of my friends with little interest in Wikipedia (and even less in naval history) have said they will look at the article in the next few days and provide a 'reader's eye view' of any problems for a general peruser. I hope my responses do not come across as terse or combative (which I'm scared they might), and want to make clear that I welcome more suggestions from you, but ask that you provide a little more context and detail...dumb it down for the idiot (i.e. me) in the audience. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree re the precedence of units. This ship was built at a time when Australia used imperial units, and I think it would be appropriate in such circumstances to lead with those units. The main battery was 12 inch, not "305 mm". Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass, I generally don't get involved with questions about units, because my own views differ from our style guidelines, but I just want to point out that it's possible to make a case for "12-inch gun" on the theory that it functions as the name of the gun or a bunch of related guns, while also making the case for using SI units generally. If the main readership (which we generally take as international, with special deference to the sensibilities of Australians in this case, I would think) generally reads and understands one unit better than another, standard practice in the publishing industry is to defer to those sensibilities. The reader is always right (we really ought to have an article on that) ... if you can figure out who your reader is. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can only speculate as to who "the main readership" might be, but I personally feel that structures which were built to a particular system should be annotated in that system first. To do anything else is to mislead the reader in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Gatoclass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. The British guns were designed and designated as "12-inch", etc., not in SI units. (Actually, I believe the technical specifications were 'twice the shell weight of the next smallest gun', but that was the goal, the actual guns were built to more-or-less round-in-inches sizes - 12", 13.5", 15"...) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria and am happy to support. For the purposes of the review, here are my comments:
    • images all have alt text (no action required);
    • there are no disambig links (no action required);
    • external links all work (no action required);
    • Suggestion: the Shipwrecks & scuttled vessels ribbon template at the bottom of the article might look better if it were collapsed (this may require editing the template itself);
    • Suggestion: I think "External references" would be better if it were "Online sources" as it looks a bit strange so close to "External links" — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "External references" has been changed to "Online sources". I've removed the parameter from the "shipwrecks" template, which collapses the "Scuttled Vessels" field. However, it does looks like collapsing it any further requires edits to the template itself, which is something I'm reluctant to do, because that template scares me. -- saberwyn 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theres also 3ft difference in Draught between AWM which has 30ft(9.14m)and this article has 27ft(8.2m) Gnangarra 01:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The size is converted in the infobox and the first time it's used in the main body. Nobody's making our own terms, the linked article uses the gun's proper designation. The draft figure quoted is for standard load, I expect the Australian figure is for deep load.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cassells (and the body of the article) specifies the maximum draught as 30 ft 4 in...I've replaced the figure in the infobox with this. Displacement is always going to vary between sources, and the displacement itself is not a set value but depends on the configuration of the ship at any given time, and the load carried at any moment.
As for the conversions in the gun 'name'...the topic was raised a few days ago at WT:MOS. Although it looks like consensus is going to be along the lines of "if its in an article link, don't convert", I'd rather wait for one of the MOS Powers That Be to make that call. -- saberwyn 04:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fit the bill but I think if someone had a problem with the MOS edit, they would have reverted or argued by now. I'll make the change (removing conversions inside links to weapons), feel free to revert as always. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support nothing else besides these two issues grabbed my attention while reading, Gnangarra 08:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010 [14].

Brill railway station

edit
Nominator(s):  – iridescent 17:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trains that travelled slower than walking pace, a London Underground station that was neither in London nor underground, and the return of the Man With The Second Longest Proper Name On Wikipedia; another chapter of the "if you build it, nobody will come" saga of well-intentioned incompetence in rural Buckinghamshire that was the Brill Tramway.

I'm aware that the map in the article stretches WP:MOSIMAGE to breaking point (currently displaying at 541px high, when the MOS recommends a maximum 500px height), but I think this is a legitimate invocation of IAR. Even at extreme monitor sizes, it doesn't actually disrupt any text or cause the following image to cascade. Any narrower, and the significant point—the railway line running the length of the map—will be lost against the background; using {{tall image}} to give it a scrollbar will look unsightly (and render the article unprintable) for no real gain; flipping it 90° and having it horizontal across the screen will make the detailed text and labelling which is visible on it when zoomed-in unreadable. As the key point of interest as regards this particular station was its geographic isolation at the end of a snaking branch line 40+ miles from the rest of the London Underground network, I do feel that the map substantially adds to the article and thus am very reluctant to remove it. – iridescent 17:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brill_station.jpg, where did this picture originate, I'm guessing it wasn't first published in 2005 Fasach Nua (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what you want, but to the best of my knowledge, it's not been published other than in Simpson's 2005 book—it doesn't appear in any other work on the line that I've seen. As with all this series, the copyright status is ambiguous; London Transport was (and is) 100% government-owned but has never been formally nationalised, and to the best of my knowledge there's never been a definitive ruling as to whether Crown Copyright (which would make this picture PD due to age) applies. Given the short period (1933–35) in which the station existed in its tube station configuration, there are very few photographs of it. – iridescent 09:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mostly well-written (I made some changes) and though I don't know anything about the subject, I believe the article covers the station comprehensively. Just two small points:
    • "Cheaply built and ungraded and using poor quality locomotives, services on the line were very slow,"—dangling modifier
    • "owing to the town's hilltop setting the station was 3⁄4 of a mile (1.2 km) from Brill itself"—this fact appears twice in the body of the article
  • Ucucha 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can think of a way to reword that "cheaply built…" sentence, do feel free. It's a tricky one to write as it needs to be precise; it had an ownership structure in which one company owned the line but another leased the right to run services. (It's an absolutely standard practice in Britain, and the business model still in use today, in which train companies buy "franchises" to run services on a particular line for a set period.) It means the usual formulation ("the line's services…") won't be accurate, hence that clunky wording.
    • I know that "3/4 of a mile" appears three times (once in the lead and twice in the body) but can't see an obvious way around it unless someone can think of one. It needs to be in the early section on planning the route as it's such an important factor in the route; it also really needs to be in the section on passenger traffic to explain why passenger numbers were so low. The second occurrence could be replaced with a vague "some distance" or "about 20 minutes walk" to avoid repetition if you think it's a problem. – iridescent 19:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: all sources look OK, no issues here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People like myself with the Protanopia form of colour blindness, see red as being significantly darker, and have a lot of difficulty distinguishing red from black when on a pale background. I strongly suggest that you change the red bar on the map of the underground limits with a different colour - perhaps blue - that would be more widely visible. Bluap (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, although I'm not sure it's actually an issue in this case, as it's obvious from context which bar is which and the diagram would work just as well in black-and-white. – iridescent 08:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Just a few, nothing too serious:
Lead
  • We're told twice in the lead that the station was one of the two north-western termini of the London Underground.
    • No—we have it becoming a northwestern terminus of the Metropolitan Railway in 1899, and then a northwestern terminus of the London Underground after the LU absorbed the MR in 1933. I think that's significant enough that it warrants mentioning for both occasions. – iridescent 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The line was closed on 30 November 1935, and all buildings and infrastructure at Brill associated with the line were sold at auction and subsequently demolished." That implies that there might have been buildings and infrastructrure elsewhere than at Brill, that weren't auctioned.
Wotton tramway
  • "The first stage of the line, known as the Wotton Tramway, was a 4-mile (6.4 km) line ...". Can we do something about the "line ... line" thing?
    • Reworded. As you may know, there are six of these in total; given that this initial history section is essentially saying the same thing on each article, I'm trying to phrase things differently on each one that they won't (hopefully) appear too repetitive to someone reading the whole series, but still contain enough information that someone reading just one of the articles will understand the background context of why it was built and how. – iridescent 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extension to Brill
  • "Lobbying from the nearby town of Brill for the introduction of passenger services on the line led to an extension from Wotton to a new terminus at the foot of Brill Hill, north of the hilltop town of Brill itself, in March 1872 and the introduction of two mixed trains each day in each direction, at which time the line was renamed the Brill Tramway." That's an admirable attempt on the world's longest sentence record.
Goods facilities
  • Starts off by telling us again what we were told just a few sentences higher up, that Brill wasn't used by many passengers.
    • Agree, but I think in this case it's warranted. The "Passengers" section says it wasn't used by many passengers; the "Goods" section explains why they kept the station open despite so few passengers using it. – iridescent 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, a storehouse at the station held beer supplied by the breweries of Brackley and Aylesbury, while bricks and tiles from the brick and tile factories of Brill were used in the construction of Waddesdon Manor, near the eastern end of the Brill Tramway, between 1874 and 1889." I lost the plot a bit with this. At the same time as the station stored beer, the bricks and tiles were being used to build Waddesdon Manor? Was it the beer that was stored between 1874 and 1889?
Goods facilities
  • "in 1895 his heir William Temple-Gore-Langton, 4th Earl Temple of Stowe, expanded the brickworks into the Brill Brick & Tile Works ...". He didn't expand it into the Brick & Tile Works, as it didn't exist. "Expanded it to become ..."?

Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there a consensus or previous precedent on minimum length of article at FA? This one seems a little short, coming in at just over 9kB (1500 words) of readable prose. SpinningSpark 12:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FA criteria call for comprehensiveness, not a given length. There are shorter, recently passed FAs, such as Babakotia (7 kB, 1100 words). I have no reason to assume that this article is not comprehensive. Ucucha 13:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think something's missing, say what you think should be added; this isn't DYK and I'm not going to pad an article out unnecessarily to meet an arbitrary word count. This was a sleepy country halt, not a major city terminus station, not all that much actually happened there. If it passes this will (rightly) be nearer the shorter than the longer end of Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length, but nowhere near the bottom. – iridescent 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was certainly not suggesting padding out the article nor was it a suggestion that anything is missing. This was a genuine question on whether there is any precedent on what constitutes too short, an article can be very short and still be comprehensive, but there must come a point (again, not suggesting it is the case here) when it would be better off merged with something else. SpinningSpark 09:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With railway stations, there's never a "merge point"; there's a very clear consensus, across repeated discussions over the years, that every railway station warrants its own independent article. This series is partly the result of a point-proving exercise to demonstrate that even the most obscure railway station stubs can be expanded into full-length articles, following the most recent round of "why aren't they all merged?" discussions. – iridescent 11:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, point accepted that it would be against consensus to merge in the case of railway stations, but my basic point still stands. There is a point at which the article would not be suitable for FA, but apparently there are no guidelines, we are left to come to our own individual decisions. SpinningSpark 13:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at great depth in WT:Featured article candidates/archive31 and following, and although there were proposals to add some sort of length limit, none were passed. It may be true that there is an unwritten limit (I don't think many people would be happy if I'd nominate ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus for FA, which is comprehensive), but this article isn't even very close to it, as there are several shorter FAs (see iridescent's link). Ucucha 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ucucha above. If this passes, it won't be unusually short by FA standards (it's longer than Nico Ditch and Tropical Depression Ten (2005)—both relatively recent FAs—combined). – iridescent 13:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • On my computer, the first word of the infobox photo caption is showing up to the right of the picture, with the rest at the bottom. Assuming the intention is to have the entire caption at the bottom, there may be a formatting tweak needed somewhere.
  • Tiny bit of repetition in the lead here: "and became the Metropolitan Line of London Transport. London Transport...". Would be better if the word order was mixed a little to get the two London Transports farther apart.
  • Goods facilities: "supplied by the breweries of Brackley and Aylesbury. bricks and tiles...". First word of new sentence needs capitalization.
    • Fixed.10:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What does the symbol used in the Mitchell & Smith book cites represent? This is not so much a criticism of its use as it is curiosity, since I don't recall seeing it before. I don't review that many British-relating topics, so that might be why I'm unfamiliar with it. I assume it's a substitute for p. or pp. in the cites.
    • It's the section symbol. Middleton Press maintains what I assume they believe is an endearingly quirky tradition and number their books in the old style, with numbered sections and figures but non-numbered pages. There are advantages to this method—it means that no matter how they change the pagination of their books in future editions, the numbering will still relate to the same information (the Bible and Qu'ran use chapter-and-verse as opposed to page numbering for the same reason, as do legal works where it has to be explicit what information is referred to), but the disadvantage is that it looks weird to anyone not used to it. – iridescent 10:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one general comment I will make about the article is that I find the lead long for an article of this size. For a relatively short article by FA standards, I would typically expect to see a two or three-paragraph lead. Taken by itself I think the lead is very nice, which makes it hard for me to hold it against the article in the end. The only thing I can think of doing would be to condense the last two paragraphs somewhat and then merge them, but I'm not sure how practical this would be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see an obvious way to condense the lead. The reason it looks disproportionate is that usually for a station/port/airport article, the lead would be of this length, but the body text would also cover the architecture and history of the buildings. In this particular case the buildings were a pair of generic wooden sheds with nothing to say about them, so the body text is one or two sections shorter than "seems right" for an article of this nature. – iridescent 10:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010 [15].

Cyclone Gonu

edit
Nominator(s): Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC) & Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Gonu was the strongest tropical cyclone ever in the Arabian Sea, was responsible for the every-so-often rise in oil price, was the strongest storm on record to hit the Arabian Peninsula, and one of the only to hit Iran. It was the costliest natural disaster in Oman, although unlike Katrina, their government was able to handle the crisis easily and promptly.

Hope you like the article! This is my first FA in a while, so hopefully it isn't in too bad of shape. I got some copyediting from other tropical cyclone project editors, but, as always, there could be things missing. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Some random things I noticed...
  • However, oil prices rose early on June 5 because of concerns of disruptions caused by Gonu and the threat of further strikes in Nigeria, Africa's biggest producer. - Strikes from what?
  • The first sentence of the Impact section seems rather out-of-context.
  • In effort to prevent electrocutions, police workers sent text messages to residents which recommended residents away from certain streets. - Poorly worded. I'd fix it myself, but I'll see if you can think of a better way to construct it first.
  • http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=45412 seems to not be a news article?

–Juliancolton | Talk 15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, fixed them (the link was a news article, which I found a copy of in the wayback machine). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: a few minor points:-

  • Newspaper/journal names require italics (see ref. 40)
  • There seems to be an inconsistency in the reference formatting betweeen refs 54 and 60, both Reuters
  • Ref 17: In the long title, you have corrected one of the source's spelling mistakes (meteorological for "meterological", but have left a jarring "it's" in place. Suggest correct both (or neither, with a [sic]).

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K, I fixed the links. As for Ref 17, good catch. There's nothing in that article, actually, that we use, so I just put it down in the External Links, since it's still a good paper. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Steve T • C I think this is do-able, although I have a few nitpicks (listed below), most of which are focused on the lead, which is a little "lumpier" than the rest of the article. I'm not a subject expert, or even someone with a great interest in weather articles, so please accept my apologies in advance for any seemingly-idiotic comments that follow:
Lead
  • "Cyclone Gonu (JTWC designation: 02A also known as Super Cyclonic Storm Gonu)"—a minor point to be sure, but readers unfamiliar with these articles will be faced with the immediate question of what the JTWC is. So you think it's worth linking here? And is there any reason "02A" is italicised whereas the other names are not?
  • "was the strongest tropical cyclone on record in the Arabian Sea, and is also the strongest named cyclone in the northern Indian Ocean."—tense inconsistency: it was the strongest in the Arabian, but is the strongest in the Indian? And "named" is almost certainly worth linking to Tropical cyclone naming instead of italicising the word.
  • "and dissipated after moving ashore along southern Iran on June 7."—mild ambiguity. Someone could take that to mean that it dissipated after June 7. Not likely, I know, but recasting as "and dissipated on June 7 after moving ashore along southern Iran" is an easy fix.
  • Maybe replace "moving alongshore along southern Iran" too? It doesn't particularly reflect the drama of the event (in which 28 people died, after all). Perhaps "after hitting southern Iran"? (This is where my lack of subject knowledge becomes apparent; I'm sure there'll be a better TC-related term than "hitting".)
  • "Intense cyclones like Gonu have been extremely rare over the Arabian Sea"—if it's still the case, then perhaps simply "Intense cyclones like Gonu are extremely rare over the Arabian Sea."
  • "The cyclone caused about $4.2 billion in damage (2007 USD) and 50 deaths in Oman" / "In Iran, the cyclone caused 28 deaths and $215 million in damage"—28 deaths in Iran are more important to point out than $215 million worth of damage, but $4.2 billion in damage is worth more than 50 deaths in Oman? Again, a very minor point, but using a consistent reporting style helps the reader process the information less jarringly.
Meteorological history
  • "classified it Tropical Cyclone 02A"—not italicised here, but was in the lead.
  • Yea, I'll
  • "After maintaining peak winds for about six hours, the IMD downgraded Gonu to very severe cyclonic storm status"—dangling modifier.
Preparations
  • "due to the threat of the storm ... due to the threat of the cyclone ... due to the cyclone."—a little repetitive; I think a couple of those could be removed, as the fact that the cyclone caused these closures and delays is by now implicit.
Impact
  • "Cyclone Gonu began affecting the country with rough winds and heavy precipitation, with rainfall totals reaching 610 mm (24 in) near the coast."—following a comma with "with [noun] [x]-ing" is clumsy, and almost always better replaced with a semi-colon. For example, "Cyclone Gonu began affecting the country with rough winds and heavy precipitation; rainfall totals reached 610 mm (24 in) near the coast."
  • "with an additional 27 reported missing by four days after it struck the country"—not sure that quite scans. Perhaps preface it with a semi-colon, then, "by the fourth day after it struck the country, 27 people had been reported missing."
fixed.Jason Rees (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overall damage to the port of Fujairah was reported as severe. A boat sank by the port of Fujairah, leaving its ten passengers missing."—a little repetitive. Perhaps remove the second "of Fujairah"?
  • "the power outage led to some fires across the city of Chabahar"—repetitive with the previous "city of Chabahar".
  • "$216 million"—the lead says $215 million.
Aftermath and records
  • "The port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates reopened on"—again, repeating information we've just been told in the previous section. Just "Fujairah reopened on" would be adequate.
  • "The cyclone caused little impact to oil facilities along its path, and as a result, oil prices dropped over US$2 per barrel."—as worded, it doesn't quite fit with the previous mention of price rises. Perhaps add something like, "after the initial rises"?
  • Some overlinking in this section. No real need to link Oman again. And I don't think common English terms such as water tank, power outages and utilities need to be linked; they detract attention from the higher-value technical terms.
  • "Additionally, there were 139 buildings established to provide temporary housing for 8,192 people."—a little clunky. Either "Additionally, 139 buildings were established to provide temporary housing for 8,192 people" or if we have the agent, then we can go from passive to active voice: "Additionally, [somebody] established [built?] 139 buildings to provide temporary housing for 8,192 people."
  • "As services such as water and electricity were restored, people returned to their homes, and by two weeks after the storm's passage, most of those remaining were from Qurayat, one of the villages most affected by Gonu."—a little long and winding. Perhaps split with a semi-colon instead of the "[comma] and"? Perhaps "one of the worst-affected [most severely affected?] villages" would be enough here too.
  • If I have a more general comment, it's about how the article is tailored in its structure to the intended readership. Who, in your opinion, are the most likely to visit the article? Meteorology students and experts, or non-experts? At the moment, it leans most heavily in favour of the former, as the technical details to do with its formation and whatnot come first. I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong with that, but general readers, who presumably want to know more about the impact and aftermath, might be put off from reading further. I'm not suggesting that you have this article deviate from standard procedure, but how to make these more accessible is something that the TC project as a whole could consider. Overall though, this is good work. Best, Steve T • C 10:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I believe meteorology students and experts are the most likely to visit this article. Then again, Gonu is one of the more watched articles on the project, garnering about 54 views per day. You may be on to something, how articles could be more accessible. I'll bring it up with the other hurrikipedians. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. Sorry for taking my time getting back to this. I've struck all of the above; I think this is pretty close now. I'll be reading through it again tomorrow morning. Before I comment further, do you have access to the sources listed by Sasata; those that Jason can't access? It could leave niggling comprehensiveness issues if not. Best, Steve T • C 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tito managed to find them and has passed us relevant information below.Jason Rees (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article! Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Comment Why not use these scholarly sources? The first looks especially relevant: Sasata (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Cyclone Gonu storm surge in Oman
Author(s): Fritz, HM; Blount, CD; Albusaidi, FB, et al.
Source: ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE Volume: 86 Issue: 1 Pages: 102-106 Published: 2010
I cant access it so i cant read it and see if theirs anything to be added.Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Disaster Health Management: Iran's Progress and Challenges
Author(s): Ardalan, A; Masoomi, GR; Goya, MM, et al.
Source: IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Volume: 38 Pages: 93-97 Published: 2009
nothing relevant IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Study of the intensity of super cyclonic storm GONU using satellite observations
Author(s): Krishna, KM; Rao, SR
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATION AND GEOINFORMATION Volume: 11 Issue: 2 Pages: 108-113 Published: 2009
I cant access it so i cant read it and see if theirs anything to be added.Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Typical of meteorology featured articles, it has a certain quality that makes one want to keep reading. Engaging, well-written, and well-referenced article; solid work. ceranthor 20:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—well-written. Here's an idea—you guys are keen on dollar equivalents due to inflation, which is good. So why isn't there a link-target to such inflation equivalents—a listy article that gives the CPI-induced equivalent for each year? Or it could be each five years. I envisage that kind of table used for listing the distance between cities, with each city (here, year) listed along the left side (put your finger on the original year) and across the top (put you finger on the current year). Just choose both coordinates, and there it is: a 1975 US dollar is worth about $2.11 in 2010, or something like that. This would be more useful than the US Congress stuff in the USD article. You could pipe it to $ or maybe better USD. Tony (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the list, but there is {{inflation}}, which attempts to do something similar to what you suggest. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I read through the whole article and it looked strong prose-wise. I did make a few copy-edits in one section, which you might want to check. I also found this sentence toward the end, which I have a question about: "The water returned to near normal in five days, as the two plants returned to service." Is the beginning meant to be "The water supply"? Other than that, nice job. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been a while I've been here... the article is pretty good, but I'm not ready to support yet.
  • In the lede: "In Oman, where the cyclone was considered the nation's worst natural disaster" — Is there a reference for this? (The Fritz. et al. reference that Sasata dug up above has some information about this...)
  • Use consistent currency conversions; in the lede you have US$, and farther below you have USD.
  • There was a 5.1-meter storm surge and a 200-meter incursion of seawater inland at Ras al-Hadd; 5.0-meter surge at Hail al Ghaf; 4.8-meter surge at Tiwi; 3.2-meter storm surge and beach erosion at Al Bustan (Muscat); 1.8-meter storm surge at Abu Abali; this is not documented in the article. (From Fritz et al.)
  • Now the units for that are all messed up. Meters are never abbreviated as M; their SI symbol is m. You can use the convert template for these measurements, as they are exact, and there are no issues involving accuracy and precision, like there are for windspeed measurements. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When it attained very severe cyclonic storm status on June 3" — awkward phrasing. I'd recommend "when it became a very severe cyclonic storm on June 3"...
  • "Gonu was tied for the strongest tropical cyclone in the entire northern Indian Ocean" — tied with which storm?
If they are tied for windspeeds, that would be sufficient. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on windspeeds its the strongest but having double checked the ATCR for 1991 i can confirm that it was unofficially tied with BOB 01 1991.Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't explain VSCS, but explain SCS in the following sentence. Why?
Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010 [16].

Action of 1 August 1801

edit
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel it meets the criteria of a featured article. XavierGreen (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no explanation for a modern reader of whose authority Tripoli came under and how it was able to go to war independently of any other power. It only needs to be brief, but there should be some clarification of this.
Done.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked terms should be linked in both the lead and the main body of the article as they appear.
I think i fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the bribes that they paid to Tripolitan officials in exchange for peace" - it wasn't peace they were bribing them for, but uninterrupted passage of shipping (it was effectively a protection racket). Can you expand/clarify this?
I think i explained this better now.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When word of these insults to American shipping reached Washington" - not neutral, "When word of these attacks upon American shipping" is a better way of phrasing it.
The problem with changing it to attacks is the fact that not all of the insults to American shipping were attacks, American vessels were forced to ferry Tripolitan diplomats to Turkey among other depredations (improperly flying American flags on vessels) many of the things the Tripolitans did were intended to be insulting so as to bait the Americans into conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, i changed it. The most of the other things happened earlier than i thought they had.XavierGreen (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with you keeping insults provided this addition information is included and explained. Its up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and force them into accepting peace" - I think this is a) vague and b) redundant. It should either be removed or explained more clearly (what were their objectives etc.)
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British possession of Malta" - possession is not a clear term in this context (and is technically inaccurate as Malta was ruled by a Maltese National Convention with a British president, Alexander Ball). I suggest "British naval base on Malta" as a more precise term
FixedXavierGreen (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph of the "Background" section you use the word "quite" too much, try to reduce it.
FixedXavierGreen (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you finish with "another four years", and I think this type of expansion would assist the rather abrupt ending of the main body of the article.
I expanded the last sentance a bit more.XavierGreen (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is non-essential, but it would look more professional if you listed the artists and dates in the captions for the images you have used.
Done.XavierGreen (talk)

Comments regarding 1a-b-c

  • Now supporting; my issues have been addressed. --Brad (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose gets "jerky" in spots; as one example: "Near the start of the First Barbary War, American diplomats began to refuse to agree to increases in the bribes that they paid to Tripolitan officials in exchange for safe passage through the Mediterranean Sea of United States flagged vessels." and also is a long unbroken sentence. I am of course far from being able to correct these problems but for whatever reason can spot them.
I think i fixed this one.XavierGreen (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please find an uninvolved editor to go over the text. I only gave one example but the first paragraph in the background section is especially bad. --Brad (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote more of the paragraph, anybetter?XavierGreen (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please find an uninvolved editor to go over the text. I only gave one example. --Brad (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have recast the first paragraph of the background to provide a slightly richer context. In doing so, I brought in details (cribbed from First Barbary War) that may not be supported by the cited source; I leave this to the nominator to check. I will pass over more of the article later. Magic♪piano 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've added an additional citation to support the changes.XavierGreen (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context of the article is a bit cloudy. USS President just passed FAC and you might want to look at her Barbary adventures as to why the ships were there to begin with.
  • You might be able to boost your research with Allen, Gardner Weld (1905). Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs. Boston, New York and Chicago: Houghton Mifflin. OCLC 2618279. which is considered an authoritative source that has been widely used in modern research. I'd bet your other sources have utilized this book already. As for Abbot, I've found him rather unreliable as a source mostly because he seems to take poetic license with the "actual dialog" in his narratives. In other words, he comes up with "tall tales" that don't appear in any other sources I've read. I've therefore dumped him as a source in the frigate articles I'm working on. --Brad (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I elaborated the ALT text a bit more.XavierGreen (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Dobbs book lacks publisher location
FixedXavierGreen (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one small additional point: capitalisation in book titles should reflect that on the book's actual cover. Thus (Boot) "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" and (Whelan) "Jefferson'a War: America's First War on Terror". Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i fixed these.XavierGreen (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've watched this evolve from a B-class article to its present state. I have two minor quibble. What does virtual independence mean? Do you mean autonomously from the Empire in its foreign relations? Second, while the writing is good, it is occasionally wordy, and you could probably tweak a few things for greater clarity. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the sentence in question has been changed to be more clear.XavierGreen (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date, source, and author should reflect information for the image, not the scan. So, for example, we need a source where this image can be found.
  • Is this an engraving of a drawing?
  • Please choose a license.
Its a drawing from the national archives, i didnt upload it but the correct details can be found on the page. Its a wikimedia commons image so idk if they have a different style of citing these things or not. But after some snooping i found it here.XavierGreen (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.archives.gov/research/military/navy-ships/sailing-ships.html[reply]
I can't quite figure out the publication date. Was this image published in 1878, as suggested by the uploaded data? How do we know that? I can't find a date of publication on the website. Is this an engraving that was published in the 1974 leaflet? Could you perhaps ask the uploader about the publication date, if you don't know it? Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the artist was really William Bainbridge Hoff, he died in 1903 [17], so it should be PD+100. However, I note that the military website listed the artist as N. Hoff - same person? Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And see January, Brendan (2009), The Aftermath of the Wars Against the Barbary Pirates, Twenty-First Century Books, p. 30 [18] for confirmation that this was an 1878 drawing (no info on original publication date) by William Bainbridge Hoff. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added that source to the image page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the image page. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date, source, and author should reflect information for the painting, not the scan. Also, be sure to include the death date of the artist, so that the PD claim is upheld. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this.

Support (conditional upon image issues being addressed) This article was clear and succinct. I know a little bit about the background for this event, although not the event itself. I thought that the article did a good job of providing context for the reader. It was engagingly written. I am unsure if there is more information available, as I haven't had time to check, but the sources used in the article appear to be reliable to me. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "the United States' Mediterranean Squadron"—Do people really use the apostrophe? Looks fussy.
I changed the lead, so this point is moot now.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tripolitan polacca Tripoli"—most people will wonder, as I still do, who the enemy was. This is background sorely needed in the lead. I'm usually the one saying "don't link geographical terms", but here, I think we need a link to know where Tripoli is (preferably to an historical section of an article). I know it's a city in modern-day Libya, but Libya as a state didn't exist then, did it? What was the deal? Ah, we get a glimmer of it in the "Background" section: more at the top, please, or readers will be confused. The link target for "Polacca" is pretty awful; perhaps you might consider improving it after this ...
The lead clearly states that the combatants were America and Tripoli. Tripoli was the capital of the Vilayet of Tripoli, there is nothing more than a stub on this polity but i have linked to it none the less. As the priciple combatant in the barbary wars, i dont think anyone looking at this will be confused as there were no other independent polities named tripoli at the time that the united states was at war with (there were no other independent polities named tripoli in existance at this point in history anyway).
  • Why is "morale", a common English word, linked? "Casualties" the same. "Prizes (legal)", ok link it once, but not twice, please.
They need to be linked in both the lead and the body via manual of style so i was told.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the independence of the United States of America": why not remove the last two words and add the "in [year]". It's now unlinked.
I changed this.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No hyphen after -ly adverbs: see WP:MOS.
I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. gap C. is wrapping, on my window width right now. Surely it's unspaced ...
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American government"—more usual to say [president's name] administration, isn't it, since the P. is the commander in chief. And I see "American" five times in four lines.
I think i fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "open fire upon"? on, to avoid the jingle sound, and because it's frightfully out of date nowadays. I see "upon" all over the place. Why?
I changed some of them and kept two or three. If you read naval histories, the word upon is quite common. The word is not obsolete in american english, which is the dialect in which this article is written.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have covered the battle in its entirety, most accounts in historical texts do not even go as far as this article does.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:24, 22 May 2010 [19].

Guy Fawkes

edit
Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 20:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes was just one of 13 conspirators involved in the plot to kill James I, but he has since become synonymous with the scheme. There must be very few people in Great Britain who do not know the name of the man whose effigy is ritually burnt each 5 November. We've tried to separate the man from the plot as best we can, hopefully readers will find this article of interest. Parrot of Doom 20:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guido is a dab link in the military career section. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link. Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead suggests cause of death was a broken neck, whereas the infobox says hanging. Did he jump off the scaffold before being hanged, or was his neck broken by the hanging?
  • I'm not keen on the phrasing of the first paragraph under "Childhood" - it seems a bit more awkward than the rest of the article
  • Pick either "8" or "eight" for Fawkes's age when his father died
  • Something seems off with the source for the conspirators image
  • "Duck and Drake inn" or "Duck and Drake Inn"?
  • You've got a few of the conspirators wikilinked multiple times, which is probably unnecessary
  • "fashionable Strand district" - what do you mean by "fashionable"?
  • Yes, but fashionable in what sense? Did people want to live there or build businesses there? Was it upper-class, or for those aspiring to the upper class? (maybe it's a regional expression, because I'm not familiar with it...)
  • The simplest answer is that "fashionable" is the word that the source uses, and it doesn't expand upon it. If you read The Strand it seems apparent that the area was fashionable because it was filled with wealthy, fashionable people. A bit like Notting Hill in London, I suppose. Parrot of Doom 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there another phrasing possible to replace "positive sounds"?
  • I'm a bit confused by the timeline under "Overseas" - he traveled overseas in May 1605, and during that trip he was reported to Cecil? Or was he reported in April 1605 by Turner? Also, Turner's report seems to be about Fawkes's initial arrival in England in 1604 - if so, then it's somewhat confusing to have a reference to April with no year right after a reference to May 1605 (if not, then maybe this needs to be more clearly explained?)
  • "made a check on" -> "checked on" or "visited"?
  • "Monteagle suspicions" -> "Monteagle's suspicions"
  • "where he remained defiant" - the phrasing suggests that he was interrogated within the King's privy chamber, which seems unlikely
  • "When asked by one of the lords what he was doing in possession of so much gunpowder..." - the quoted answer suggests a question phrased slightly differently - what he intended to use it for, perhaps?
  • He obviously gave more information than just his fake identity, so consider rephrasing "He said only..." - perhaps include something like "When questioned about his identity, Fawkes said only..."?
  • Consider translating the Latin quote from King James, perhaps in a footnote?
  • Transferred to the Tower of London from where?
  • The signature has no licensing info - I assume it's PD?
  • "their spectators" -> "the spectators"?
  • What is a wattled hurdle? Is it worth explaining here?
  • Date for Herber?
  • Trafford Publishing is no longer in Canada, it was relocated to somewhere in Indiana. Also, I would question their reliability, as they're essentially a vanity press.
  • Some overlap in categories: Category:Executed Gunpowder Plotters is a subcat of Category:English rebels, Category:People executed under the Stuarts and Category:History of Roman Catholicism in England. Also, given that Fawkes escaped the drawing and quartering, shouldn't he not be in Category:People executed by hanging, drawing and quartering? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  • He jumped off the scaffold before he'd put his head in the noose, so he wasn't hanged, the fall killed him. I've changed the infobox. Eye-witness accounts are vague. The method of hanging at that time was what's known as the short drop, in which the victim climbs a ladder, his head is put in a noose, and then the ladder is taken away. Accounts seem to suggest that Fawkes jumped off the ladder after his head was in the noose, thus breaking his neck, instead of waiting for the executioner to remove the ladder, so "death by hanging" seems to be correct. But even though already dead, he was still drawn and quartered. Hopefully this is all a bit clearer now.
  • First paragraph of the Childhood section has been rewritten.
  • I picked "eight".
  • I've clarified the source of File:Gunpowder Plot conspirators.jpg.
  • Duck and Drake Inn, changed..
  • I think I've caught all of the instances where a conspirator was wikilinked in the article body more than once. It's my habit though to wikilink again in the body of the article even there's a link in the lead.
  • "fashionable Strand district" - what do you mean by "fashionable"? I don't understand the question; I mean that it was a fashionable district of London.
  • Changed "positive sounds" to "positive noises", as in "... despite positive noises from the Spanish authorities".
  • Changed "made a check on" to "checked".
  • Changed "Monteagle suspicions" to "Monteagle's suspicions".
  • "He said only..." has been changed to "He identified himself as a ..."
  • I've rewritten the "their spectators" bit to avoid giving the impression that it was the spectators who were on the purpose-built scaffold.
  • Full details now included for Herber.
  • Trafford is an on-demand publisher, not quite the same as a vanity press. However, Fiona Bergsten is a local historian who worked closely with the Waad family in the preparation of her well-referenced book. It's unlikely that anyone is more knowledgable about the events surrounding Waad's interrogation and torture of Fawkes than she is.
  • To be honest, I hardly ever look at categories, so I suppose they've been like that for some time. Anyway, I've gone through and hopefully eliminated the redundant ones.

Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding the continental date thing (May/April), I've attempted to clarify this point. Basically Turner had some, but not all of the information. The report was incorrect, and anyway did not arrive on Catesby's desk until late November. Its just to show that Fawkes was well known over there, and that Salisbury had spies watching everything and everyone. Parrot of Doom 19:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linked hurdles. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • " the phrasing suggests that he was interrogated within the King's privy chamber, which seems unlikely" - unlikely, but true. One sources I have says in the King's bedchamber, in front of his privy council. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Transferred to the Tower of London from where?" - I'm not sure, the sources don't really elaborate. I think its safe to say he was hauled in front of the King, questioned, probably held somewhere in or near the King's residence, and then transferred to the Tower. It may have been the Palace of Westminster, I'll ask on James's article. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Blow you beggars back to Scotland" - clarified Parrot of Doom 20:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latin phrase - believe me I did think about this a few times, but in the end thought that it would be easy enough for anyone to Google it, if they desired. I can add a translation if you really want it "and so by degrees proceeding to the worst", but I think the meaning is already implied earlier in the sentence. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • I've switched it to "King James VI & I", as that's what he's called in his own article. I can't really help more with the "confusion" though, as that was his title; he was King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England, simultaneously. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:
    • Review, using the FAC criteria
    • Prose style - it reads well enough. I'm not sure it exactly explodes with life but I'd feel bad opposing on the basis of the prose. Feels like a unified article rather than a group effort, which is what I look for.
    • Comprehensive - I could have done with more about his time in Spain, if possible.
    • Neutral - doesn't seem either supportive of Guy or of those who oversaw his demise.
    • Stable - seemed like there was a lot of reversions late April but all seems calm now.
    • Lead - serves the article well although perhaps some of the detail in paragraph two could be left out so we get onto the plot more quickly which is, after all, why we know the man.
    • Appropriate structure - takes a chronological approach which seems the obvious and best option for the subject.
    • Consistent citations - I have not checked this.
    • Image use policy - I have not checked this, nor am I qualified to.
    • Length - at first it struck me as rather short. However, I note we have a FA of gunpowder plot which is far longer; so taking that into account this seems OK. But as mentioned I feel I'm left curious about his overseas military exploits, so I would welcome that being fleshed out if it is at all possible.
      • I've added a physical description of the man. I don't have anything else to add about his exploits in Spain, at that point he was rather good but otherwise unremarkable mercenary. Some sources suggest it was during this time that he developed an expertise in explosives, but neither of the two books I have in front of me mention anything about this, and it may therefore be incorrect to suggest its true. Parrot of Doom 13:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • --bodnotbod (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and references

  • Footnote 2: Information appears to lack a source.
  • Footnote 3: I wonder why it is necessary to detach the name "Ellen Harrington" into a footnote when it could easily be included in the text?
  • Footnote 4: Information appears to lack a source.

Othrewise, sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:24, 22 May 2010 [20].

Clemuel Ricketts Mansion

edit
Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Clemuel Ricketts Mansion, mostly known today as the Stone House, was built in 1852 as a hunting lodge and tavern, served as part of a hotel, and as the home of a lumber baron, whom Ricketts Glen State Park is named for (the only places where he did not cut the trees were around the house and the park). The house was included in the Historic American Buildings Surveyin 1936, has been part of a private real estate development since 1957, and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983. This article uses the FA on Joseph Priestley House as a model, and I believe it meets all of the FAC criteria. I want to thank Dincher and Niagara for their helpful peer review comments, Jezhotwells for the GA review, Ben Kouba on Flickr and User:Stone House on Commons for photos, and the gracious and anonymous person(s) who allowed me to see the house recently. It is a beautiful and historic house and I hope this article does it justice. Thanks in advance for any feedback, which I will do my best to respond to quickly, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is only the article on all of the English Wikipedia with "Clemuel" in its title. Really. ;-)

  • Support. An excellent article, professionally written and illustrated; I especially like the lead image and the panorama. I'm happy to support, but I have a short list of minor suggestions, as follows:
Lead
"The 1852 mansion is a two and a half story L-shaped structure with stone walls 2 feet (0.6 m) thick." - I would hyphenate "two-and-a-half-story" or recast as "The 1852 mansion is an L-shaped structure, two-and-a-half stories high, with stone walls 2 feet (0.6 m) thick."
"In 1913 a two and a half story... ". - Hyphens here too.
"The lake, surrounding land, and house were purchased by a group of investors in 1957, and became a private housing development." - Would active voice be better? Maybe "A group of investors bought the lake, surrounding land, and house in 1957 and developed them privately for housing and recreation"?
Thanks, I have adopted all of your suggestions here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Location
Would it be useful to add here that glaciers carved the lake? I didn't think of this until seeing the aerial view of the lake, which looks much like the Finger Lakes of New York.
I agree it looks very glacial - thanks for the observation. I will have to check on this - the source used here on geology mentions glacial striations on the lake shore, but does not say what created Ganoga Lake (it does say it existed before the most recent glaciation). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just curious. I am learning Pennsylvania geology by reading your articles. Finetooth (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some digging and found that the lake is in a shallow valley and was formed by a dam of glacial till at the southeast end - added a sentence on this and a ref here, and at the Ganoga Lake article (which is an FA). Thanks for getting this in there - will also look at a copy of the "Geology of Pennyslvania" when I am next in a library that has it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Curiosity satisfied. Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the book "The Geology of Pennsylvania" but it did not list Ganoga Lake in its index. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The rocks underlying the house and lake are gray sandstone with conglomerates and some siltstone, from the Mississippian Pocono Formation, and formed more than 340 million years ago." - Repetition of "Formation", ::formed". Also, active voice here too? Maybe "Rocks—gray sandstone with conglomerates and some siltstone—of the Mississippian Pocono Formation, more than 340 million years old, underlie the house and lake"? I'm assuming that all the rocks are from the same formation.
Thanks, used your wording. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
I think north–south takes an en dash rather than a hyphen.
"First floor plan... ". I'd hyphenate "first-floor" in the caption to eliminate ambiguity (plan for the first floor rather than first plan as distinct from subsequent plans).
"a large enclosed one story porch on the north and east sides" - I'd hyphenate "one-story".
"and two servants room and a bath in the finished attic" - Should that be "and two servant rooms and a bath in the finished attic"?
I made all of your suggested changes, thanks. I also changed the hyphens in east-west to n-dashes. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
Citation 2 says in part, "For example, Clemuel is listed as R.B. Ricketts father (instead of his uncle),... " - Make this possessive, "R.B. Ricketts' father"? Maybe a semicolon instead of a comma after "uncle"?
Yet another good catch, thanks. There were two commas in the note, so I made each a semicolon, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support, edits, kind words, and helpful suggestions, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your rapid response. I struck all but the glacier question, which I leave temporarily open out of curiosity. Finetooth (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: I'm slightly puzzled by the note attached to Ref 2 (McDonald), which as worded carries an implication that the source might be less than accurate in some respects. Is this the intended meaning?

Otherwise, all sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review. The short answer is that I was pointing out discrepancies in what appears to be an otherwise reliable source (these are the only such problems I found with it). The long answer is that calling Clemuel his father seems to just be a mistake, as does the number of dormers (though there are three dormers on the front of the 1913 wing, so I can understand the mix-up). All sources agree the hotel closed in 1903, and that the house became the family's summer home then. In some ways it makes more sense that the wooden addition was not torn down until 1903 as the NRHPO form says (the house is large, but the wooden addition was huge and much more suited to housing lots of guests). However, since two sources out of three said the wooden addition was torn down in 1897, I used that date, but reported the other year in the note. I can remove the note if you think it better. I just wanted to let someone who read the NRHP form know there are some minor issues with it. I used the NRHP ref once for a quotation in the lead, once in the history section for more recent material only it covers, and mostly for the architecture section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a very minor issue. A suggestion: you could soften the wording of the note slightly, removing the "for example" which implies the existence of other discrepancies. Perhaps something like: "In this account Clemuel is mistakenly listed as R.B. Ricketts' father (instead of his uncle); the date for razing the wooden addition used for the North Mountain House hotel is given as 1903 rather than 1897 as stated in sources such as William Reynold's Ricketts' history for the Historic American Buildings Survey, or Petrillo's book; three dormers are recorded as added to the west side of the house, when the drawings and photos show four." Your call, no quibbles from me. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for bringing this up. On further consideration, the article does not note that W.R. Ricketts' HABS history has several odd spellings such as "Clemel" for "Clemuel", or that Petrillo's book has some errors (unrelated to this, but he puts the lumber ghost town of Masten, Pennsylvania in the wrong county and has Loyalsock Creek flow the wrong way at Lopez). I changed the McDonald source note to a general note in the text after the hotel closed in 1903, that now reads "All sources agree that the North Mountain House hotel closed in 1903, but differ on the date that the wooden addition used for the hotel was torn down. William Reynold's Ricketts' history for the HABS and Petrillo's book both report it was razed in 1897,[1][2] while McDonald's NRHP nomination form gives the year as 1903.[3]". I think this is more neutral and hope it reads better. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am experiencing computer issues at home and may not be able to get online this weekend (from about 7 hours from now until Monday morning). Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:24, 22 May 2010 [21].

Rogue River (Oregon)

edit
Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rogue River begins near Crater Lake National Park in southern Oregon in the United States and flows generally west through three geologic provinces to the Pacific Ocean. Known for its salmon runs, whitewater rafting, and rugged scenery, it was one of the original eight rivers named in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. At one point, the entire river flows about 250 feet (76 m) through a lava tube. Along its lower reaches, mail is delivered by one of the two remaining mail-boat services in the nation. The only dinosaur fragments ever found in Oregon were discovered near the mouth of this river. There's lots more. Can I tempt you with any of this?

My thanks to User:Ruhrfisch, who peer-reviewed the article. Thanks also to User:Little Mountain 5 for his images and good advice and to User:Shannon1, who created the watershed map. Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to check these. Finetooth (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - beautifully illustrated, I've always wanted to visit Oregon and this article only makes that feeling stronger. The only quibble I have is the inclusion of the locator map in the infobox. The article doesn't really need it. I don't have a problem if the editors wish to keep it. Dincher (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. I agree that in this case the locator map adds little not duplicated by the watershed map; I have removed the locator map. Finetooth (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing it. The infobox looks much better. Dincher (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impeccably written and packed full of wonderful images. Just have one minor comment: would the last image in the Dams section be better moved up one paragraph? On my monitor it overlaps into the next section. BigDom 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. The overlap doesn't occur on my monitor, but it's close. I moved the image up one paragraph, as you suggested. Please let me know if that doesn't solve the problem. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have done the trick. Looks fine now. BigDom 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources commnets: How about this for a nitpick? In the bibliography, to maintain alphabetic sequence Dodds should be listed before Dorband. Tut tut. Otherwise, all sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yow! Good catch. Fixed. Thank you for checking the sources. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning to support.

  • First sentence, 2nd para of lead "People have lived along the main stem and its tributaries for at least 8,500 years." I would not normally begin a new para without making explicit reference to the article subject, eg "People have lived along the Rogue River's main stem and tributaries for at least 8,500 years."
  • I would not have thought "native" (as in " European explorers made first contact with the native people") was the right term. It sounds rather Victorian. I would have thought "American Indians" might be a preferred nomenclature, but as a non-American, I can't be sure.
  • "about 181,300 (rounded to the nearest hundred)" If it is "about", then i don't think we need to be told the rounding!
  • I thought some of the detail on geology started to go beyond what was required in an article about the actual river. It could be a little more focussed (most obvious in the subsection on Klamath mountains.

Might get to other pts later. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Rest looks fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article and for your suggestions. I agree with the first three, and I've substituted "Rogue River" for "main stem" in 2nd para of the lead, replaced "native" with Native American (Indian) on first use of "native", and deleted the parenthetical remark about rounding. On your fourth point, I think a geological overview of the whole watershed is very important, but I'm willing to try to pare this section down. Can you suggest anything specific? Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I've indicated my support. I'd see if anyone else has concerns about the scope of the geology. If no-one else raises it as a query, then leave it as it is. If others have concerns, then i will look at it for specific suggestions. It is an excellent article. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, kind words, and willingness to seek consensus. Finetooth (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to say that I think the Geology section is fine as it is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:24, 22 May 2010 [22].

Transandinomys bolivaris

edit
Nominator(s): Ucucha 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rare rice rat from Central America, Colombia, and Ecuador characterized by extremely long whiskers. The article covers the rat's complex taxonomic history, unremarkable anatomy (apart from the whiskers, that is, which are apparently unique), and poorly known ecology. I believe it covers all available information and the article has been improved by Jimfbleak's helpful GA review. Any comments and reviews are welcome. Ucucha 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links or dead external links (full review later). Sasata (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Formatting:-

  • Clarification requested on the numbers appearing at the ends of some of the "Literature cited" lines. It is not clear, for instance, what 29(4):511–514 means. Perhaps Volume 29 No. 4 pp. 511–514, but if so, this needs to be stated.
    • It means what you inferred, but I don't think that needs to be stated; this is a standard way to format this information, at least in the field I'm working in.
  • Gómez-Laverde et al: what is the purpose of the bare link? In the same line we have "In IUCN. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species." Is the repetition necessary?
  • I notice that a couple of citations are to "figure 1" and "table 5" respectively. Could page numbers be added?

Otherwise, all sources look good, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! Ucucha 11:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I tried, without success, to find any literature that was "missing" from the article. Another high-quality effort. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Comments: You seem to be successfully applying recommendations for improvements from past FACs, and this makes it difficult for me to find stuff to nitpick about! Here is my measly list of suggestions. Sasata (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Ucucha 10:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • synonym should be linked on its first use in the 1st para of taxonomy
    • Done.
  • "Ronald Pine reviewed Oryzomys bombycinus in 1971, when 59 specimens of it were known, and gave the first records from Nicaragua and Ecuador." verb "gave" sounds odd to me, maybe "reported"?
    • I didn't use that because I used it for the Honduran record a few sentences further down. Now changed to "first recorded the species".
  • although all image captions have fullstops, I don't think any need them
    • Done.
  • suggest swapping gracile (cool, but uncommon word) for slender
    • Done.
  • link enamel
    • Done.
  • "areas with mean temperature above" -> temperatures
    • Done.
  • "… still in juvenile pelage." -> fur
    • Done.

Comments This may have already been discussed, but can't a picture of the actual animal be taken/found.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few, but all are copyrighted (in Musser et al. 1998; Tirira 2007; Reid 2009). Ucucha 10:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same weird extra white space above the table in "Description" that you fixed in a previous FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (and also in the next one). Ucucha 11:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:24, 22 May 2010 [23].

Speechless (Michael Jackson song)

edit
Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. "Speechless" is probably one of Michael Jackson's least-known songs post-Motown, and is a Marmite-type track that people either like or loathe. I look forward to any comments or suggestions. Pyrrhus16 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images and sources (3, 1c):
    • File:Speechless.ogg. I feel you need a stronger tie-in with prose to justify this clip. There isn't that much specific critical commentary about elements in the clip, and the composition notes are straightforward enough that I don't really see why we need the audio to go with it (okay, I got it, that's the chorus.)
    • What makes MusicNotes.com reliable? I'm concerned about using it as a source since at best they did an arrangement of the piece, and so it may not hold true for the actual song. Another iffy source is The Daily Collegian. I can't necessarily argue with Omnibus Press' record, but the fact that there are two bios of Jackson released the year he died does not exactly assure me of rigorous editorial policies and fact-checking contained in the volumes (if you've ever been in the publishing industry you would know how fishy that seems). If possible I would try and find other sources for the two statements that those books use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Musicnotes.com was deemed reliable at the reliable sources noticeboard, where it was said that information regarding a song's composition can be sourced to them as long as they are attributed in the prose of the article. I've removed the Daily Collegian source, as there are plently of other sources for the critical reception section. The 2009 Grant book is just an updated version of the past edition of the book. It just has an updated foreword and ending, to reflect Jackson's death; the information regarding "Speechless" and Invincible has not been changed. I've removed the other 2009 book, as it just backed up what the Grant book said. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many good thing here but the lead could be tightened a bit. The song is a ballad and this could be established in the first sentence: "Speechless" is a ballad written by Michael Jackson following a water balloon fight with youngsters in Germany, and is included on his tenth studio album, Invincible (2001)." It isn't necessary to define Jackson as an "American recording artist" because he's known worldwide as such and his name is linked for further information. Further along I think this might be more effective: "Sony Music Entertainment executives responded positively to "Speechless" following a pre-release preview. The ballad was released as a promotional single, and received mixed reviews focused upon lyrics, composition, and Jackson's a capellas." 'A capella' (in the chapel) is correct for musicians worldwide and should be retained regardless of a variant spelling in a source. In the "Composition" section: "The sheet music states that the song was composed in a B♭ major key..." can be reduced to "The song is composed in B♭." "Is" rather than "was". The capital B in B♭ indicates a major key so "a B♭ major key" is redundant. The discussion of lyrics in the section should be a separate paragraph, and could precede the discussion of the musical composition because lyrics are generally written before being set to music. SoniaSyle (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. The lead of the article is based off of several recent FA song articles, and it is standard to introduce the topic as ""[Such-and-Such]" is a song by [Nationality] recording artist [Person]". The first sentence that you proposed is good, but a bit of mouthful and perhaps too much information to give readers in the opening line. My other concern for this article is not making the lead too short; it is currently around the recommended length for an article of this size. "Bam Thwok" is a slightly shorter but comparative song article of FA status. In regard to your other comments, I've re-arranged the composition/lyrics section as you suggested, changed the spelling to "a cappella" to match Wikipedia's article on it, switched "was" to "is", and removed the redundant "major key". I've not shortened "The sheet music states that the song was composed..." part, per my comment above to David Fuchs; it has to be made clear in the prose that the sheet music is being attributed for information regarding the composition of a song. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
  • Clarify – If the song was later released as a promotional single, then why the infobox still refers it to an album-track?
Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second section "Lyrics and composition" – The word composition entails to both music structure as well as lyrics hence having that as the second word is repeatition. Either change it to Music and lyrics else leave just Composition.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".. with the magazine Vibe" —> can be just written as Vibe magazine.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson's first solo studio album since his 1995 HIStory" — seems redundant.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally wikilinks are not placed in quotes, but a capella needs a link somewhere. Might not be recognizable to somebody without much knowledge in music.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The symbol ♭ – use the {{music}} template wherever you are using the sign so that readers for whom the music fonts are not loaded, will be able to still see the notations.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracklisting – You can have the numerics for the tracklisting and the bulleting for the heading as all the songs normally do.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are my two cents on teh article. Overall, it looks good. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks yo Crystal for the quick fixing of the concerns I posted above. Looks ready to pass. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and for supporting the article for FAC. Crystal Clear x3 08:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you both. Pyrrhus16 11:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but in "post-production and release section" it says: "A remixed version of "You Rock My World" featuring rapper Jay-Z served as the single's B-side"-> Could be in this way: "A remixed version of "You Rock My World", featuring rapper Jay-Z, served as the single's B-side" and also I don't see that the song is in the infobox. TbhotchTalk C. 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting the article for FAC. I've corrected the sentence that mentions the single's b-side, but I'm not sure what you mean about the song not being in the infobox, could you clarify? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 02:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to "You Rock My World (remix)" should be in the main infobox in the | B-side = section. TbhotchTalk C. 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I've added mention of the b-side into the song's infobox. Crystal Clear x3 02:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks like editor as resolved all issued raised.. Only suggestion is to move Portal for ref section to perhaps Tack list or above template at bottom ..it affects the reflist for those who use firefox....Moxy (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, I've moved the MJ portal tag into the 'See also' section. Crystal Clear x3 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Still a bit uncomfortable with the prose. I think "the track came to fruition when Jackson was inspired etc." a bit stiff-sounding. Is 'track' synonymous with 'song' or 'ballad'? I don't think so. The sentence could be reworked: "The song is a ballad and was composed in its entirety after Jackson enjoyed a water balloon fight with youngsters in Germany. It realized its final form in studio collaboration with musicians Jeremy Lubbock, Brad Buxer, etc." I'd prefer to see the "Composition" section re-titled "Lyrics and music" because this section doesn't really discuss the actual composition of the song. Delete the "a" before "B♭". I'm very uncomfortable with the word "aphasic". The link tells me this is a disorder caused by lesions on the brain not love. "Aphasic" is not a synonym for feeling at a loss for words when in the presence of one's beloved. Use "wordless" or "at a loss for words" instead: "The lyrics to "Speechless" are about being rendered at a loss for words by the power of love."
The "Writing and recording" section could br reworked. A third paragraph could begin at: "Speechless" was digitally edited by" for the technical aspects of production.
This paragraph could be reworked: "Jeremy Lubbock worked with the musician in arranging and conducting an orchestra..." When I read "Arranging and conducting" I thought this meant Lubbock arranged the chairs for the orchestra. "Arranging the song for orchestra" is what is intended I believe. Clarify. In listing members of an orchestra, the strings are listed first, with the violinists leading the parade, then violists, cellists, and finally bassists. Strings are followed by winds, brass, and finally percussion (including piano, or other keyboards). I've rewritten the "Writing and recording" section (though I don't insist it be accepted) but I think this reworking clarifies some bits and pieces here and there and is closer to what I would like to see in this section:
Michael Jackson wrote "Speechless" after having a water balloon fight with children in Germany. In an interview with Vibe magazine, the musician commented, "I was so happy after the fight that I ran upstairs in their house and wrote 'Speechless'. Fun inspires me. I hate to say that, because it's such a romantic song." He added, "But it was the fight that did it. I was happy, and I wrote it in it's entirety right there. I felt it would be good enough for the album. Out of the bliss comes magic, wonderment, and creativity."
Jeremy Lubbock arranged the song for orchestra in collaboration with Jackson and conducted the studio ensemble. Strings comprised Peter Kent, Gina Kronstadt, Robin Lorentz, Kirstin Fife and John Wittenberg on violins, and Novi Novoq and Thomas Tally on violas. Brad Buxer supplied keyboards with gospel singer Andrae Crouch and The Andrae Crouch Singers providing backing vocals.
"Speechless" was digitally edited by Buxer and Stuart Brawley, and was mixed by Bruce Swedien, who later said, "Everything with Michael is a stand-out moment but an absolutely gorgeous piece of music called 'Speechless' was really an event. Michael sings the first eight bars a cappella. At the end, he closes it off a cappella – it was Michael's idea to add the a cappella parts."
This sentence from the section: ""Speechless" was the only song from Invincible written solely by the entertainer" could easily be moved to the "Lyrics and music" section to expand it. Use "with words and music" instead of "written": "Speechless" was the only song from Invincible with words and music solely by the entertainer." SoniaSyle (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've changed "aphasic" to "at a loss for words", removed the "a" before "B♭", and changed "track" to "song". I agree that the article could be reworked (just like any article could), but I don't feel it needs to be reworked, so that's all I've done. I think it's pretty obvious what arranging an orchestra involves, but if not, then apologies, because that's all the source says. It doesn't elaborate and I don't want to get into OR territory. In regard to changing 'composition' to 'lyrics and music', I'm not entirely fussed (that's what I had it as before), but Legolas said above that "The word composition entails to both music structure as well as lyrics." So, I'll leave that as it is for now, unless an independent editor chimes in. I personally feel that your suggestion of "'Speechless' was the only song from Invincible with words and music solely by the entertainer", is less clear than what is in the article. It is also not backed up by what the source says. In regard to moving that piece of information, I feel that it is most relevant to the writing and recording section. Pyrrhus16 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe some aspects of this article need to be reworked and I've made suggestions. The prose could be reworked for flow and clarity. "Arranged" (I think) means Jackson's song was "arranged for orchestra" which is not entirely clear as the material now stands: "Jeremy Lubbock worked with the musician in arranging and conducting an orchestra." It could also mean "gathered together" as in "Lubbock gathered together and conducted the orchestra." Did Jackson also conduct the orchestra? I'm not certain what this sentence is trying to say. As I mentioned, the musicians should be listed in a certain order. Violinists first, followed by violists, cellists, and bass players. Winds and brass next and percussion (keyboards) last of all. This is traditional. I don't see that in applying this suggestion anything is lost and I'm wondering why the nominator cannot cooperate. I'm glad to see the nominator has reworked some of the material but I've made some good points for improving the article which the nominator chooses to fight. I sense the article was written by someone unfamiliar with musical terminology, writing about music, etc. and I think that person needs to take some advice from those who are familiar with such. The nominator's resistance is inexplicable. I cannot in good conscience support a promotion to FA level because I think the article needs to be reworked for flow and clarity. SoniaSyle (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source does not elaborate as to what "arranged" means. I cannot expand on it if it's not in the source. Also, there is no rule anywhere that says that instrumentalists have to be ordered in such-and-such a way, and there is nothing wrong with the order that is used in the article. "I don't see that in applying this suggestion anything is lost." I don't see that in not applying this suggestion anything is lost. Your "my way or no way" attitude is becoming tiring now. Pyrrhus16 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to delegate - SoniaSyle (talk · contribs) recently reported me to ANI, claiming I was showing "ownership issues" over an article she wanted to push an anti-Jackson point of view on. She reported me because I didn't allow her to push her agenda and because I didn't cater to her every suggestion. SoniaSyle ended up being the individual who was blocked after going to ANI; for disruption and edit-warring. After the block had expired, she attempted to review an article I had worked on that another editor (kindly, but without my knowledge) had nominated at GAN on my behalf. I withdrew the nomination, mainly because I thought the article was not quite ready, but also because I felt that SoniaSyle would hold the review hostage until the article was hacked to pieces and reworded unnecessarily to the way she wanted it. And now, SoniaSyle turns up here, opposing this article in what I view as a spiteful act of disruption and wikihounding. Pyrrhus16 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing a clear conflict of interest here because of past dealings with each other (if this is the case). I believe multiple third parties should look at the article from the beginning and not take into account what was said here. Both of you know what is needed for an FA article this is not the first you too have been involved in. SoniaSyle comments seem valid (in around about way), but this could just be a difference in grammar used by each other...because both of you have a "style to your writing" that seem to be in-conflict (meaning one likes things said one way and the other another way - yet they mean the same thing). What SoniaSyle has pointed out i see as just rewording not adding any real content, however meaning and interpretation is important. I was not confused when reading it, but like i said before lets just wait for a few more experienced editors to read it over and comment.Moxy (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated advice, Moxy. I have welcomed several of the suggestions posted by SoniaSyle, but I'm not happy about a) an editor wanting me to reword parts of an article to say things that are not backed up by the citations, b) opposing because it is not the way they would have written it, and c) opposing the FAC of an article when they have an apparent conflict of interest. Pyrrhus16 19:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I truly think the prose in this article is awkward in places, is somewhat muddy, and needs to be clarified. This is why I oppose the article's promotion. Here is an example: "Sony Music Entertainment executives were given a pre-release preview of "Speechless" and responded positively to the ballad." More concise and encyclopedic in style: "Sony Music Entertainment executives responded positively to a pre-release preview of the ballad." Somewhat muddy: "Their comments focused on the a cappellas featured on the track, as well as the song's lyrics and composition." I'm not sure "composition" is the right word here. It is not necessarily a synonym for "music". I think "music" is clearer: "Their comments targeted Jackson's a capellas, his lyrics, and the music." I still think this is not the best but I'm trying to stay close to the original. There are other instances of lack of clarity in the article that I feel need reworking and this is why I oppose promotion. Before I forget: "Linear ..." at 5 in the Notes at page end probably should read "Liner ...". SoniaSyle (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the "liner" typo, the sentence pertaining to the executives responses to the song, and replaced the word "composition" with "music". If you could, can you please cite "other instances of lack in clarity", I'd be more than happy to correct every little problem with the article so that you could strike your oppose. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 02:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sony Music Entertainment executives responded positively to a pre-release preview of the ballad", doesn't make entirely clear that they were the only ones given the preview. As I have said to you before, there is no prize for writing an article in the least amount of words possible. If a few extra words have to be used for clarity, then that is what's done. I'm not fussed about changing "composition" to "music", so have done that. I don't like the word "targeted", as it suggests to me that all of the reviewers were negatively attacking the song, which is not the case. Also, I don't see a problem with the phrase in the article. Your comments seem to be based on preference rather than serious prose issues. I'm not too keen on rewording the entire article to suit a single editor who I have had conflict with in the past few days. So, I'd like to wait for independent commentators before making further changes to the prose. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 10:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this offer very, very gracious, Crystal Clear. It's late now and I'm tired. (I had a busy day gardening and walking and bathing a neighbor's dog! Whew!) I will get busy with this first thing in the morning! Thanks! SoniaSyle (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article meets FA criteria. For me, it already belongs to FA category. Speaking about the content, there is nothing more to be written or added. Speechless is one of the less known MJ's songs ,it is impressive how did the contributors find so many material about it. Gramatically, I would change in the introduction where it says: Jackson collaborated with musicians including... , instead of including, I would put such as. Also, in section Live performances, I would say like Crystal did in Butterflies article, that Michael Jackson didn't performed the song on his 30th solo anniversary nor later. But he had rehearsed it... The rest is great: infobox is perfect, the introduction, the references... everything. Well done!--MajklDzekson (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bleh, everyone else already stole all of the correction comments. :P Aren't you glad now, Pyrrhus, that I argued so much in the AfD to keep the article? One thing I would like to ask is, is it necessary to have a cappella linked both in the lead and then again in the Composition section? I'm not sure if there's some sort of rule for that or not, since I don't think the article is like some others, where they are long enough that it is right to wikilink some important parts again further down. This article isn't like that, so is it really necessary? SilverserenC 10:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, I still don't think it's that notable. :) But, seeing as it was decided to be kept, then it may as well be turned into a good quality article. Hmm, a cappella probably doesn't need linked twice in such a short article, so I'll remove the second link. Thanks for your support. :) Pyrrhus16 11:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed the article during its GA nomination and passed it after some minor improvements. Its even better now thanks to the improvements made during FAC so I'm happy to offer my support. One thing I would personally like to see is some sort of link added to "... and sung in a vocal range from F4 to D♭5", either to Scientific pitch notation or Vocal range. I'm a musician but the only reason I know what "F4 to D♭5" means is because a similar issue came up in another article I reviewed and I did a bit of research. Cavie78 (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss all of SoniaSyle's objections in the way that they apparently have been. Although I'm indifferent to any supposed rule about ordering musicians by the instruments they play, she does make a good point about the prose, which is certainly still awkward in places. A few examples:
  • I agree that SoniaSyle often makes good points, but sometimes criticism is more welcomed when it's from someone that wasn't calling for you to be blocked a few days ago. Lol. :) Anyway, thanks for your comments. I've responded below.
Lead
  • "Sony Music Entertainment executives were given an exclusive preview of "Speechless" before its release, and responded positively to the ballad. It was later released as a promotional single ...". Why "later"? It could hardly have been released sooner. The repetition of "release" is slightly jarring as well.
  • I've removed the "later" and changed the second "release" to "issued".
Composition
  • "The lyrics to 'Speechless' are about being rendered at a loss for words by the power of love." This doesn't really make sense. I've never seen the phrase "rendered at" before; what does it mean. Also, this text is very similar to that in the box just to the right. There's no need to say the same thing twice.
  • I've changed to "The lyrics to 'Speechless' are about becoming lost for words due to love." Is this better? I've also changed the words in the box to "The lyrics to the song are about being in love."
Critical reception
  • This is the section I'm least happy with. I guess the temptation here, because the article would otherwise be so short, is to include every single review ever published, but the effect just reads like a list without the bullets. Is the opinion of a reviewer writing in a provincial newspaper like the Deseret News really noteworthy, for instance? Or a student newspaper like The Chronicle?
  • You're right, it is tempting to cram as much information as you can in. I've removed the two opinions that you mentioned. Do you feel any further ones should be removed or anything else should be done in this section?
  • "The New York Post proclaimed that "Speechless" was "lullaby-like" ...". Proclaimed?
  • Changed to "said".
  • The word "while" is being used incorrectly in this section, as in "The Dayton Daily News' Ron Rollins described the track as a "pretty love song", while Tim Perzyk of the Duke Chronicle stated that the a cappellas of "Speechless" displayed a "disturbing vocal androgyny ...". Were they both doing so at the same time? "While" implies simultaneity.
  • Ah, I've changed "while" to "and". Does this work better?
Live performance
  • I can't make head nor tail of this section. It's exceedingly short, which makes me wonder whether a standalone section is warranted, but it starts off with an account of Jackson's death!

Malleus Fatuorum 12:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that is a short section and the temptation was to plump it slightly with the info regarding Jackson's death. I'm not sure where the best place to put that bit of information is. I've added it to the end of the "Post-production and release" section. Does it work okay there? And thanks again for your comments. Much appreciated. Pyrrhus16 13:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think that after the changes you've made this is pretty much there now. I'm still unconvinced by a couple of the reviews, the final one from The Olympian, for instance, and I'd probably drop that one – circulation of 33,800 doesn't sound like a very significant newspaper to me. I'm also not sure about including the quote from Rick de Yampert of The Daytona Beach News-Journal in the Composition section. Is Rick de Yampert's opinion of especial interest? These are small points though, and overall I think you've probably done as much as can be done with this kind of promotional recording. Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding The Olympian, it's not necessarily as insignificant as its circulation makes it appear. Olympia is only a small town in Washington, but as the home of K Records and many of the acts associated with it (and of Nirvana and their associated acts) it has the same status with respect to the US indie music scene that Manchester has to its European counterpart, or Detroit to soul. Although Jackson was a Motown act and not by any stretch a part of the indie movement, I'd expect the music critics for the local papers in Olympia to have a disproportionate influence than might be expected from their circulation figures. – iridescent 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I know that the US doesn't have the same national newspaper coverage that we do anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Pyrrhus16 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not too fussed about any remaining prose anomalies; the article is short enough that anything that's brought up should be resolvable in a matter of minutes. It's on the content side that I think the article falls down. There are too many gaps—and attempts to paper over them. The release section tells us nothing useful save that that song was released in 2001. When in 2001? In which countries? How did it chart in the US and worldwide? How many copies did it sell? Was there a music video? Instead, the section is given over to praise from executives from Jackson's record label. That they were given an "exclusive preview" before the album's launch I would think is a given. Similarly, that they would praise it to high heaven is a dead certainty. They wouldn't diss a song or an album on which many of their jobs depended, so their praise is meaningless. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into fleshing the article out, but I don't think it's been entirely successful. All the best, Steve T • C 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't released as a regular single. It is a promotional recording, so it would only have been issued to a handful of radio stations and journalists. Promotional singles are not available to the general public to buy, so "Speechless" wouldn't have charted or sold any copies. Music videos are mainly used to promote a regular single, that is probably why "Speechless" didn't have one. It is also why the song is not that well-known. Regular singles promoted with music videos are better known than album tracks, which "Speechles" basically is. Pyrrhus16 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to call me a tool, or the equivalent in your culture of origin. :-) I should have followed the link. I assumed the term was synonymous with that for a regular single (which is a promotional item for an album, usually, leading to my confusion). I've struck my oppose, but the comments about the executives still stand. Oh, and sorry. :) Best, Steve T • C 14:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I'm not concerned with things like the order in which musicians are listed, and the prose issues have been resolved. I do agree that the "Critical reception" section is large, but can't see an obvious way to trim it, given that I assume the intention is to show that reviewers generally had strong feelings for or against it. Has anyone released any cover versions (other than this abomination)? I realise that a full legacy section for a song even most fans of Jackson's haven't heard of is probably not possible, but ending on "Critical reception" seems a bit abrupt. – iridescent 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, Ghost are the only artists to have covered "Speechless" and I don't even think they are that notable. The song isn't that well-known and it isn't an influential track either. When the promotional single factor is taken away, "Speechless" is just an album track from Jackson's lowest-selling studio album since the Motown era. It doesn't really have a legacy in the same that "Billie Jean" or "We Are the World" has. Pyrrhus16 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


OK: can "documentary–concert" have a hyphen, please, not an en dash? Tony (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 13:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 17:51, 18 May 2010 [24].

Halo 3: ODST

edit
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article nomination previously archived due to inactivity. I still contend it meets FA criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Subzerosmokerain
  • One comment, the final reference on the page is messed up, it looks like someone was bracketing a title and just made some weird title. (Is an actual reviewer needed? I could become the actual reviewer, but I will not show leeway at all to the Halo Franchise.) Also, in the infobox, "Xbox 360" (more the Xbox part) is spelled in all caps, looks pretty unprofessional. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, All right, then i'm on board. Many times you are referring to ODST and ODSTs, can you please make it obvious when you are referring to the soldiers and when you are referring to the game? (At least in the beginning paragraph refer to it commonly being called ODST instead of Halo: ODST). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence sounds very awkward in the intro paragraph: "Instead of featuring recognizable characters such as the Master Chief from previous games, the developers focused on the ODSTs." either take out the phrase "the master chief" or the phrase "from previous games" just to make it flow better. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Chief's damage-absorbing energy shield" Um, when did we start referring to him as "the Chief"? And what is this damage-absorbing energy shield in the first place? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the gameplay of ODST bears a strong resemblance to previous Halo titles, the player does not assume the role of the enhanced human supersoldier Master Chief." You should mention Master Chief or "The Master Chief" is the protagonist of teh previous games in this sentence. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence containing "...ODST ships with Halo 3's multiplayer game modes contained on a separate disc...". you really wouldn't use ships in this context. "Ships" sounds likes it is in a future tense, you should speak of it in a present tense. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, In the second paragraph of Setting and characters there is one reference for that entire paragraph, sentences like "it was used to enhance the storyline" sound like WP:OR, did anyone notable say that it was suposed to enhance the story? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game's protagonist is the unnamed Rookie, a new member of the Orbital Drop Shock Troopers. Troopers, known as ODSTs or Helljumpers, often deploy in small, one-man Human Entry Vehicles (HEVs), launched from spaceships in the upper atmosphere" Helljumpers? The source clearly does not state Helljumpers. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportWell, there could be more issues, but I'd have to intentionally look for all of them as to impede its featured elevation. Definitely a good enough article for Featured status. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by H3llkn0wz
  • Comment. Prose says "85.97%", infobox says "85.47%". Anyway, it looks really good. I admit I didn't read thoroughly but may later.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no one should have any qualms about ODST’s value as a [US]$60 offering!" should ODST be italic? Other places (i.e. roughly two-thirds of ODST's combat feels very much like a traditional Halo game"" do use italics). —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recalled Staten, "we realized that in Halo we do a pretty..." - cannot make sense of this sentence/quote. Is "Recalled Staten" a name or...?
  • Curly (typographical) apostrophes:
    • "we realized that in Halo we do a pretty good job of describing the clash of these military industrial complexes, but it really is the soldiers’ story,” and Halo 3: ODST offered
    • "no one should have any qualms about ODST’s value as a [US]$60 offering!"
    • ""if we’d never said the words 'expansion pack' we would have see..."
    • Schiesel, Seth (2009-09-23). "Visiting New Mombasa? It’s One Dangerous Burg"
That probably borders on nitpicking, but per WP:PUNC for consistency couldn't hurt. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the commas. To your query, it's "Recalled Staten" as in "Staten (the person) recalled {the verb}." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It reads very weird to me that way. I haven't seen a construct used that way before. Why not just "Staten recalled, "...""? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of style, really. I think it's a bit more active and less repetitious that way; I'm fairly sure it's grammatically correct. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Category "Xbox 360 games" needed if there is "Xbox 360-only games"?
  • Template "Bungie Studios" redirects to "Bungie", any reason former is used? Future template incentive?

Support. Seems very well done. Except Recalled Staten. I have nightmares about this. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  22:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments:

  • Ref. 5: This supports the statement: "The player's head-up display (HUD) includes a "VISR" mode that outlines enemies in red, allies in green, and important items in yellow." Where in the source is this verified?
  • Refs 7 and 15 are to the same source. One has a page number, the other not.
  • Ref. 44: What is "Music4Games"? How could I verify this citation?
  • Ref. 115: This is cited to Time, italicised to suggest the magazine. Surely it should be cited to the Techland website (of which Time Inc. is joint publisher with CNN)?

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 17:51, 18 May 2010 [25].

John Lennon

edit
Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A self-confessed "loudmouthed lunatic musician" with a reputation for disruptive behaviour, hardened cynicism and physical violence; a searching, gentle soul who, before being murdered in 1980, made an indelible mark on humanity with his compassion and his iconic songs. The founder of the Beatles was both, and more. With acknowledgement to Casliber (since I can think of no synonymous phrase that approaches this one), have at it! PL290 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images. What is the point of File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG, and can we get an wp:otrs on File:Lennon&mccartney.png Fasach Nua (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point of File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG is the same as the point of File:Lennon Ono Trudeau 1969 c.jpg: each supplements an article section whose topic is Lennon's wife (first and second, respectively) by depicting him with her at a point in time that is within a few years of their marriage. This provides a dimension of insight into the nature of these people, as they appeared at the time under discussion, that words alone cannot express. I've updated the Cynthia rationale to that effect. I don't understand your second question, which doesn't identify any particular issue and is, I assume, directed at someone else. PL290 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image fails wp:nfcc and thus it's inclusion causes the article to fail FAC, the otrs in this instances is a quality assurance system, to ensure images come from the specified source. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have a concern over an image; please state which of the two cited images you refer to, and the grounds for your assertion that it "fails wp:nfcc", so that appropriate corrective action (if any) can be identified. PL290 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns over both images, the image failing nfcc, is the only image nfcc applies to Fasach Nua (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach Nua, I am sincerely grateful to you for your willingness to contribute time and effort to this review (and to recent image reviews at FAC generally; a much-needed and valuable contribution). However, in the present case you have not yet provided any specific rationale that can be addressed. I admit I am surprised that you ask the point of Lennon's wife's image. Your doing so led me to try and read between the lines of your question, as a result of which I identified and implemented an improvement to her fair use rationale. You remain silent on whether your concern was in fact in that area, and, if so, whether the action I took as a result of my guesswork has addressed it to your satisfaction. May I ask you again to please state your specific grounds for concern, in order that any corrective action that's needed can be identified (please see the FAC review process and the review FAQ for further information about stating actionable objections). Thank you again for your contribution. PL290 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image that I am concerned about is File:Lennon&mccartney.png, to get a high quality popular culture image from this era is very rare, and we need to be 100% sure it is free, therefore I would like the uploader to confirm that they own and licence the image as described using the WP:OTRS system.
  • The second issue is the picture File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG in which the images is to show what the two individuals looked like, an additional image of John Lennon is not needed as there is plenty of free images it the article so fails WP:NFCC 1 for this purpose. The second function is showing what Cynthia looked like, and to know this in any great detail is not necessary to understand the concept of John Lennon, thus failing WP:NFCC 8.
I hope this helps clarify the issues Fasach Nua (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer File:Lennon&mccartney.png kept, and appropriately verified, it is an exceptionally good picture Fasach Nua (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it would be nice to keep if possible, but I agree with your assessment that this now appears very unlikely. I've sent an OTRS request anyway, and if it does turn out the image can be kept after all, I'll reinstate it in the article. PL290 (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fasach Nua, I've looked again at WP:NFCC and I want to ask you to reconsider your interpretation of criteria 1 and 8 as applied to File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG. Firstly, since there is no free equivalent picture of Cynthia, the image meets criterion 1. The fact that John appears in the picture too is surely irrelevant. Secondly, on criterion 8, I feel you misapply the word "topic" when you say, "showing what Cynthia looked like ... is not necessary to understand the concept of John Lennon, thus failing WP:NFCC 8." The topic of the section is Cynthia. Please let me know your further thoughts on these points, as I would like to reinstate the image if possible. PL290 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image can be compliant with NFCC1 if you were to crop the part of the image containing John out of it per NFCC3b, as for your other comment the topic of the article is clearly John Lennon, however a cropped image may be appropriate for used in an article on the topic of Cynthia Lennon. 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I will then propose to crop the image for use in this article, since the point of criterion 8 is "contextual significance", so the word "topic" appears not intended to mean only "article topic", but topic of discussion. Cynthia is the topic of the section in question. I considered creating a cropped image as a second file, but the only other article using the image is Cynthia Lennon, where, per 3b, the crop is pertinent too, so I will update the existing file with a cropped version. PL290 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach, I'm no image expert, but that seems to be a very strict intrepretation of the policy. The subject of the section is the relationship between John and Cynthia, and the image shows them together. Cropping him out of it is kind of creepy. Which part of the policy are you using? SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping Jappalang (talk · contribs) for a second opinion on the image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with this message. PL290 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to go with a proposal to delete the image, unless its copyright holder agrees to release the photo in a manner compliant with the "free encylopaedia" notion (i.e. public domain or a Creative Commons license that allows commercial and modification) or the following is addressed. First key point: Cynthia Lennon is still alive, and per the first criterion of WP:NFCC, so it is possible to obtain a free replacement; she is not so reclusive that any ordinary Joe cannot hope to get a photo of her (http://www.flickr.com/photos/btellsluv4ever/3665794941/, http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcocampigli/3640885630/). Side note: hence, I also disagree with Fasach's statement that it can be used for Cynthia's article; such a photo cannot be used, unless some reliable source was pointing out something hard to describe of her at that particular point of time. However, the current article on her makes no mention of such commentary. As for whether a couple shot of her and Lennon warrants fair use in Lennon's article (since it is unlikely to get her at that age with a dead musician), it depends, but to me, the content of the article does not seem to support a need for this image to further help the readers' comprehension. As far as I can tell from the article, their relation was a fearful and sad one for her (Lennon's possessive and volatile nature, and the need of secrecy to avoid provocation of his fans). How would a picture of the smiling couple further illustrate this? No commentary from a reliable source, particularly one that pertains to the photo at hand, is given over the nature of the relationship shown in the photo? In short, I believe this copyrighted photo (of Lennon and his first wife) cannot qualify as fair use in any form with the current contents of the articles concerned. Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for this assessment, not least because it has identified a shortcoming in the article which I have now rectified. The early period of John and Cynthia's relationship was indeed a happy one, when, as described by Lennon biographer Bill Harry, they were "virtually inseparable" and spent long hours together in coffee bars and cinemas—a sharp contrast with the eventual pattern Lennon's circumstances and character brought to the relationship. I have explicated this aspect in the article text, and also restored the uncropped version of the image, which illustrates this more powerfully than the words can on their own. I believe this now meets the point you identified and, hence, the WP:NFCC criteria. PL290 (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment inclining toward support. I was enjoying this article a lot (and felt it was an unqualified support) until around the Solo career section, and from then on I've been finding it harder going. It's a huge achievement, but I think it's too long (59 kB, 10272 words readable prose size), with structural issues, and too detailed in terms of the songs and their success. A person can only read so much "Song X was released in 1970, hitting number 13 in the Billboard what-nots and number 3 in the something-else doo-dahs." And it's not clear what the priorities are in the different sections. For example, in the section "First post-Beatles years: 1970–73", Tariq Ali gets a big mention, but Lennon's break-up with Yoko Ono, their getting back together, and their having a son very little, though surely those things mattered to Lennon considerably more than Tariq Ali did. In addition, the article is about him, not his song statistics, yet the personal relationships are explored after all the significant people in his life are already mentioned. And I think the murder should be toward the end, roughly after the "Political activism" section. I may say more later, but those are my initial impressions. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I take your point about the song stats, and I don't see that it will really detract from the article to reduce those. I see you took a few out after posting here; I removed some more as a side-effect of trimming Tariq Ali (which was indeed needed--better?). On structure generally, you rightly point out that "the personal relationships are explored after all the significant people in his life are already mentioned", but devoting a topic (non-chronological) section to each enables them to be considered at a level of detail which would not be possible to the same extent during the chronological run-through (main History section). There may be a few instances where more mention could be made in History, and I'll check that now. It's difficult to see how Murder could move away from the end of the chronological run-through; it would still need a mention at that point, and the section is only small anyway, so that wouldn't seem to achieve much. On article length, I feel it's not unreasonable given the article's subject, and the post-History topic sections, which contribute to the length, all add a valuable dimension of insight into Lennon's character. I'll check again for any inessential details or further song stats that can be removed. I hope you're able to comment again in due course after considering all these aspects further. PL290 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm moving the rest of my comments and the responses to the talk page, because I understand that long FAC pages can put off other reviewers, and I have a few more points I'd like to raise. PL290, you should feel free to revert me if you disagree with this, and obviously the delegates should too. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support. I think it's a tremendous accomplishment to have pulled together this amount of material on an important figure and turned it into a highly readable narrative. My remaining concerns are the length (over 10,000 words) and the number of citation templates, which is making the page slow to load and difficult to edit because of the problem loading diffs and using preview. [Note: the load time has improved since I wrote this.] I also feel it's a little over-referenced and over-linked. Recent edits have improved that quite a bit, but it could use some more delinking (what's the point of linking to Preston or Weybridge, for example?). I'd also like to see some of the fancruft removed (as in "album X reached number three in chart Y after 17 days," or "a BBC poll voted him the best this or that"), but that's personal preference. I've listed some of my concerns in more detail on the talk page. Having said that, it's an excellent piece of work that the writers can be proud of, and I enjoyed reading it a lot. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support.
    • To speed page load, I have now converted the {{cite book}} etc. templates to {{vcite book}} etc.—these templates are known to be far less resource-hungry, and also to reduce html size, and should bring a significant improvement in page load times. PL290 (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Thanks, PL, that has made a difference, though writing the cites manually would be faster still. The other problem with templates is that it can make things harder for other people to tidy them. I several times tried to make the formatting consistent, but every time I tried I got the big red entries on preview, so I had to leave it. I'm not suggesting you change things at this late state, but for future reference it's easier for other editors to sort out problems without templates (in my view; others may disagree). SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very interesting article. I understand the comments about the structure and if someone were to change it I would not argue but I like it well enough to support as is. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations are incomplete. All sources should list publisher at minimum, author and date when available, samples:
    • The Beatles – Billboard Singles [cited 4 March 2010].
    • Beatles in Bangor [cited 16 November 2007].

Has reliability of sources been checked? Hard to do when publishers aren't listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All sources have now had the missing information added. Per the guideline at {{vcite news}}, the news cites in this article omit publisher in favour of work:
For news, this parameter should normally not be used; it is present only for backward compatibility with {{cite news}}. In practice, |agency= or |work= should be used instead.
PL290 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • The order of the Reference list is a little confusing. I think it is mainly alphabetical by author or title, but some entries don't fit this, e.g. "Springtime!. The Life of Brian (p3)", "Rolling Stone. The Immortals: The First Fifty" an others.
  • ISBNs – sometimes they're there, sometimes not. There should be consistency - all or none.
  • Names of magazines should be italicised. Most are, but some are not (Rolling Stone, Paste, New York Magazine, etc
  • What is the medium of the Cynthia Lennon intreview (Warner Brothers 1988)
  • There appears to be restricted access to http://www.joinnutopia.com/
  • What makes http://www.brianepstein.com/brian3.html a reliable encyclopedic source?
  • What makes http://www.theusversusjohnlennon.com/ a reliable encyclopedic source?
  • Some of your cite dates (last access?) are ancient. Check the last two items on the list - the cited articles seem to have disappeared. There may be others.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the source review. All your points have now been addressed. The problem sources have been replaced, and all cite dates older than 2010 have been refreshed by checking access and updating the access date. PL290 (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More referencing issues:-
*59, 81, 118, 135, 161 and 169 are all cited to books, but lack page references
  • Please check page reference for [108]. (it says 3232)
  • [129] Kim 2007 - where is this defined?
  • [143] Seaman, Frederic, 1991 - where is this defined?

Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that—all now fixed. The cite that was 169 in your list was "supporting" the statement, "The Beatles Anthology (2000) also presented examples of his writings and drawings." Hence it had no page number. On reflection, that is rather a pointless citation, so I've removed it. PL290 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PL, this is the kind of thing that could use some fixing in the References section:
  • FBI Releases Last Pages From Lennon File. The Washington Post. 20 December 2006.
  • Fawcett, Anthony. John Lennon: One Day at a Time. Evergreen; 1976.
If there's no byline on the W/Post article, what I normally do is add it under T (the full title is The Washington Post), with the newspaper title in place of the byline. But I wouldn't add it under F just because the title began with F.
So I would write:
But in actual fact looking at that article I see it's the AP, so I would write:
SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about refs. PL, I'm trying to do two things, but worried about messing up the templates (which I'm finding very awkward to work with). Using this citation system, how do you (a) combine refs, as in <ref>Smith 2010, p 1; Jones 2009, p. 2.</ref> And how do you add "ref name=" with the shortened ref templates so you don't have to keep repeating refs? SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Brian and SV for the time spent on the source review and the formatting suggestions. I've replaced the three questioned cites with better sources, alphabetized References, italicized the magazines, and added the Cynthia Lennon interview media. ISBNs and ancient cite dates now to be reviewed/fixed.
To respond to SV's questions (which, we must of course note, bring us once more to the rocky terrain of citation preference variation amongst editors!):
  • Regarding your question about ref names, that's one of the advantages of {{sfn}}: not only do you no longer need to clutter the text with <ref></ref> tags (let alone the citation detail itself); you also no longer need to mess around with ref names. Simply repeat the citation. That is, if you have the citation {{sfn|Smith|2010|p=1}} in one place, and you want to cite the same page again, simply add {{sfn|Smith|2010|p=1}} again. The template takes care of it.
  • Within this short footnote system, different refs (such as Smith 2010, p 1; Jones 2009, p. 2) are not combined. It is considered unhelpful to the reader to do so, as that would simply produce a loss of definition.
  • I understand the position of those who favour hand-crafted references (and I don't deny that the approach has its benefits too), but I am swayed towards the use of templates because in my view, their benefit is greater. They remove a vast amount of citation clutter from the text, helping editors to see the actual material they're trying to copyedit, and (in varying degrees, depending on the template) they bring consistency of formatting, instead of relying on editors to get every full stop and so forth right. I note the suggestions made about formatting of entries, but I would prefer to stick to the standard in use, which is one of several accepted standards and is controlled by the template (it's that consistency benefit again). For book cites, author is shown first. The same is true of the other cite types when there is an author; otherwise, publisher or title comes first. You can find more about the template at {{vcite book}} if you're interested. I've reordered the entries in References accordingly so that they're displayed in alphabetical sequence. PL290 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PL, when you say "it is considered unhelpful," could you say who considers it unhelpful? From my own perspective, it's often a sign of a poorly referenced article when I see multiple footnotes after a sentence, or in the middle of one.
The disadvantage of using this system is that it makes it awkward for others to help you sort it out. There are still issues: for example "US chat show veteran Douglas dies. BBC News. 12 August 2006" is listed under U. "The Lennon-McCartney Songwriting Partnership. BBC News. 4 November 2005" is under T. "Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. London Gazette (supplement). 4 June 1965 [cited 7 December 2009]" under M. And several others. Sorry if this seems overly focused on details, but it looks a little odd, and it makes it harder for the reader to judge the quality of the refs quickly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, SV, there are only three places in the entire article where multiple inline citations appear together. (I've just checked.) In each case, it's for a good reason, i.e., the prose has just made clear there's more than one thing to cite. Considering it helpful or unhelpful to combine them is an example of citation preferences among editors, so all I'm saying is, I admit to being in the latter camp! The alphabetical sequence accords with the convention in use (see {{vcite book}}). Thanks again for your continued help and input. PL290 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by the alphabetical sequence according with the convention in use. It's odd-looking to list some articles alphabetically according to title, but others according to byline. Which convention are you using? SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{vcite book}} gives the details, and provides links to further info about it. PL290 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what must be happening here is that the template has unclear parameters, so you feel you're being consistent but it's producing odd results. What you need to do is decide what you want your refs to look like first, then fill in the template in a way that achieves that look. So for example if you want to write "BBC News. "John Lennon is dead," December 8, 1980," you have to fill in the template in a way that achieves that, and not list it under J because the template has placed the BBC at the end. You need to take control, in other words. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and I'll have another check. PL290 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can be hard to do that with these templates, and I hope this input isn't driving you mad. The aim is to achieve a nice consistent look, so that the reader can quickly scan the References and see what's being used. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all :) and that's my aim, too. PL290 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, I've looked into this further; I understand your suggested layout, but I'm not sure it's the only one. As far as I can see, the layout currently seen in References is common in WP articles when citing a source for which there is no identifiable author (often the case with web and news cites). If there is an author, that comes first, but otherwise, the publisher or newspaper name is not brought to the front, which you say you would do yourself. Picking FAs from Wikipedia:Featured_articles: of the first nine, three use citation templates (7 World Trade Center, Bronwyn Bancroft and Bodiam Castle), all exhibiting the same References layout as this article. As we keep reminding ourselves, the use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged on Wikipedia, so I would prefer this review not to become a vilification opportunity for one or other approach, if that's okay with you :) though I'm happy to continue to find opportunities to extol the virtues of templates! I have double-checked that the citation templates are being used correctly. The layout and sequence of References is a natural part of the approach being used, just as seen in many other articles, including the aforementioned FAs picked at random. I understand that it's not the way you would do it, but I hope you can now accept that it is another valid approach. PL290 (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of criticizing templates, PL (though I do), but concern about the way you're using them, which seems to produce inconsistent results. You've created a separate References section that lists works in alphabetical order. In some cases you use the first letter of the author's name, and in some cases the first letter of the article title. Even when the author's name is available you sometimes leave it out. On some occasions you name the publication, and on others you name the host that's providing the courtesy link but don't name the publication. None of the FAs you referenced above do any of those things. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's look at what can be done. Sorry if I misunderstood; let's leave aside the question of order of component parts of an entry then. So the three things you're concerned about are: firstly, sequence of entries in the References section. This is not controlled by templates, and I have no objection to changing that manually; it's easy to do, if you could state specific suitable alternative rules that you'd prefer to see. Secondly and thirdly, if you think you've spotted a missing author name where one is available, or a problem of hosting link vs. publication, please identify the specifics. (I see you mentioned Playboy as an example of the latter, so I'll look at that anyay; let me know if you are concerned about any others.) Thanks for clarifying. EDIT: SV, I've now changed the Playboy ref as you suggested, also adding its author, and gone through all the other authorless web/news cites to check for authors. This turned up one that should have had an author, which I've now added. That just leaves the sequence of entries in References, which I'm happy to change to your specification—indeed, I thought I had done just that earlier, but I must have misunderstood! :) Anyway it's very easy to move them around in that section. It's currently consistent (alphabetic by first word); how would you prefer it to be sequenced? PL290 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever system you choose it needs to be consistent. For example, you have Encyclopædia Britannica. John Cage biog; 2008 (which is the way I would do it, but why abbreviate biography? Or just write "John Cage" or whatever title the EB gives it), but then "FBI Releases Last Pages From Lennon File". The Washington Post. 20 December 2006". And Frankel, Glenn, but John S. Friedman. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That behaviour is actually entirely consistent, within the citation convention used by the cite templates: news cites are formatted one way, and web cites another. That is evidently by design, according to the convention they follow. However, I have no personal attachment to that convention, and I am quite happy to adopt the one you suggest (in fact I think I slightly prefer it). To produce the more obvious consistency you seek, I have now defined all web-accessed sources (news or other) to be web cites, and repositioned them accordingly in the alphabetic sequence in the References section. Trust this is now all to your satisfaction. :) PL290 (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dead link here. Would be a good idea to check for any others. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as part of actions taken in response to sources review. PL290 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending to oppose on comprehensiveness concerns. I haven't yet read the article thoroughly, but there seems to be no discussion of his iconic voice. It is quite interesting: Lennon hated the sound of his own voice, and always had George Martin double-track his vocals. I'd also like to see a section on his songwriting style—for eg, his lyrics characteristically feature very vivid, childlike imagery—and his role within the Lennon/McCartney dynamic.
  • Is there a way you can incorporate that huge Relationships section into his History? I don't think I've seen another biography on Wiki that has such a section. One disadvantage is that you could argue for the inclusion of any number of people he came into contact with. What about George and Mimi, the uncle and aunt who brought him up? Or his mother?—indopug (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I note that you have yet to read the article thoroughly. On Personal relationships, you're right that it's larger than some topical sections in biographical articles, but in this case I believe it's justified, in that it allows History to present a chronological overview that's manageable in size, while the article as a whole can still include important detail that builds up the whole picture of Lennon's character and life. I suppose you could argue for the inclusion of other people, as you say, but those that are there are the ones there's most to say about. History is not without mention of others, including his relationship with his mother, his aunt and his uncle. I think you're right that the article should mention his voice; that is an omission which I will set about rectifying. You mention his vivid, childlike lyrics; there's already stuff about that which you'll see when you have a chance to read the whole article. PL290 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indopug, I've now added a passage about vocal style. I think you'll find his role within the Lennon/McCartney dynamic is covered in History, so vocal style is the one concrete point I can address so far. Let me know if you perceive other shortcomings once you've had a chance to consider my responses here and to read the rest of the article. Thanks for your participation; I look forward to your further comments. PL290 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with some reservations. This is an excellent account of the short life of an often much troubled artist. Most of the major facts are here and the prose and structure guide the reader seamlessly through this long article. In some respects, the ideal reviewer would know little about the man, but such a person would be hard to find—particularly one of my generation. So, having said this, I think too little is said about Lennon's extensive drug use and the influence this had on his songs. He was virtually, constantly tripping during 1966 and, according to Ian MacDonald in his book Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties, had "come close to erasing his identity" (p. 281). But the drug also softened his notorious sarcasm (the basis of his "acerbic wit") and probably made him easier to work with in the later Beatles and early solo years. His role as an iconoclast of popular music seems to take second place to his anti-war protests. The musical styles of the 1950s are light-years away from those of the 1960s, and Lennon's influence cannot be overstated. On a different note, I suggest not using those two photographs of his statue in Cuba. Despite what is written, they almost certainly contravene the Cuban Freedom of panorama laws and add little to the article. Thank you for all the hard work on this engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. I've added more on the influence on the transformation of musical styles between the 1950s and 1960s, and a passage on Lennon's extensive use of LSD during 1966 and its effect on his songs. I researched the Cuba question, and all is well regarding those two images: the Commons guideline states, "Cuban law from 1997 allows 2D reproductions of works of art permanently installed in publicly accessible places". PL290 (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010 [26].

Lemur

edit
Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA qualifications in its current state. I said I wasn't going to run this article through FAC until several other supporting articles were written, but Ucucha suggested that there was no reason not to. Lemur evolutionary history—one of these supporting articles—has just passed FAC. Admittedly, each section is not fully "comprehensive", but that is because these supporting articles will contain the more detailed content. Already the article is quite lengthy, and for a general overview of lemurs, I feel it is comprehensive enough. If further condensing is needed on this article, I feel it will be more obvious once the summary articles are finished. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—I thoroughly reviewed this article during the GAN and think it meets all FA criteria. It may indeed be too comprehensive, at nearly 13000 words. (No dab links or dead external links.) Ucucha 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinks in general are not a problem, but there are a few instances in this article where, as a layperson, I can't figure out what the sentence means because the redlink isn't stubbed or the term isn't defined. Samples:
    • ... lemurs exhibit low visual acuity and high retinal summation.
    • ... Used together with the toothcomb on the mandible (lower jaw), this complex is reminiscent of an ungulate browsing pad.
  • In those cases where a redlinked article is necessary to understand this article, could you either stub the redlink, or do some de-jargonification here for us bio dummies? And I'm completely confused about what the "Chapter" subheadings refer to in Books cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points. I was aware of those redlinks when I wrote the article, but had nearly forgotten about them. To be honest with you, these terms suffer from two separate problems. In the case of retinal summation, I have yet to see a simple layman's translation in the literature, and it would take a bit of work to even find the technical definition. I'll see what I can do, but I know the definition involves detailed anatomy of the eye and skull, as well as a more detailed understanding of visual acuity. In short, it's not a simple term that can be summarized in the article. Browsing pad, on the other hand, is one of those terms that is understood by people who work with exotic animals, particularly hoofstock. It's a special adaptation that involves the upper dentition that makes it easier to grasp and feed on plant material. Like "retinal summation", the information appears to be completely absent from the web. Sometime tomorrow, when I have less alcohol in my system, I will try to comb my animal encyclopedias where hope that I find something. However, this may be a specialty term for a more technical term, so I'm not sure what I'll find, if anything. As always, both terms can be chalked up as cases of poor coverage of basic biology and detailed animal anatomy on Wikipedia. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to show I'm not crazy, "browsing pad"—the most obscure term—is legit: see here – VisionHolder « talk » 06:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, VH; stubbing those when you can get to it might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs created. Hopefully that helps. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even better news—I got a professor in biomedical sciences to take a photo of the dental pad and release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0. It's not on the Lemur article, but if people follow the (now functional) link, they can see what a "browsing pad" or "dental pad" is. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and notes
    • General note - congratulations to the editors for an incredibly well-written and detailed article.
    • Proofreading done - spotted one spectacularly minor copyedit to make, which is amazing for such a long article. However, I cannot claim to know how any of the many technical words should properly be spelled :o)
    • Prose style / readability - Boy! I found this tough going at first; I have no interest in natural science so I found myself plodding heavily to begin with. However, it became easier as things went on. And I recognise that a great effort has been made to explain/link all the many technical terms. I also note that the vocabulary used (outside of the technical terminology) is top notch. This makes it a somewhat adult read; it might be alienating to pre-university/college students. But I'm not in favour of dumbing down on that basis. It would be great if the main contributors to the article would consider doing an article for the Simple Language Wikpedia (it would only have to be a fraction of the length of this one) and then to link to it from this great article. One thing I look out for in the prose is whether an article sounds like it was cobbled together by various authors and jars at points because of that; I didn't find that at all with this article, it all fits together as if the work of one author, which is splendid. Didn't notice any sentences that clanged, banged or bemused me (again, that's technical terms aside).
  • I'm glad to hear that once you made your way into the article, everything made sense and the flowed well. The article was constructed over an 8-month stretch from scratch. The only major edits have come from Ucucha, who gave it a very thorough GA review. Yes, I plan to write a "Lemur" article on Simple Language Wikpedia someday, but my first goal is to offer everything I can about every lemur possible in complete detail here on the main Wiki. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completeness - I can bring no prior to knowledge to this, but I was damn satiated with lemur knowledge by the time I got to the end. The only thing I was left wondering about was lemur "nests". Most of us know about birds' nests. But I was left curious about primates' nests; I would like to have a couple of sentences in the article to describe or at least a wikilink to explore that habitat further.
  • Yes, it is an interesting detail for most people, who generally only think of birds as nest-builders. I do plan to go into more detail in both an upcoming supporting article (to be named Lemur behavior) and on the respective species, genera, and family pages. As it is, I feel the article is too long. If everyone else is okay with it, I may wait to include that information on those pages. In the meantime, I can tell you that small, nocturnal lemurs build nests much like a tree squirrel.
    • Possible fixes required
      • Section Anatomy & Physiology - 2nd paragraph; there's a repetition of a point about "toilet claws". I find myself ill equipped to know whether the twice-mention is serving a purpose. If not, best removed.
      • Section Dentition - final para; the word "nonnative" is used. If that's normally the way it is written in the science literature, fine. But I would find "non-native" more friendly. I read it as "NONnertiv" at first, rather than "NON NAYtiv".
    • To close - < standing ovation >
I don't mind adding the ref. Precisely where were you wanting it added? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put it after the sentence beginning Four years after..., but I don't mind if you don't use it at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. I think at some point during the GAC with Ucucha, we removed a reference to Linnaeus and replaced with the more current refs. I don't recall the reasoning off-hand, but as it stands, the secondary source used sufficiently covers the material. If anyone has a good reason to include the suggestion citation, I'll seriously consider adding it back in. But at this point, the citation would be redundant, IMO. That block of text mentions the important elements of the citation (author, title, inferred year, minus the page numbers), assisting anyone wanting to find the original source. The citation would effectively add nothing more than the page numbers. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the ancestral lemur is thought to have originated in Africa approximately 62 to 65 mya, they — change of number
  • currents that were counter — ...ran counter?
  • 20 Ma — is this different from mya?
Excellent catches! All have been fixed. "Ma" means "million years (annum)", whereas "mya" means "million years ago". The usage was wrong, but is now fixed.
  • pseudo-opposable — I don't know what this means, how is it different from opposable?
Admittedly, this isn't defined very well on Wiki, such as on this article and Opposable thumb. Even in the literature, the term is poorly defined. Basically it refers to a lesser degree of independence of the thumb movements, and it affects manipulative ability. I've done my best to briefly clarify in the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur (Allocebus trichotis) reportedly has a very long tongue, allowing it to feed on nectar.[43] Likewise, the Red-bellied Lemur (Eulemur rubriventer) has a feathery brush-shaped tongue, also uniquely adapted to feed on nectar and pollen. — How can Red-bellied be unique if Hairy does it too?
The specific adaptation (the shape) is unique, not the function. That's how the sentence reads to me. If the interpretation of the wording is too tricky, I can try to change it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crypsis, or the inability to visually distinguish between two or more distinct species, has recently been discovered among lemurs — reads as if the lemurs can't distinguish, I suspect that you mean humans can't tell
Honestly, I don't think anyone can distinguish them visually, including these animals. Either later in the article or on Lemur evolutionary history, it talks about how they use species-specific calls to distinguish proper mates. That aside, though, I'll try to fix it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, ferns taste badly — bad or unpleasant perhaps?
  • poison ivy (Taxicodendron radicans) — might be worth mentioning that Duke is in the US, I was wondering what this plant was doing in Madagascar
  • Greater Bamboo Lemur (Prolemur simus) do not exhibit female dominance — does not?
More good catches. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sample lemur vocalizations — just a line of text, is something broken here
HeadBomb was trying to fix something in the Wiki-book version of the article, but the template didn't work properly. I've reverted it and plan to report the bug after I finish your list. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • have failed intelligence tests — pov/anthropomorphic scored lower?
Don't worry... I was just going with the source. Ring-tailed lemurs have a very special place in my heart. I like your wording better and have change it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debt relief is needed to help Madagascar protect its biodiversity — pov, debt relief may help
Again, I was going off the source, but the change has been made. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if I can get around to reviewing this article. Mostly it looks fine, but I agree that the text could be "tough going" for a lot of people. To start with, I think the lead needs some changes more than most of the text. The line on etymology is a bit much: "The name is derived from …, from which they earned their name due to …". —innotata 19:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lemur diets are highly variable; though most species rely largely on fruits or leaves, lemurs share the forests with other lemur species with differentiated niches." can't you just say something like "most eat fruits and leaves, some are specialists"? The "lemurs share the forests with other lemur species" also sounds strange. —innotata 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. The first part of that sentence unfortunately requires close attention to the location of the semi-colon, but you're right, it's not worded well at all. I'll probably use your suggestion. The second part of the sentence is an example of trying to use layman's terms rather than the technical term, "sympatric". I'm trying to find a clearer way to say it without being too wordy. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Ref 103 lacks a page reference
  • Refs 1, 4, 67, 103 and 135 are all book references. These books are not listed in the bibliography. I understand that you may not wish to list books which are only used for a single citation, but 135 has several.
  • Ref 144: a daily newspaper has 122+ pages? (just checking).
  • Ref 145: I believe it is The Washington Post.

Otherwise, references all look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On ref. 144, I found that piece in LexisNexis, which said it was on "Pg. 122". It's also online here. Ucucha 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the other points have been addressed. The missing page reference for former ref 103 (now 102) was due to a general reference from an expert in the field who told me the material was included in the book. I have since bought the book and couldn't find the material, but I did find supporting material for other statements, and a page number has been added. Otherwise, all book references have been homogenized and The Washington Post ref has been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was perhaps unwise to take another person's word for a citation without following it up, particularly as it seems that the expert was wrong. However, no harm done in this instance. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually prefer to avoid such mistakes by asking for full detail. In this case, though, I don't think I would have received the information due to his busy schedule. I am actually surprised that I did not find the information in the book—the suggestion was perfectly reasonable given the author and the history. However, I did only skim the sections that are most likely to contain it. The information could still be present, but I won't know until I sit down and read the whole book. But thank you for your concern.
Otherwise, is there anything else the article needs? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most eat fruits and leaves, while some are specialists - sounds funny (first bit should be wide variety of fruits and leaves?)
To communicate with smell, which is helpful at night - 'useful' at night?
The saltatory abilities.. why not just "Jumping prowess"?
I agree with your wording recommendations. All three changes have been made. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010 [27].

Grey Currawong

edit
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is the standard of other bird articles I've worked on...and got a real grilling at GAN. It is much less known than the Pied Currawong (a featured article), so there was less to write. I also brought this up from redirect, to 5x expansion, to GA and now the last hurdle to finish what I started..... Have at it anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Many sources have been added to the article, while the other suggested sources are very difficult to get. Has had a MOS tuneup, and seems to meet all FAC criteria. Lengthy laundry list of resolved nitpicks moved to talk page. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Overall, the quality of this article is good. However, it's quite short; is it truly comprehensive? Other comments:
Firs, it is alot less known/studied than the Pied Currawong or Australian Magpie. The sources above are some of the only ones I haven't been able to get and/or process, and they are pretty minor (but would be good to get). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that some species will be less well-studied than others, of course. Yet Sasata has compiled a hefty list of references not used in this article, so I was concerned. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and am doing my best to hunt them down, but they are pretty esoteric and not widely available - all are primary sources and some are brief one page affairs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white markings on wings and under tail clearly visible."
There's no verb in this sentence.
missing verb added Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their blackish bill is yellow-tipped, and gape is yellow."
Unless this is a birding thing, would 'the' help here?
yes. added Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elsewhere, their call has been likened to the screech of ungreased metal grinding in Victoria and South Australia..."
This makes it sound as if the screech of metal specifically has to be made in Victoria or SA. Same with the subsequent "harsh squeak in Western Australia."
It is. There are separate subspecies and the call apparently varies according to region. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, Cas: I meant the meaning can be misunderstood, based on the current word order. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of the serial comma varies throughout this article. Compare:
"including frogs, lizards such as the Bearded Dragon as well as skinks, rats, mice, and nestlings or young of Tasmanian Native-hen, Red Wattlebird, Eastern Spinebill, House Sparrow (Passer domesticus),[30] and Splendid Fairywren" (a comma preceeds the 'and')
with:
"It can be distinguished by its paler plumage, lack of white base to the tail, straighter bill and very different vocalisations." (no comma before the 'and')
It should be one way or the other throughout the article, for consistency.
true. I am not a fan on them, but have generally gone with the former as told its correct.Hence added. Could only find one other to this one, but hard to find Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outlying populations are found on the east coast of Tasmania"
Yet the range map shows them covering all of Tasmania. Seems inconsistent.
I reworded this. I meant "outlying" as in noncontiguous, but I see how it dodn't come across. Reworded as Tasmanian subspecies doesn't connect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species has been observed bathing by shaking its wings with water at ponds"
With? Or in?
"'with --> in. yeah, better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Data on nesting success rates is lacking; one study of 35 nests found 28 (80%) resulted in the fledgling of at least one young currawong."
It was only one study. Many species have many studies in different areas of the range etc. Hence the data is limited - actually limited is a more accurate word than lacking Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'fledgling' the right word here? I think 'fledging' was possibly meant here, but can't tell. A fledgling is a young bird, making "fledgling of at least one young currawong" redundant.
my bad "fledging" it is Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, Cas. I'll give it another pass soon. Good luck. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six subspecies are recognised. It is a large crow-like bird, around 48 cm (19 in) long on average, with dark plumage with white undertail and wing patches, yellow irises, and a heavy bill. The male and female are similar in appearance. The overall plumage ranges... — “It“ obviously refers to the bird, but the last mentioned subject was “subspecies“. I’d move the ssp bit to after “appearance” because it would make more sense there anyway. Description reads ambiguously; irises and bill are not plumage. The overall plumage colour... perhaps?

rejigged - better? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been noted to foretell rainy weather. Noted (ie a fact) or claimed?
Major headache - original claim I guess is part bush folklore, part observation (which may be indeed plausible). I tried the word "reported" so as to not indicate one way or the other true or falseness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • they chase more mobile animals.[26] It has been recorded
good catch - singularised Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - not concerned about the length, which seems fine to me. Only query is a phrase in the lead which sounds wrong, but i didn't want to fiddle with for fear of introducing inaccuracy. "...much of its behaviour and habits is poorly known" should i think read "its behaviour and habits are poorly known". The "is" sounds wrong, but "are" would not seem to agree with "much of", hence my proposed solution, but i'll leave it to one of hte article's regular editors. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I had meant the "is" to refer to the collective-and-hence-singular "much of" ..i.e. bits and pieces of its behaviour are better known (i.e. song) but there are large gaps...I am happy with the wording but have a play if you feel there is a better way :) (thx btw)Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010 [28].

HMS Lion (1910)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added the missing information that caused it to fail earlier as incomplete. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support WRT Cr. 1a. A few queries:

  1. The design image is detail-rich and tiny. Can you boost it significantly in size? What about 250px or more? Pity the subheadings are pushed over, but it can't be helped, I suppose.
  2. "forty-two" and "fourteen", but "10"? Then "four inches" but "9 inches". Audit required.
    • Most of these are artifacts of the conversion template, but I've caught a few missed ones and deconverted several that had already been done earlier.
  3. "She was built without any anti-aircraft guns..."—possibly remove "any"?
    • Done
  4. There's stylistic latitude for the use of optional commas, but in a long sentence without competing commas, I'd lash out: "A single QF 3 inch 20 cwt AA gun on a high-angle Mark II mount was added in January 1915, and another in the following July. This had a maximum depression of ..."—"these"? And plural further on?
    • Done
  5. No big deal, and your choice, but I'd be inclined to use "a minute" rather than resorting to the Latinate "per minute". A lot of people use "per", though.
  6. Any way of avoiding the jostling parentheses? "at close range (under 6,000 yards (5.5 km))". Possibly a dash before under instead? Unsure.
    • Done
  7. Where did Massie get this information from? "The German Navy had decided on a strategy of bombarding British towns on the North Sea coast in an attempt to draw out the Royal Navy and destroy elements of it in detail." Just checking the reliability of an author you cite a lot. Consider removing "in an attempt".
    • The phrase has been removed. According to Tarrant the German raids early in the war had the goal of forcing the British to disperse their forces to defend their entire coastline to increase their chance of cutting off and destroying portions of the Grand Fleet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "Relative position" image: Is this your diagram? If so, could you possibly boost the size of the text? The font is not well displayed at small size, either. Is it "130 sm"? What is sm? Add "hours" to the caption, since it's a little separate from the timings in the main prose? The "shellfire" image looks like a stain on my shirt at that size. Maybe the res is unsuitable for enlarging, though.
    • No, its not my diagram, but I can ask the author to change sm (sea miles) to nm or nmi. I enlarged the image to 300px and it's actually readable now. I enlarged the shellfire image to 250px, but that really doesn't do much. Lion is still just a smudge, but that's OK as the image's primary value is to illustrate just how crappy the visibility was during the battle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Not possible to use the multiplication sign? 30-by-24-inch (760 mm × 610 mm) Tony (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

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 Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010 [29].

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)

edit
Nominator(s): Steve T • C 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly the most contentious subject I've brought to FAC—I can't imagine anyone's getting upset at the rather staid American Beauty—so it's with some trepidation that I present The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (aka Chávez: Inside the Coup), a rather ... polarising ... documentary film, let's say. :-) But whichever way you look at it, this is a substantial improvement on how it looked a few months ago; significant expansion and extensive talk page negotiation has resulted in something that I think both sides of the debate can be satisfied with. Given recent ructions over Venezuela-related articles, that's a fine achievement for everyone involved.

Note: this article does not include any alt text with its images; I'd like to have it, but the guideline is still in flux, so I don't want to add anything until they've thrashed out over there exactly what it should look like. Otherwise, fire at will! Steve T • C 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, external links fine. Ucucha 14:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support and recuse. Steve has done amazing work on this article. I appear as the top contributor because of my editing style and four years of following the article, but Steve wrote the entire article. He has done a great job of balancing what used to be one of the most POV Venezuelan articles, using scholarly sources and working well with different talk page factions to incorporate everyone's concerns about neutrality. I imagine Steve didn't realize he was nominating this article on the anniversary of Venezuela's Declaration of Independence from Spain-- good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:The_Revolution_will_not_be_Televised.gif, No FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I was sure I'd crossed all the t's and whatnot. Never even thought to check that. Now updated. Steve T • C 20:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the "See also" section really necessary? To list the topic of Venezualan films seems like a fairly "broad topic". Thats almost like having a hollywood film with a 'See also' section listing "American films". Also, in the dialogue box, it lists it from the country of Ireland. Is the film production credited as an Irish or Venezuelan film? Wouldn't it also be better to organize the Release section after the Analysis section? The analysis is more closely related to the film's Production section while the release section is more related to the critical reception part. Theatrickal (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too sure about the "see also" item, to be honest. I usually try to include such a link in the prose; in this case, there wasn't anywhere suitable. Which I guess means the link isn't necessary. Fair enough; I'll remove that. On the other point, the ordering of sections, I think the analysis section is fine where it is because the release section provides vital context. Only when the film was disseminated did it began to draw heat—note the protests at various theatrical showings, the complaints after the television broadcasts. Narratively, it makes sense. As a by-product, the critical reception section feels a little adrift, but that was a trade-off I was satisfied with, and it at least provides a nice capstone. Thanks for your comments, Steve T • C 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Sure, Steve. Just a couple of other quick comments. The Critical Reception part looks good, but a little sparse on content. The quotebox seems to take up a lot of space of potential reviews that could be added. After a run-through, it looks like there are only two negative reviews in the paragraphs. The rest are positive. Can there be a minor expansion of the negative reviews for the film? I'm not saying you should remove the quotebox and fill the empty space with reviews, but rather just add more negative feedback to supplement the positive reviews. Also, the way its formatted in direction; is that correct? Like for instance, you have positive reviews one after another, and then you bunch up the negative reviews. Wouldn't it be better to mix the negative reviews in all paragraphs to give it a more balanced feeling? And last thing, the Categories piece at the bottom of the article seems almost empty. For starters, wouldn't the film fit into these categories as well? *English-language films *2000s Drama films *Irish films *Political drama films *Films set in the 2000s Theatrickal (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the categories need to be fleshed out; by the time you read this, I'll have done that. I disagree with your reading of the reception section, though. I think you need to take another look at it; every paragraph already includes positive and negative commentary. The critical consensus is more important than individual reviews; once the former is in place, all the latter need to do is give some flavour of the sorts of things reviewers picked up on. In my other film FAs, I've done that by intertwining reviewers' comments on specific aspects of production. For example, a paragraph on the acting/characters, one on the writing/story; another might be on the production design or direction (it depends on what sources are available, really). I've organised the reviews here as much as I could along these lines, but with documentaries, we don't have as much variety in terms of what different aspects critics focused on. The general consensus among mainstream critics was that the film was biased, but a gripping watch. Very few say anything different. The reviews I've included are only intended to give a flavour of that; incorporating others would just be more of the same, making the section repetitive. The reason I've taken space up with the quote box is because I felt that particular quote was an excellent, representative summary of what the rest of them said—ideal for quick-reference. All the best, Steve T • C 07:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments and recuse
    • I'm a mate of Steve's so will avoid supporting.
    • I have proofread the article, I'm generally good at spotting little errors. I have only one possible thing to report; in section Military Involvement there is the text "...(1) either General Rincon stated a truth that was accepted throughout whole country...". Is that what the source says verbatim or should that be "the whole country"? If verbatim perhaps a [the] with the square brackets could be put in as it jars a little as is.
    • This is a point I've made about another FAR but I forgot to check back to see what the response, if any, was to this kind of point; I just observe that the article relies quite heavily on Stoneman's book. I don't know whether there are any pertinent guidelines about how much material we should use from any one source. So I'll leave that point to be discussed or ignored.
    • Enjoyed reading it. I'm not sure if I have seen the film but I certainly recall seeing on the news the whole thing about the shooting from the bridge and argument about camera angles / whether the march took the route etc. I'm just alarmed that it was so long ago! Good luck with promotion. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the article relies too heavily on Stoneman; the article was fully developed and cited before Steve got hold of Stoneman, and after he got that source, he was able to cite more of the synopsis to Stoneman instead of to the actual film. The article uses a wide variety of sources, and does it well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On point 1, that was indeed my error; I've now repaired it. On your second point, I've been very careful with what I've taken from Stoneman's book, as he is affiliated with the production. The vast majority of what I've taken has been for the uncontroversial, nut-and-bolts aspects, such as the synopsis (which isn't necessary anyway; the primary source, the film, is usually accepted), development, funding and editing. As he's the only source that goes into so much detail about those, I'm satisfied with that use. As for the more controversial aspects, I should tell you that the book is about 120 pages, yet you'll see I've cited barely anything after about page 50. This is because these are the chapters in which Stoneman investigates the specific claims of wrongdoing against the filmmakers, with his conclusions ("broadly absolving" the filmmakers). For that part of our article, I primarily used sources with a little more distance from the subject, including when I've cited the filmmakers' own rebuttals. Even when discussing Stoneman's book directly, I didn't cite him, but used the article in Product magazine, again to ensure distance. I can see why it would look like I've relied a lot on Stoneman, but many of the cites are to single sentences embedded between other sources. If you want get a flavour of what impact Stoneman has had on the article, take a look at how it looked before his inclusion; there isn't a vast difference. Cheers, Steve T • C 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem, re Stoneman. It wasn't a criticism. It's just something I noticed and I'm keen to get a feel for what is valid to point out in that realm on here and what isn't. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Steve, perhaps I misspoke, or maybe I didn't express myself correctly, but I looked over the reviews once more and here is what I see. When you say there are already reviews that provide "positive and negative commentary." ; that is technically true. But from the way I see it, almost all those reviews generally have near entirely positive sentiment with perhaps a single selective negative nitpick amongst each critic. What that essentially means is; Scheck, Ebert, Foundas, Hoberman, Holden, Burr, Thomson, Sokol and Jenkins each thought the film was fantastic but each of them had maybe 1 selective negative nitpick. Now thats completely different from having say, a bunch of critics who each thought the film sucked but added minor positive nitpicks to be fair. I could be wrong, but actually, the way I view it, is that in this particular paragraph, there isn't even a single entirely negative review!!! They are all entirely positive, but each critic was helpful enough to add a minor negative point of contention to balance their own individual reviews. You don't have to if you don't want to, but could you add entirely negative reviews? Not just positive ones with hints of negativity? Let me know if I'm in error. Thanks. Theatrickal (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, and this have only negative things to say about the film, but 1) Steve has covered all the points made in these articles, and 2) they are (or will be) more fully developed in X-Ray of a Lie. How can these sources be used in a way in this article that will satisfy you (the scholarly sources make the same points, and Steve attempted to keep his writing neutral and balanced)? I can translate as needed, but the points are covered from these wholly negative reviews, which are more about the Documentary that revealed the discrepancies in this film, hence covered in its article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hahah Ha HAh haha Hahah.........Well Sandy, first of all, I don't speak spanish; So link number 1 and 2; I have no clue what they say. I understand what your saying when you mention how the bases were already covered in the article; but the bases weren't covered in that particular paragraph. If thats the way it's supposed to be, then fine.......lOl......Theatrickal (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read X-Ray of a Lie, you can get the gist from my translations of what those articles have to say. Can you suggest a better way to incorporate some of that into this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Well, I'd have to look more into it to figure a way to better incorporate those negative viewpoints. Maybe merge the X-Ray of a Lie into the Critical review part. I have to see how that can be properly done. But getting back to what I said, I just did a quick search and found a critic who thought the movie sucked. Here it is: http://www.toptenreviews.com/scripts/eframe/url.htm?u=http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/The-Revolution-Will-Not-Be-Televised I'd have to do additional searches to find more, but I think I can. I inserted that link because you said you wanted ideas. Theatrickal (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything there that Steve's scholarly sources didn't already cover, but they covered it better and more neutrally ("opposition mob"?). If you can see a way to add more detail, I'm sure Steve will make it happen, with his exemplary neutrality, but that is a particularly poor review in relation to those used. In fact, it's not wholly negative-- it spouts some of the same pro-Chavez points that are disputed by more scholarly reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have to step out for a few hours. When I have another chance, I can search again for more entirely negative feedback. But from this article, the following quotes are pretty strong in content: "And by painting Chavez as a Bolivarian saint, when he's really more of a demagogue (benevolent, true, but still more of a rockstar than a politician), the filmmakers end up more as propagandists then documentarians." ........ "Potentially fascinating subjects like the likelihood of U.S. support (or at least tacit approval) for the opposition coup is barely touched upon" ........... "It cannot be questioned that the resulting footage which comprises The Revolution Will Not Be Televised provides quite a few thrills and jolts, but while there is a story to be told about the 2002 coup, this is definitely not the documentary to tell it." Theatrickal (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Response Before I go, here is one more: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700003452/Revolution-Will-Not-Be-Televised-The.html Here are some selected quotes: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised makes no pretense about being a balanced documentary." .......... "And it certainly would be more excusable if the film didn't do so many things that put into question the film's veracity. For example, the camera is always there to capture the most crucial and pivotal moments from the attempted coup that forced Chavez from office for a handful of days in 2001." .............. "There's a lot of potentially fascinating material here, and yet Bartley and O'Briain's film is frustratingly unfocused. (Their attempt to tie the U.S. government to the Venezuelan coup is cursory at best.)" Theatrickal (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theatrickal, thanks for popping back in. I see where you're coming from, but let me explain my thinking here. The selection of quotes in a critical reception section should try to reflect the consensus in some way. There are a couple of ways we can do this. We can draw mainly from reviews that back up that cited accord (in this case, the near-universal repetition of the "engrossing but biased" line). Alternatively, we can choose a representative mix of quotes from the more extreme ends—those that are mainly positive, and those that are mainly negative (for example, if the Rotten Tomatoes score for a film is 60 percent, you might go for a roughly equivalent ratio). This option, which you seem to be advocating, is an absolutely valid choice; indeed, it's one I've used myself elsewhere. But given the sensitivities around this subject, and the fact we have a lot more negative material in the analysis section, I chose box number one. Steve T • C 08:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Ok, fair enough. Theatrickal (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Hello, again. Just doing a minor review, I noticed in the Release section the film's theatrical release schedule in the U.S. is only touched up in one or two sentences. Its not really developed for a play-by-play weekend summary. Have you consulted these links for additions to the content in perhaps providing a more detailed weekend analysis? The Numbers, Box Office Mojo. Also, how about adding at least one of those links to the External links section for a general reference. Theatrickal (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. The reason I haven't included a play-by-play so far is because many of the sources contradict each other on this point. They're all in the same ballpark, but don't quite tie up. This evening, I'll root through them to see if I can make better sense of it. If there's no reconciling them, perhaps the best I'll be able to do is include something as a footnote. Steve T • C 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Theatrickal (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ADDITIONAL COMMENT One quick comment. Would it be helpful to rename the X-Ray of a Lie paragraph to identify it as a film sequel or prequel? Like perhaps add a new section entitled Post production with one paragraph identified as a Sequel and another paragraph titled Marketing to include the chavez book by stoneman right after it? Its very easy for readers to skim through the article or overlook certain sections as being political jargon. This way, people will know of direct media responses to the film. Theatrickal (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
X-Ray of a Lie is not a sequel and Stoneman's book is not a marketing tie-in. As the article says, they are (either wholly or in part) analyses of the documentary and its claims. Where else would they go but the analysis section? Steve T • C 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The research and structure of the article are sound. I'm finally giving the article a close read and just made small edits to the lead section. I'll do additional copy-editing where it seems uncontroversial, but below are a couple of thoughts I had:
    • Background mentions COPEI and MBR-200, but I thought they needed to be spelled out or clarified in a similar way.
    • "The movement took Simón Bolívar, who played a key role in Latin America's successful struggle for independence from Spain in the 1820s, as its 'iconic hero' and 'reference point'." The "took" verb felt disjointed for me; I had to read the sentence of couple of times before I understood how "took" was being used. How about, "The movement took as its 'iconic hero' and 'reference point' Simón Bolívar, who played a key role in Latin America's successful struggle for independence from Spain in the 1820s"? Or a similar phrasing?
    • I'm not sure if a couple of uses of "as" is clear. In the sentence "a wave of protests known as the caracazo engulfed Venezuela as the country was hit by a severe economic crisis", would "when" work better? It defines the cause-effect relationship better. Same with this sentence: "A few weeks previously, the film had been withdrawn from an Amnesty International film festival in Vancouver, as 'Amnesty staff in Caracas said they feared for their safety if it were shown'."
    • I get the sentence that this article uses a lot of semicolons, and it's a little distracting. I removed a couple of them and broke up the sentences, but I was wondering if their use could be reviewed? The "Release" section has quite a few. You can highlight them in Firefox by trying to find ; and clicking "Highlight all".
  • I have to put a hold on reading, but really, anything I have are minor nitpicks. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers for looking in. Feel free to continue to add to your list above; any further replies I have I'll simply add below. It might keep things neater that way.
      • I decided not to write those out in full because I think they're the names by which they're commonly known. So while I'd expand BSÉ to Bord Scannán na hÉireann, I wouldn't necessarily write Cable News Network at the first instance of CNN. Copei and MBR-200 are explained in the link-adjacent text, so I don't think there's an issue with readers' not knowing what they are. I might be way off-base here, so it might be worth Sandy's weighing in if she knows different.
        • Yes, COPEI is most commonly known as just that, and Spanish-speaking readers will recognize the common acronyms, while spelling them out for non-Spanish-speaking readers won't help them much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reworded as, "The movement adopted former Venezuelan leader Simón Bolívar as its "iconic hero" and "reference point"; Bolívar had played a key role in Latin America's successful struggle for independence from Spain in the 1820s."
      • Changed "as" to "when", per your suggestion. The Amnesty sentence I've recast to include a semi-colon. Ha.
      • OK, so on that, I do love me a liberal sprinkling of semi-colons, I must admit. Still, I've reviewed their use and found a few I could get rid of.
    • Cheers, Steve T • C 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Marked improvement on the semicolon front! Steve and Sandy, the COPEI issue makes sense. Just wanted to make sure thought was put into it! I have to finish reading the article since I was cut short yesterday. I was wondering, though, any possibility of an image of Hugo Chavez in either "Background" or "Synopsis"? He's displayed in the poster image, but it's kind of stylized and not so visible. There are some images at Wikimedia Commons just around the timeline. I was going to suggest an image of Pedro Carmona previously, but there do not seem to be any free images of him. Anyway, I'll be back here later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, the lack of decent images was something that was brought up during the peer review. Its something I'm usually quite conservative with, but especially considering some ... interesting ... choices I saw at Wikipedia France's Changeling article yesterday, I'm thinking I can afford to be a bit more liberal. So added. Steve T • C 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • More thoughts:
            • The Spanish-language title "La revolución no será transmitida" should be identified as such somewhere.
            • Wolfgang Schalk began a "concerted campaign" Do we need to have this kind of fragment quotation? Why not just say campaign?
            • For "BBC and Ofcom investigations", it may be useful to remind the reader who Nick Fraser was. Maybe a word like "financier"?
            • Fraser said, "The film was very good in many respects, but also misleading." He believed the filmmakers considered Chávez an honorable man; Fraser, the author of a book on Peronism, was more skeptical... This makes it sound like there are two Frasers? If there is one, can all the quotes from him be combined?
            • For the beginning of "Military involvement", it seems a little odd to start with such a full quote. Any way to start off this subsection without it?
            • Any interest in having a bulleted list for "Accolades"? The list sentence kind of goes on and on. It would be better readability to have it as a list.
            • Does Allmovie have any value as an external link? I see that it has similar works, but I'm not sure what other aspect of the web page adds what this article does not have.
            • I think that "Synopsis" could mention Caracas somewhere. I had a double-take and wondered exactly where the events took place, and Caracas is only mentioned in "Development" after "Background" and "Synopsis".
          • As probably seen, I performed minor copy-editing where I thought I could just go ahead and fix. Once the above concerns are addressed or responded to, I'll lend my support. Great writeup! Definitely a lot of detail for a documentary I knew nothing about before the improvement drive. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cheers for the edits. I've tackled all of the above now; the only point that remains is the first. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. It does say "In Venezuela, La revolución no será transmitida premièred on 13 April 2003", which seems to be a more or less word-for-word translation. Steve T • C 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent article on the documentary. My minor concerns have been addressed or responded to above. Full disclosure: I have collaborated with Steve in the past, but I was not involved in this article aside from a move request and helping agree on a referencing system. I find the article well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched. Most importantly, for a contentious topic, this article was even-handed in presenting views. I felt that I could draw my own conclusions from the information that was provided in a disinterested manner. The article is also structurally sound with a proper lead section and information about the topic divided into digestible sections that also have neutral headings. Citations are consistent. The freely licensed images go well with the article, and the article goes into the right amount of detail. There is a lot of detail, but none of it feels indiscriminate and adds to the reader's understanding of the topic, especially the dispute over the documentary's accuracy. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You won't see this message (<sad face>), but that's exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for. I'm absolutely positive that this article could never represent every editor's ideal version—it would be impossible to satisfy everyone—so the line I took was to present enough information for intelligent readers to make their own minds up. That may have made the article a little long, but the trade-off was worth it. Thanks, Steve T • C 10:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth making more explicit in the lede the fact that the documentary includes footage of events inside and around the palace, benefiting from the filmmakers' (including the press office camerman's) exceptional degree of access. Presently we hint at this fact at the end of the first para, and at the end of the second; at the beginning of the third para, we mention that critics highlighted the "filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events". I feel the way this information arrives in the reader's mind could be tightened a little, so that by the time the third para starts, the reader already has a more definite idea of what this "unprecedented proximity" consisted of. --JN466 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can swing that; the "at Miraflores" was consciously chosen to encompass events inside and out, as a space-saver more than anything. But now you mention it, I can see that making text as concise as it can be sometimes comes at the expense of focus. I'll reword a little later. Thanks, Steve T • C 21:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Variations of "inside and outside Miraflores" simply didn't work, so I instead strengthened the focus in the preceding sentences, adding a mention of the "direct access" and broadening "violence" to "events". Cheers, Steve T • C 21:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they weren't present for key events inside the palace early on, and that needs to be clear (as it is later in the text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much fine detail we should be putting in the lead; at some point, it becomes a back-and-forth to rival that of the article proper. Still, I've made it more explicit here, primarily because (as Jayen466 says), some readers might need context for subsequent passages. Best, Steve T • C 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done, that does it. --JN466 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't found time to read the rest of the article yet. From what I've seen, it looks well-written, well-researched, and neutral. Please bear with me for a few days. --JN466 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the synopsis, we have the sentence "The film says that the company was run like a private interest for the benefit of a minority, despite being state-owned." Could we make clear whether this refers to the time period before or after the takeover? It is not clear to the reader as it is. --JN466 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the "Filming" Section: " "My sense had changed as we got closer; what we're seeing here is a guy who is motivated, driven, not the demagogue with another side, drinking carousing." Should there be a comma between drinking and carousing? --JN466 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BBC investigation: Could we add a little on the official outcome of the BBC investigation? We have some comments from Fraser, but wasn't there an official finding published? --JN466 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We quote an almost dismissive statement from Fraser saying that the film is, essentially, "entertaining but misleading", but the current BBC web page on the film quotes Fraser saying the film "is a brilliant piece of journalism but it is also an astonishing portrait of the balance of forces in Venezuela. On one side stand the Versace wearing classes, rich from many decades of oil revenues, and on the other the poor in their barrios and those within the armed forces who support Chavez. The media, who ought to be merely reporting the conflict splitting the country down the middle, are in fact adjuncts of the coup-makers. Watch this film and you may truly for the first time in your life understand the term media bias." Are we on the straight and narrow here in terms of NPOV? --JN466 08:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the second point, that statement at the BBC web page has been up there since before it was broadcast in 2003; as the series editor and guy who bought it for the BBC, Fraser would be expected to say positive things at that stage. His later comments—without that COI—feel a lot more balanced. The only surprise is that he didn't have it removed after the furore kicked off. On the first point, the article says that "two weeks after Ofcom's initial ruling, the BBC announced it had closed the complaint and that no further investigations would take place"; I know it's unsatisfying in terms of being able to present an interesting conclusion to the narrative, but that's pretty much how it played out: the BBC let it fade away (relatively) quietly. Still, I'll take a look to see if I there's anything I can use to add another layer of detail. Best, Steve T • C 09:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually the BBC publish a statement at the end of their analysis of a complaint; if they didn't do that here, that*s unusual. Anything more in Stoneman perhaps? I think he discusses the merits of the various complaints at some length. Best, --JN466 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just as an update to this, the person to whom I'd lent the Stoneman book will be dropping it off for me shortly, so I'll be able to take another look later today. Best, Steve T • C 09:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Stoneman book doesn't say anything more than the corporation closed the complaint, and I can't find anything online or in dead tree sources that clarify matters. So ... I've e-mailed Stoneman direct; hopefully he'll be willing to point me in the right direction. Steve T • C 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • A number of access dates are missing from online sources, e.g. refs [21], [48], [57] and those after [59]
  • Why is the Nelson book not listed along with other book sources?

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I believe those are all newspaper sources, and someone somewhere for reasons I didn't keep up with on a guideline page (the ever-changing cite templates) decided that accessdates weren't need for hardprint sources with online courtesy links (personally, I prefer them, but they were done away with somewhere). Not sure on Nelson-- will leave that to Steve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, pretty much what Sandy said for the newspaper sources; it was a deliberate choice based on recent guideline changes (somewhere). For the Nelson book, that was deliberate too; it's cited just once, and to one page at that. I included in the bibliography only those sources I drew upon multiple times from multiple pages/chapters. For the single-use or single-page cites, doing that is a pointless extra step for the reader. Thanks, Steve T • C 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept Sandy's advice on access dates & your comment re Nelson. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice work indeed.
  1. Pity that title case is used: clunky.
  2. "Fly on the wall" I'd thought was a dictionary item and not worth linking. The link-target is disgraceful (it could ... um ... give a list of examples, and technical traits).
  3. "BSE and several European broadcasters". Don't we know how many? And BSE is a European broadcaster, isn't it?
  4. I've edited this bit, but still: "editing focused on identifying footage that would make the film entertaining and drive the plot"—doesn't editing always do that? Oh, I suppose fly on the wall makes it a particular requirement, but ...
  5. I was in a fly on the wall doco (against my wishes) that hit the cinemas back in 2001. It's a genre that can be overused, and I thought the film-makers in that case were disingenuous in their line that their presence didn't significantly change the "real life" they were observing. Oh well ... Tony (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the comments. On #1 I agree; I assume the MOS says we stick with the case used by the subject. Makes sense, I suppose. #2 The term seems to be less common in some English-speaking countries than others, so I'm going to keep it in. However, in the absence of a good source for listing examples of the genre, I've pointed the link to here instead. Still not ideal, but the wider context helps somewhat. #3 BSÉ isn't a broadcaster as such. It's probably closer to your now defunct Film Finance Corporation Australia. The wording "BSÉ and several European broadcasters" was chosen specifically to reflect that separation. #4 I know what you mean; it's a seemingly strange and trivial point to make, yet the "Editing" section reveals its importance. I'll see if I can come up with better phrasing. #5 Don't they all? I can barely sit through any modern documentaries without calling them out for their dramatic concessions at the expense of verisimilitude. Maybe they think we're too stupid to notice. Ah well. Thanks again, Steve T • C 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments.

  • In 1989, during the second term in office for Acción Democrática's Carlos Andrés Pérez, Venezuela was hit by a severe economic crisis; a wave of protests known as the Caracazo engulfed the country and dozens were killed in rioting.[4] - that's a bit long for one sentence. The second portion (after the semicolon) should be split and reworded, since there is lack of parallelism between the verbs (engulfed vs. were killed).
  • Nevertheless, by early 2002, Venezuela was "embroiled ... in a severe political crisis" - who said that quote? If no one relevant said that, then you should reword it, since it's not a very significant quote, IMO.
  • "Oil managers, business leaders, and large segments of organized labor" called a general strike. - see above
  • After they visit Washington, the CIA and the State Department express concern about Chávez's rule and stress the importance of the country's oil. - minor qualm, but given how much context is given to Venezuela, I did a double-take after reading that the sentence was about the United States. A little more context would be good (even just saying "After they visit the United States" would be good, although "they" could also be ambiguous, so maybe "After the two visit the United States"?)
  • fled to the US; - I believe that should be U.S., not US, but that has the problem of a semicolon next to a period. What about just fled to the United States;?
  • Power pitched the project at several documentary festivals and markets. - shouldn't that be "Power Pictures"?

Good read, overall. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for taking a look. In turn then:
  • Agreed; replaced semi-colon with period.
  • It just seemed like in this case the source had chosen the best wording to describe the situation; my paraphrase attempts were weaker by comparison. I'll have a think about it for a while and see if I can come up with a good replacement.
  • As above, really. It's just a list of those involved; the best that replacing the list could do would be to re-order them. Again though, I'll see what I can come up with.
  • I've reworded to "After the pair visit Washington, D.C., the CIA and the State Department express concern about Chávez's rule and stress the importance of Venezuela's oil." Do you think my expanding the capital's name to "Washington, D.C." is enough to make it clear? I'm reluctant to lose the detail here, as my intention was to reflect the film's implication that Carmona and Ortega somehow dealt with those agencies before they made their statements. Without mentioning the seat of government, that point is lost and the sentence might as well come out.
  • Not sure. According to the MoS, "U.S." is more common inside the country, but most other national forms of English omit the periods. Perhaps Sandy can weigh in on usage in Venezuela.
  • David Power, of Power Pictures, introduced above that point somewhere. Still, if it's ambiguous for one person, it will be for others, so I added his first name to the sentence.
Thanks again, Steve T • C 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the quick response. Yea, "Washington, D.C." works great there. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:43, 16 May 2010 [30].


July 2009 Ürümqi riots

edit
Nominator(s): User:Rjanag, User:Seb az86556, User:Jim101, and User:Ohconfucius

The last FAC had no but was closed because it didn't get enough attention, so I am bringing this back now. During the week in between FACs someone raised some issues at the talk page, and we have since addressed these by substantially beefing up the sources in the Background section of the article. This article has been through months' and months' worth of reviewing, and has more eyes watching it to ensure NPOV than the great majority of FACs; I believe it's far and away the best single account of these riots that exists today. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media

  • Support Widely sourced and studied. Meets FA criteria in my view. I can't help wondering though how this article has been developed so much when the Urumqi article is barely beyond start class!! Perhaps you could expand that article next? Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on the which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC. The two claims are not inconsistent; the Western Han did rule Xinjiang, but they didn't colonize it. The difference is over the interpretation, as often in nationalist debates. Please clarify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will quote the relevant passage from the source, with the parts most relevant to the sentence above emphasized; feel free to offer suggestions as to what wording might make this clearer for readers:

      ...every Uyghur firmly believes that his or her ancestors were the indigenous people of the Tarim basin.... Nevertheless, the official national minority identity of the present people known as "Uyghur", which have tenuous links to the ancient Uyghur kingdom, is a more recent phenomenon related to "Great Game" rivalries, Sino-Soviet geopolitical maneuverings, and Chinese nation-building. While a collection of nomadic steppe peoples know as "Uyghurs" has existed since before the eighth century, this identity was lost from the fifteen to the twentieth century. The Uyghurs and other officially recognized minority nationalities in the region are directly affected by China's nationality policy, since China does not have a policy of recognizing separate indigenous peoples with certain rights to land. China's policy of ethnic designation specifically avoids the issue of "indigeneity" and attachment to specific places or lands, thanks to the strongly held Chinese beliefs that all the lands of China have been in the hands of Chinese since the Han dynasty. Hence, all Han Chinese are as indigenous as any local ethnic group to the lands of China. Hence, China's minority policy is one of minority nationality recognition and autonomous administration, not one that designates indigenous peoples or rights.

      rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've only read about 1/2 of the article. Amazing work! Here are minor points:
  • "Uyghurs' religious freedom and freedom of movement are curtailed" -> 'freedom and freedom' is a bit awkward.
  • The concluding sentence of "Immediate causes" reads like a line from an essay. See this.
    • "Show, don't tell" applies to fiction writing. In an informative article, particularly one where walking a tightrope between two opposing viewpoints is so crucial, I don't see any problem with spelling the main idea out as clearly as possible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leading sentence of "Initial demonstrations" is a bit awkward, with both a colon and a semi-colon.
  • The acronym "XUAR" (or whatever it is) is used twice without explanation.
  • In a caption, "Locations where" sounds awkward and redundant.
  • "Violence captured on a witness' cell phone" -> Do cell phones really capture violence?
  • Maybe link "taser"?
  • "About 1,000 police officers were dispatched with tasers and weapons" -> Aren't tasers weapons? Maybe be more specific on "weapon".
  • "26 injured, six of whom were police officers" -> Used letters and numbers in the same sentence for same things.
  • "state media only reported that" -> Should it be "state media reported that only"?
    • I don't think so, they did not report "hey, only three people were killed!" They reported three. The reason for "only" here is because a reader who started at the beginning of the article already knows that the death toll would eventually be almost 200, so this is a low number at the beginning. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "46 Uyghur, and one Hui" -> same as above
  • "that many Uyghurs were killed as well" -> With "many", isn't "as well" redundant?
  • "10 Uyghur, and one Manchu"
  • "The city remained tense" -> Maybe use a softer/more encyclopaedic wording.
    • The wording seems fine to me; it accurately describes the atmosphere that is reported to have prevailed over those past few days. Can you suggest something better? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HRW" is used without explanation
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.247.32 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2010
  • Support with Comments Great article, a few minor points:
    • "Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on the which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC." This seems to portray the argument as a historical debate in which the facts are unproven, rather than a dispute based on historical interpretations that find different sources of legitimacy. I thought it could be reworded something like this: "Uyghurs and the Han-dominated central government each lay claim to the Xinjiang region, which is the Uyghurs ethnic homeland but has been under Chinese political control since around 200 BC." Or something like that.
    • The sentence in the intro: "Many Uyghur men disappeared during wide-scale police sweeps in the days following the riots; Human Rights Watch (HRW) documented 43 cases[7] and said that this was likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.[8]" is mimicked again later in the body: Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented 43 cases of Uyghur men who disappeared after being taken away by Chinese security forces in large-scale sweeps of Uyghur neighbourhoods overnight on 6–7 July,[57] and said that this was likely to be "just the tip of the iceberg";[8] Just seems redundant to use the "tip of the iceberg" metaphor twice.
    • "The New York Times and AFP recognised the lessons learnt by the Chinese from political protests around the world, such as the so-called colour revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and the 2009 Iranian election protests, and concluded that Chinese experts had studied the ways that modern electronic communications "helped protesters organize and reach the outside world, and for ways that governments sought to counter them."[116][182]" The first ways and the second "for ways" in the quote don't mesh.
    • "As late as January 2010, it was reported that police patrols make the rounds five or six times a day, and are increased at night.[17]" Tense clash, either put in quote, rephrase, or both.

Nice job!Neumannk (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, the wording seems a bit POV (essentially saying that the Uyghurs have the rightful claim and they have been under Han occupation) and is not precisely in line with what the source says (I quoted the relevant passage higher up on this page). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which quote was it? Like I said, I don't really think it affects the article being FA, it's solid, I just think the line sounds funny.Neumannk (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Towards the top of the page, the one beginning "every Uyghur firmly believes..." rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other points you raised have been dealt with. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.247.32 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010

Thanks, I addressed most of your comments, and left a few questions for you above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Mostly well-written; I've tweaked here and there. Appears to be a skillful handling of POV, threading opposite angles. It will no doubt still be on the PRC government's banned list, but that's just too bad. Query whether the Chinese-related MoS on en.WP says anything about the use of the double-crossed Y symbol for Chinese currency units; it appears to be exactly the same as that for Japanese yen, which is more familiar to most English-speakers. Can the MoS say something about this? Possibly recommend RMB or whatever the alternative is? (CoI declaration: I am a wikifriend of Ohconfucius.) Tony (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: All sources look OK (most impressive). No outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I believe my opposition last time was kind of responsible for the failed FAC after an unfortunate misunderstanding of how to deal best with some 'expert's' role could not be resolved. Anyway, I am willing to support the revised article now, but I have still one question: Why is it that the article always presents the government view first? There isn't some WP guideline to the effect of giving the official position constant priority over those of dissenting voices, is there? I would welcome a more balanced mix in which the Uyghur position is also sometimes given first. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't always present the government view first. The Immediate causes section discusses the Shaoguan incident first (and saying "the protests happened because of the Shaoguan incident" is essentially the "Uyghur" view, whereas the "government" view is that they were premeditated by separatists). The Initial demonstrations section, talking about how the protests turns violent, also clearly presents the "Uyghur" view first (excessive force by police) and the "government" view second (violence initiated by protesters).
    • And, anyway, even if the government view always were presented first (which is isn't), that wouldn't mean we were giving it "priority". Sometimes the view presented last gets "the last word" and therefore ends up looking like it has priority. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do an WP:NBSP review, all non-English citations need a language icon, and see my inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added non-breaking spaces, but there were not many to add (most of the uses of numbers in this article aren't followed by measures or abbreviations, but are like "# people" or "# Uyghurs", which I don't believe need non-breaking spaces.
  • As for language icons, I was not aware of any guideline that required the use of them instead of |language= within the citation templates (which all the non-English references here other than the census one had). But anyway, I went ahead and replaced them with {{zh icon}}.
  • As for your question about spacing, Chinese text does not use spacing between words, so it's normal for the number to be crunched up against the text like that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:43, 16 May 2010 [31].

Ernest Hemingway

edit
Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:FFA, has not been on main page

I am nominating Ernest Hemingway, which in the past six months has been through Peer Review and a thorough GA review. Bringing an article about a writer such as Hemingway to FA status would not be possible without help and collaboration. Thanks to all the editors who have helped along the way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—I'm happy every time I see an article on such an important subject brought here. Good luck, and I hope the reviewers will find the article worthy of being an FA. There are no dead external links, but a dab link to burns. Ucucha 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Images - Ideally the info box potrait should look into the text, File:Ehmercury.jpg fails wp:nfcc thus the article fails FAC3, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • General
  • Link Red Cross, Milan, bullfighting, Pampalona, Catholic, Arkansas, Grau-du-Roi, Key West, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Florida, safari, Spain, Madrid, Cuba, China, Liberation of Paris, pneumonia, Britain, diabetes, Nobel Prize, Havana, Castro, iron (mineral), Henry Louis Gates, Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, James Joyce
  • The following are linked: Red Cross, Pamplona, bullfighting, Nobel Prize, Cuba, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, James Joyce, Liberation of Paris, safari. Do you think they should be linked multiple times in the article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added links.
  • Thanks
  • "Hemingway's marriage to Hadley broke down as he was writing and revising The Sun Also Rises." - is "broke down" the term used by the source? perhaps "deteriorated" instead?
  • fixed
  • "Other members of Hemingway's immediate family also committed suicide: his father Clarence Hemingway; his sister Ursula; and his brother Leicester." - the article has already told me that some of these people committed suicide. Its a bit redundant. I note several other places were information is repeated. Please carefully read through the article and avoid redundancy wherever possible.
  • The father's suicide previously mentioned but not that of the two siblings. I think it's notable that three of six children commited suicide and would prefer to keep this in - unless I delete the entire paragraph altogether, describing the genetic illness with the comparison of EH and his father's behavior before their suicides. Should I take it all out?
  • "His youngest brother Leicester claims: "Never before had an author been given such news coverage following his death."" - what makes his younger brother an authoritative source on that? Was it true?
  • Yes it was true, but not necessary. Deleted
  • MOS
    • In a couple places the article uses season to track time (ie winter, fall) WP:SEASON discourages this.
  • I've replaced season with month in cases where the sources are clear about the timeframe. Shall I guess about the others - I'd prefer not to.
  • I've ran into this problem myself in the past. If the source only uses seasons, I'd stick with those within the article, thats better than making OR. But wherever possible try to avoid use of seasons for time keeping. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are endash being used where hyphens should be used. Check out WP:DASH for some examples and explanations. Here is a couple I noticed, please check the article thoroughly for more
      • "Hall–Hemingway"
      • "seven–bedroom"
  • these have been fixed, will check for others
    • "...where he quickly learned that the truth often lurks below the surface of a story." This statement is a bit unusual, if it is a quote put it in quotes. Otherwise I suggest rephrasing to a more encyclopedic tone. Check out WP:TONE
  • not necessary, deleted
    • "His books were burned in Berlin in 1933, and disavowed by his parents." Did they disavow him or his books? Is "disavow" the term used by the source?
  • The source does not use the word disavow. The parents hated his books. Disavow is my word.
  • Was the book burning related to his parents disavowal? Was it only they who burnt his books, or was it a mass burning of all his books in Berlin? I am still confused about context of this sentence. I think this arises partially because one of the critics speaks as though his work was somewhat anti-semtic, so why would the Nazis hate them enough to burn them? Maybe his parents weren't Nazis though? Maybe this could be elaborated on just a bit. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose
    • "Hemingway's fiction is considered successful because the characters he presents exhibit an authenticity that reverberates with the audience. Many of his works are considered classics of American literature." - tense problems, try this, "Hemingway's fiction was successful because the characters he presented exhibited authenticity that reverberated with his audience. Many of his works are considered classics of American literature." - "is\are considered" is also a weasel term. check out WP:WEASEL
  • Thanks for the rewrite. I've replaced with your version. Much better
    • "Late that year he was happy to begin writing..." seems needlessly fluffed, maybe just "Late that year he began writing..."
  • fixed
    • "...the June issue was banned in Boston for "immorality", and critics believed he "had achieved a new maturity"." These two items don't seem connected. If they are, perhaps tie them together better? It reads now as that because it was banned, he was therefore more mature. I don't think that is what the article means to convey though.
  • More appropriate in the article about the novel. I've removed from here
    • "...Hemingway's exploits, War II historian Paul Fussell remarks..." perhaps it should be "Hemingway's exploits, World War II historian Paul Fussell remarks"
  • That's a mistake and now fixed. Thank you for spotting it.
    • "Alone in Spain, without Mary, he was lonely..." "Alone" and "Lonely" are a bit redundant.
  • fixed
    • "This use of an image as an objective correlative is characteristic of Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, James Joyce, and of course Proust." - its not clear to me why it is "of course Proust". If there was an obvious link point it out, otherwise drop the "of course" as most readers won't know what it is referring to.
  • fixed
  • Citations needed
    • "During the early 1930s Hemingway spent his winters in Key West and summers in Wyoming, where he found "the most beautiful country he had seen in the American West" and hunting that included deer, elk, and grizzly bear." - quote without a citation
  • added
  • References
    • Needs access dates, ref # 134, 188, 192
  • Do you mean to replace "retrieved" with "accessed" throughout the refs?
  • These are journal articles. I'm working from the hard-copies and haven't retrieved them from the internet.
    • Ref 188 has a "pp", but only needs a "p"
  • Good catch! The ref needed to be reformatted & now done
    • There are several references listed that are not used, like Raeburn and Young. These should be moved off to a further reading section, or citations should be added where they are being used.
  • Young is ref #174; Raeburn removed
    • Some of the references are listed "lastname, firstname", while others are "firstname lastime", these need to be uniform
  • I formatted them incorrectly. Now fixed. Thanks.
  • Images
    • Alt text present, EXCEPT on lead image
  • It's there but not formatting. If anyone can help troubleshoot I'd be grateful. Otherwise I'll work on it.
    • Image size is being forced on several images, this is discouraged by WP:IMAGE as it overrides user preferences
  • removed
  • The JFK library doesn't have the author information
  • The JFK library doesn't have the author information
    • Other images look good
  • References are all reliable, a couple are Primary sources but used sparingly
  • Prose is ok, could use a final copyedit to remove leftover redundancies.
    • Thank you for taking the time to read the article, and for the comments. I've left a few questions about linking, the references, guessing regarding dates (months), and the suicides. Very useful comments. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items on my list are relatively minor. If you address them I will be glad to reread the article and consider supporting. Great job so far, keep up the good work! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck off most of the items and I am going to support now, since what is left is very minor! I do suggest though that the article get a final copy edit. Other reviewers are more stickier on the prose than I and may find some things they don't like. Anything you can do to tighten it up and say the same thing in less words would be good.
Support —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support!Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just finished reading it. Looks good to me. ---kilbad (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read the article, and for the support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead (the sentence starting with "During his lifetime he had seven novels") feels like it is mentioning a bit too many numbers for the lead. I'm not sure on the guidelines for this though but the lead should be easy to read and here I get stuck on the second sentence.
  • I have to agree - truly a terrible sentence that I've struggled with. Actually I've deleted it, and the text doesn't seem to suffer. See what you think.
  • per comment below from Maria, I've reinstated the sentence but reworked it, and placed it at the end of the paragraph.
  • "had an enormous influence on 20th-century fiction" part doesn't sound very neutral to me. You could make it a quote or perhaps clarify that some people believe so?
  • removed enormous
  • I'm no Hemingway specialist but shouldn't "A Farewell to Arms" be mentioned in the lead? Perhaps when mentioning that he was ambulance driver?
  • Done
  • Images are an important part of making people read the article. Thus captions should be not only a information about the image but also, if possible, make the reader interested in reading the whole text. "Birthplace in Oak Park, Illinois" does not make me very excited to read about his Early life. Try to make them more interesting. It is a shame if nobody reads the article.
  • Good point. I've tried to add as much as I can. Let me know if more is necessary.
  • You've done some improvements but it can still get better. The thing is you don't always have to write "about" the picture in the caption, it has to be related but does not have to be "Ernest Hemingway baby picture, ca. 1900" that doesn't make me very interrested to read the text. Instead it can be for example "When Hemingway's parents married in 1896, they moved in with Grace's father, Ernest Hall, after whom they named their first son". It's hard to give good examples since I haven't read much about Hemingway but take Nobel Prize for example. Now please look at the picture of the will and look at the caption. It sounds a bit "exciting" and makes you want to read the text more than it would if the caption would only have been "Alfred Nobel's will". I hope this helps!
  • Will work on the captions, but prefer not to exceed the recommendations of WP:CAPTION
  • Have added to the captions, but tried to stay at 3 to 4 lines of text.
  • Good job!
  • In Nobel Prize part: "He told the press Carl Sandburg, Isak Dinesen and Bernard Berenson deserved the prize, but the prize money would be welcome." This needs some clarification, why did he say that? It needs a bit more context.
  • He was being modest. It was lost during the course of prose tightening a few days ago. I've added it back.
  • Did he did not believe he earned it then?
  • The sources speculate that he may have believed he received the prize as a result of obituaries published after his accident earlier in the year. Shall I add the speculation?
  • I think it might be needed to understand the sentence so yes.
  • Done
  • Thanks.
  • It might not be very relevant but when I read 'Despite his finding that Hemingway "had died of a self-inflicted wound to the head", the story told to the press was that the death had been "accidental".' I wonder how we now know it was a suicide?
  • This is actually a great question. I believe the doctor at the scene was interviewed by Carlos Baker and the information may have have been published in a biography in the 1970s. An earlier book, written by A.E Hotchner in the 1970s, which I don't have access to, may have also mentioned suicide, for which Mary sued Hotchner. In the 1980s, before she died, Mary admitted it was suicide, but finding the article may be difficult. I'll see what I can dig up. (Adding: I'm off by a few decades - she admitted it was suicide in 1966 Mary Hemingway admits suicide
  • Great, looking forward to it!
  • Yeah I saw that. I meant in the text. Perhaps add it as a note?
Thanks for reading and for the good comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments: I reviewed this article for GAC, and I'm glad to see it's improved even further. I suggested that Hemingway's writing/works be given more prominence, as well as little personal touches that engage the reader and make the (already colorful) subject matter more lively; these points have been implemented wonderfully. Per Charles Edward's concerns about the prose, I've performed a perfunctory c-e throughout; please fix any errors I may have inadvertently introduced. Overall I think it's definitely FA quality, but I have a few fixes in mind, with one suggestion for expansion near the bottom:
  • The lead needs to better summarize the article in full per WP:LEAD. Perhaps include a little more information about his writing/important themes? Iceberg theory is there, but it could probably be expanded to another sentence.
  • Removed yesterday per comment above; reinstated with tweaking and a new placement
  • Do you intend the article to use the serial comma or no? I see a few examples of both throughout the article, so best it's made consistent. For example, "Michigan where Hemingway learned to hunt, fish, and camp in the woods and lakes of Northern Michigan. His early experiences with nature instilled a lasting passion for outdoor adventure, living in remote or isolated areas, hunting and fishing."
  • I tend not to use the serial comma. Will weed out the excess commas
  • He arrived in France in March, and in Spain ten days later with Dutch filmmaker Joris Ivens. -- This is strange, and I didn't know how to fix it. Is it important to note when he arrived in France, since the assignment was obviously in Spain? If so, ten days later than what?
  • Fixed
  • In 1959 he bought a home overlooking the Big Wood River, outside of Ketchum, and left Cuba, although he apparently remained on easy terms with the Castro government, telling the New York Times he was "delighted" with Castro's overthrow of Havana.[23][24] In 1960, he left Cuba and Finca Vigía for the last time. -- I didn't want to mess with this because the refs get in the way, and I don't know what citation is supporting what claim. Anyway, it's redundant, as twice it's stated that he left Cuba. I suggest splitting it as such: "outside of Ketchum. In 1960, he left Cuba and Finca Vigía for the last time, although he apparently..." etc.
  • I've cut down a bit here. I do think it's important to know that he lost his home, library, art, and manuscripts, so I left that in.
  • The Sun Also Rises is written in the spare, tightly written prose for which Hemingway is famous, a style which has influenced countless crime and pulp fiction novels.[150] It is a style considered to be his greatest contribution to literature. -- This can be condensed somewhat, although again I don't want to mess around with things where refs are concerned. The influence to crime and pulp fiction could possibly be moved to "Influence and legacy", while the rest can read something like: "for which Hemingway is famous; it is considered to be his greatest contribution..." etc.
  • trimmed and condensed
  • Henry Louis Gates believes Hemingway's style was fundamentally shaped by post–World War I. -- "post-World War I" what, exactly? Sentiments?
  • developed and explained
  • It doesn't state who developed the term Iceberg Theory; although there's the separate article and everything, it may be of note here.
  • He did. Clarified
  • The concept of the iceberg theory is sometimes referred to... -- is it "Iceberg Theory" or "iceberg theory"?
Lowercase - fixed
  • Typical is this analysis of The Sun Also Rises: "Hemingway never lets the reader forget that Cohn is a Jew, not an unattractive character who happens to be a Jew but a character who is unattractive because he is a Jew." -- Where does this criticism come from? Also, I see no mention of alleged racism anywhere; misogyny and homophobia, yes, more of that. I also want to know more about these "apologetics" -- in short, bring on the Hemingway bashing!
  • Sorry, I don't have them. This is from a paper that surveyed the 4000 papers written since his death, which I've explained in the text. Will track down the specific apologetics and add them in.
  • His reputation was sealed with the publication of The Sun Also Rises. He became the spokesperson for the post-World War I generation, and he established a style to follow. -- "After his reputation was sealed..., he became..."?
  • Reworded
Very helpful. Thanks for reading and for the comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall excellent job done. Hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 20:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm slowly giving it a read, and so far this is iffy to me - Hemingway met young and newly influential painters such as Pablo Picasso, Joan Miro, and Juan Gris. - Picasso by the time Hemingway met him was an international celebrity and a superstar in the art world especially in the circle of European and French painting - in Paris - which was the leading art center in the world. By 1922 Picasso was 41 years old, - no longer young, Juan Gris was 35 and Miro was 29. Arguably he met the leading artist of the 20th century and 2 up and coming stars. This needs an adjustment - ...Modernist (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and a question - The Picasso inclusion is much better now. It's a long read. This line also seems a bit odd and makes no sense - From June to December 1944 he was in Europe at the D-Day landing, accompanying a group in a landing craft to shore, before returning to the troop transport ship. - that June to December sure was a long D-Day, I think he was in Europe June to December and he was at D-Day...I know how hard you have worked on this, it's an impressive and by and large a well done article and hopefully I'll get through it by tomorrow...Modernist (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. I've fixed this
  • I have no good answer to that question. I think I've wanted to focus on Hemingway himself, and his immediate family, so I must have made a decision to remove Margaux from the article. I can re-instate her (and Mariel) if you think it's important, or perhaps I could add their articles to the See Also section.
  • Thanks for taking the time to read. I agree with your comment about the length, which I've struggled to keep from getting out of control. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to butt in, but I'm not sure I agree with you, Modernist. Surely Hemingway's main legacy is his literary legacy, which the section correctly focuses on. He's not known for his relatives. Except of course for the unfortunate end he shared with Margaux (and several other family members), what is there to say except for the fact that they exist(ed)? María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Marguax and Mariel, but the problem I struggled with earlier, is that he has one grandson (Sean Hemingway) who is a writer, another granddaughter (Lorien) also a writer, and so on. In the end, I decided to focus only on Hemingway himself. However, I do think Margaux's suicide is an interesting footnote in this story, and if Margaux is mentioned, then Mariel should be too. I'll leave to you all to decide what to do. The text I've added is easily removed or commented out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the commentary about Margaux and Mariel is important, if his other grandchildren are particularly noteworthy you might add a sentence to that effect at the end...Modernist (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. Honestly, I hadn't heard of the other grandchildren until I began the research for this article, but obviously Margaux and Mariel are noteworthy. I lived in the LA area when Margaux died, and it was big news (as I'm sure it was elsewhere). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if the source text ends with a period, then I've left it inside the quotation marks. If not, the punctuation is outside the quotation marks. I'm happy to change them, but after a discussion with Awadewit, which I may have misunderstood, I believed it was correct as I've done it per WP:LQ. Templates gone from infobox, delinked again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:43, 16 May 2010 [32].

Great Auk

edit
Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the Great Auk article because I believe it is a comprehensive overview of the species, well-written and well-illustrated, and that it meets the criteria. The Great Auk was a large, flightless bird that actually gave penguins their name, though the auk was not related. It was hunted and collected into extinction in the mid-1800s. Thank you for reviewing the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - I would prefer the image in the infobox to look into the article Fasach Nua (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the other images at Commons looks inwards, and I don't think it would do well as a taxobox image. If it is an issue, could the current picture be modified by just flipping it so the picture looks inward? I'm not an expert on picture liscensing and am not sure if we can do that, nor do I have any photo-editing software. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSIMAGE, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text ... However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences." Which is a little proscriptive for my tastes, but I don't make the rules, unfortunately. Best, Steve T • C 21:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though the habitat picture is of the island. Shame; I liked the Oslo picture. What is the difference between stuffed and reconstructed anyways?
The deletion nominator is claiming that the reconstruction is a 3-D work of art. I like the St Kilda image though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look good.
  • It was the only species in the genus Pinguinus, a group of birds that included several flightless giant auks doesn't make sense, how can it be the only member of the genus if it includes several others?
Clause in sentence clarified "that survived until modern times", but I redid it anyways.
  • Text is a bit choppy in places, especially description, with short sentences that could be run together
Tried my hand at it.
*Despite its agility in the water, it was clumsy on land. Why would its agility in water lead to an expectation it would be agile on land? Although agile in the water... would be better
Good call.
  • including one with a cloak made of over 200 auk skins no obvious connection between skin and bones, Many Maritime Archaic people were buried with Great Auk bones, and one had a cloak made of over 200 auk skins.
Done.
  • in 1830 the islet submerged an event worthy of some explanation perhaps?
Volcano did it in.
I've at least taken a stab at your concerns. Can you take another look at the Description section? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of a tendency to use weasel words/padding like it is known. I fixed some of these in a second run through (please check), but "some scientists" might attract comment
  • laying one egg on bare rock — later it says they normally make a nest of guano, contradictory
The book source (which I no longer have access to) gave me the guano nest information, while the pretty exhaustive BNA account said bare ground. I had assumed that the bird did both, but a trawling through Google showed no references to guano nests. I've removed the guano bit as bare rock is much more frequently referenced.

Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most auks lay on bare ground, and any accumulation of stones or debris is unusual or accidental.
  • Comment. I will be reviewing this article this week and have taken a quick look. Overall, the quality of this article is high. I'll reserve further comments for later, and have watchlisted the FAC and the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello from your FAC neighbor to the south VVV :) I love it when people nominate well-crafted articles on interesting, though unpopular (or even obscure) topics. Please continue to work on, and nominate, articles like Great Auk, Rufous.
Further comments:
  • Is there are a reason to link very common terms like beak, wing, human, and rat? Readers will surely know what these are, if they have basic English reading skills.
Most people know the basics of beaks and wings but may want to know more. As a bird body part I vote they stay. I'll remove the human and rat wikilinks though.
Makes sense. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated rat and one of the human links. However, the other is in a long line of linked predators and I think it would just look weird if it wasn't linked as well.
Seems fine.
  • A citation is needed here: "The name Alca is a Latin derivative of the Scandinavian word for Razorbills and their relatives."
Didn't even need a new reference. Fixed.
  • "Juvenile birds had less prominent grooves in their beaks and had mottled white and black necks,[22] while the eye spot was a gray line through the eyes (which still had the white eye ring) to just below the ear."
I don't really know what this means.
I assume you are referencing the second half; I gave it a rewrite.
Thanks. Looks better. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Great Auk migrated[...] They were extremely common in the Grand Banks.[...] Its bones have been found as far south as Florida and Gibraltar..."
There is much fluctuation between singular and plural in this paragraph. A few other paragraphs are like this, too.
Fixed it here and in several paragraphs furthur down. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Approximate range map of the Great Auk; Being mainly coastal, the blue indicates the distribution limits, while yellow marks known breeding sites based on Grieve (1885)"
Either the "Being" needs to be lowercase, or the ";" should be changed to a full stop.
Good catch.
  • A 75-year-old man and his (presumably older) father-in law beat the auk to death because they believed it to be a witch?! How incredible. Not just the claims of witchery, but the ages of the men. Not really a FAC observation, just a reader's observation. Sad.
Weirdly written into the article. The sentence tells it as the source does, the 75 year old telling the story to someone. He actually slew the witch forty years earlier. I reworked that paragraph.
Thanks for undergoing the review. I've started with your concerns and will finish later. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten to everything above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Here's the next batch:
  • "A captive auk was noted to give a gurgling noise when anxious."
Seems awkward. I suggest recasting to "A captive auk was observed making a gurgling noise when anxious."
Check
  • "The Great Auk was capable of swimming rapidly to gather speed, then shooting out of the water and landing on a rocky ledge not level with the ocean."
The 'not level with the ocean' part is unclear; can it be changed to 'above the ocean'? Unless this is not the meaning.
Done
  • Internal inconsistencies: The lede says the favored prey was "Atlantic menhaden and capelin, and crustaceans." The diet section says "Based on remains associated with Great Auk bones found on Funk Island and on ecological and morphological considerations, it seems that Atlantic menhaden and capelin were their favored prey.[40] Other species suggested as potential prey include lumpsuckers, shorthorn sculpins, cod, and sand lance.[38]" with no mention of crustaceans. A subsequent paragraph states that the young fed on regurgitated crustaceans, but the crustacean diet of adults should be specifically mentioned.
Checked the source before adding it in. Done, and good call.
  • "The Great Auk sexually matured when they were four to seven years old."
Another example of the singular/plural problem. "Great Auks..." would work better here.
Fixed
  • "The Great Auk is known to have been preyed upon by Neanderthals more than 100,000 years ago, as evidenced by well-cleaned bones being found by their campfires."
The 'being' can be removed here to de-clutter.
Done
  • "while the Saqqaq in Greenland..."
The Wikilink Saqqaq leads to a town in Greenland, rather than a native culture.
Great catch. Fixed.
  • "This species is estimated to have had a maximum population in the millions, although some scientists dispute this estimation."
'estimate' probably works better here. 'Estimation' can also mean 'judgement', potentially confusing the reader.
Fixed.
  • Is a wikilink to history in the pop culture section necessary?
LoL. Don't think so, so removed.

Firsfron of Ronchester 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done with this batch. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of my concerns have been addressed, the prose seems nicely polished, references are appropriate and abundant, and the article is clear to the average reader without being dumbed down. Nice work! And thanks for the swift fixes. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • The link on ref 71 (Rockford's Rock Opera) is not particularly useful. Is there a better link that goes to the song in question, or gives an indication where the song might be found?
  • Otherwise, sources look good, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more digging and found a page with some info and a link to the song (if you pay). I put it in the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but to make the connection clear I suggest that you mention the song title in your text, thus: "...and a song, 'A dream too far', in the ecological musical Rockford's Rock Opera." Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha—

  • The lead says Penguinus included several other flightless extinct species, but the body includes only one and does not say it is flightless.
I expanded on alfrednewtoni, but that is the only Penguinus I could find evidence for (other than the species they both sprang from, which is unnamed and I have no idea how that works in terms of giving names), so I trimmed it back to a single other species.
put France in as the southern European boundary
The "distribution" section still doesn't have it, though, and the map shows it extending to the northern coast of Spain. Ucucha 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slipped it in and reworded for northern Spain. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its bones have been found as far south as Florida and Gibraltar,"—any data on how old these were (glacial?)
Seemed to be 17th century, though in the Florida case there are trading suspicions. What should I do with this?
For any archeological records, I think it's best to put date estimates in if they exist. It puts them into a bit more context. Ucucha 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Put it in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1794 London banned the killing of this species for its feathers"—is London a metonym for Great Britain here?
Yep. Switched out.
  • What makes "The Extinction Website" a reliable source?
It looked reliable to me, but I switched it out for another Gaskell page.
  • Do you really need the location and publisher for journals?
Do I? It is in the citation template, so I assumed so and hunted down as many as I could (which is harder than it would seem)
You don't need to fill in everything in these templates, and the fact that it's so hard to find these data suggests that readers who want to find the reference won't find the location and publisher very useful. Ucucha 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Thanks; this will save effort in the future. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several references (Johnsgard, Meldegaard) are not formatted consistently with the rest (without citation templates).
Done.
Johnsgard appears to be a chapter from a 1987 book that is uploaded separately as a PDF file, should be cited as such. Ucucha 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuck (1976) ref is missing page number
p. 261.
  • Who Killed the Great Auk? is cited twice, but date is said to be 2000 in one ref and 2001 in the other
Amazon.com is wrong, changing to 2000.

Ucucha 18:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I think I've addressed them all. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes; I made a few replies above. Ucucha 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll do a check for source coverage later and then hopefully support. Ucucha 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very interesting. Few comments:
  • References appear reliable
  • Images check out
  • I don't detect any MOS issues
  • In the description sec "blackish brown" should probably be hyphenated
  • "A person buried at the Maritime Archaic site at Port au Choix, Newfoundland, dating to about 2000 BC, seems to have been interred clothed in a suit made from more than 200 Great Auk skins, with the heads left attached as decoration." - In the lead this is mentioned as a fact, but in the body the words "seems" indicates it is a estimation. Can that be clarified?
  • The article mentions the use of the bird as bait in a couple places, you might want to clarify it as "fishing bait" (I think that is what is meant).
  • Reference # 2 needs an access date
  • Reference # 8, 62, 67, 70, & 75 have "pp.", but should only have "p."

Please fix those little things. Great job on this article! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Thanks for the review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:43, 16 May 2010 [33].

Iravan

edit
Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This GA article is about a minor character from the Indian epic Mahabharata, who is also a Hindu Tamil village-god, patron of the transgender and is also known in Javanese Hinduism. The article recently had a copyedit and unofficial peer reviews by some wiki-users on the talk, keeping in mind the FA criteria. It also has relevant images thanks to generous flickr users. I am nominating this article for featured article because IMO, it satisfies all FA criteria after the copyedit and peer reviews. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 10:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it necessary to have a "See Also" link at the end of a section (namely, "Javanese Traditions") in the body of the article? Usually, articles that I've seen have see-also links at the beginning of sections, not the end. Couldn't that link be moved either to the beginning of the "Javanese Traditions" section, or to the article's central "See Also" section (which, interestingly, is right after the Javanese Traditions section)? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiger, what do you think? I think Hinduism in Indonesia/Java would work better in either of the places Mason suggests. I'd think it was better placed in the See also section, because this is not a summary article, and the tag interrupts the flow of the text slightly. I'm not sure I can remember exactly, but I might have moved it from the top to the bottom, for that reason. I left it in the section it applied to, though. Another, perhaps preferable, alternative would be to write it into the text of the Javanese traditions section. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Put it as a hidden link. Removed "See also" section completely. Moved links to relevant places. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'm happy. Stonemason? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; I'm happy too. Thanks! Stonemason89 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images there are a couple of images from the 17th century tagged as being free as they are 70 years old, these should be retagged as 100 years to increase freeness Fasach Nua (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The default PD-art template is used in accordance with Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Changed to {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. Would you please check the other images too? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is featured quality. A lot of hard work and copyediting has gone into it. One minor quibble though. There is some inconsistency with the spelling of Iravan in the article. It is mostly spelled in the article as Aravan. I understand that this is the spelling when discussing southern india but should the article be moved to Aravan? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Some clarifications about "should the article be moved to Aravan?"
There are 3 distinct traditions about Iravan (son of Arjuna and Ulupi):
1. Sanskrit tradition (the oldest account: the Mahabharata - Mbh), where Iravan is hardly significant
2. the Southern Indian tradition where Iravan/Aravan is significant in two cults, one of which is solely dedicated to him.
3. the Javanese tradition where Iravan/Irawan even when officially a hero, is a minor character.
Moving Iravan to Aravan is OK if I remove the Java section, but the Mbh section is needed as parallels between the South Indian legends and Mbh account are drawn. Also a separate article about the Mbh Iravan will be always needed and there would be unnecessary repetition. The whole biography of the Mbh Iravan is already covered. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Iravan is more appropriate then. I'm content with it as it is then. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I believe that this article has reached the featured article status with excellent editing by Redtigerxyz and Alastair. In fact when Redtiger asked for my help to improve it, I could hardly find anything to improve as it had already reached that level. To the credit of Alastair and Redtiger they made a lot of improvements since then.--Anish (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your support. Anish was one of those people, who was asked for the unofficial peer review on the talk, where he left some comments. Thanks for those comments too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are 19th/18th century images. Even if the author (painter) is not unknown, by the 21st century (now), the author would be dead and 100 years gone. Can you please link other applicable licenses?
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags . Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Goddes Kali01.jpg (a typical S. Indian Chola style bronze): an apt replacement for the S. Indian Kali image. If needed, This image can be used. Let me know if a replacement for the war img is needed, then I will search for it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed both images. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is uploaded from the Indonesian wiki. I need to confirm with Indonesian wiki contributor. I can else remove it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the image. The Indonesian wiki uploader is inactive since Oct. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading the article and the support. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see an independent copyedit here by someone unfamiliar with the text and familiar with MOS. "In any case"? I got lost several times trying to decipher meaning of text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. It has had an independent copyedit by User:Alastair Haines (who was unfamiliar with the text), but the end of the copyedit, he was quite familiar with the topic. I felt, he had almost read all the references on the topic available to him and has filled with Talk:Iravan with constructive criticism and queries, which worked like a extensive peer review too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Still there: "In any case, the pre-battle sacrifice is the common element in the Tamil traditions." Is "in any case" encyclopedic prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left on the Iravan page by SandyGeorgia as hidden comments:

  • Kuttantavar (Koothandavar)<!-- why is this not linked so we can figure out what this is??? -->
Please read "Following and temples" and "Kuttantavar_cult_rituals", which present a summary of the cult. No article on the cult exists, except this.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, all aspects covered, based on academic mainstream sources and covers all geographic locations of this unique phenomenon and cult. The article is easy to read although the subject matter is difficult. Good job Kanatonian (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. My common answer to "I got lost several times trying to decipher meaning of text." and "the subject matter is difficult" is that this article is about a Hindu deity with whom people may not be familiar and may face WP:JARGON problems. I have tried my best to explain jargon and Hindu concepts. However, the possibility of unexplained jargon can not be ruled out. If it still exists, please point it out. I have tried with the copyeditor to write the article in the simplest terms possible for non-Indian, non-Hindu reader. At the same time, I have keep this article at the standard so it can cater to "expert" Indians/Hindus. You can not write Electron/Scattered disc without using the suitable jargon. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've been slow to support this nomination because I was one of the copy-editors. However, part of my copy-editing was verifying content against the reliable sources cited. I have read most of the sources, and found the article to say no more than the sources did, and to have presented those sources with neutrality (no original evaluation). The organization of the article gives due weight to all available sources. There is no plagiarism.
My copy-edit did little but alter prose to reflect my own taste in formal, encyclopedic English. So I feel free to praise everything else about the article: logical organization, engaging and relevant factual matter, comprehensive treatment of core issues, apt illustration. In my estimation this article is indeed of a standard that can be held up as an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Editors who follow this example will serve readers and Wikipedia's reputation very well indeed
Thank you Tiger, for all your hard work in setting us this example. I have learned a lot from it, and would love for others to benefit from it also, by us agreeing to draw attention to it as a Featured Article. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though Alastair Haines primarily joined the article as a copyeditor, he proved to be much more than a copyeditor. He also verified the sources (most of them) and added some new material. Alastair Haines' comments talk about his observations. Anyway, for a NPOV, I suggest his vote be ignored. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: Unfortunately, my copyeditor friend Alastair Haines is now banned for a year on wikipedia. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from nominator: I will be unable to edit wikipedia for next few days at least till 6th, but my absence may extend to the 9th. I request the closing admins that if there are any comments added in my absence and that need answers, I be given an opportunity to respond to them, before you close this nomination. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support, but the prose needs a run-through. Here are examples. Tony (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "—which is also a name commonly given to him in that cult—" makes it a longish sentence. I'm unsure what the "which" refers back to.
    Should I put the - ... - text in brackets? --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Remove "or" from the paranthetical bit?
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Isn't a self-sacrifice willing by default? In any case, "willing" is better on first occurrence.
    Removed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is "boon" the right word? And "Krishna allowing Aravan to witness" is a noun plus -ing that could be rephrased.
  5. "hosted on a post"—sounds humorous.
    Oops. Fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Comma splice: "The head of Aravan is a common motif in Draupadi temples, often it is a portable wooden head".
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Is "also" necessary in the final para?
    Also implies here that he is only known in India--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "Java where, for example, he ..."
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "through", not "via" unless scientific or technical, I think.
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "red-face"—why the hyphen?
    Removed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ref 17 quote needs comma after closing quotation marks (MoS).
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "That manuscript evidence is somewhat late, given its material composition and the climate of India, but it is very extensive." I don't get the climate point, and the "but" doesn't seem to introduce a contrary statement.
    Sentence removed. The para can do without it too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got past the third section. Tony (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will return to full-fledged copyediting only after Sunday. I have requested an editor to check. Waiting for his reply. I will try to fix minor issues. Please strike resolved concerns.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony typically gives samples, and didn't get beyond the third section; has the rest of the article been examined for similar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partly, as noted below. Many small things need attention. Finetooth (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned that you got through the same part Tony got through ... wondering if anyone has been through the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should look closely at "Aravan to Kuttantavar" and on to the end. I'll return tomorrow and see what I can do. Would it be better to post the whole business here, or would it be more helpful to continue on the article's talk page? Finetooth (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please post on the talk and leave a link here, if it is OK. It has become too crowded here. Thanks again for reading the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

  • References list: formatting is inconsistent.
  1. Several online sources lack last access dates
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some entries, e.g. Ganguli, Thurston, lack publisher information
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some books have ISBN, others not
    Added ISBN of all books I found. The Sukthankar book does not have a printed ISBN on it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is not necessary to specify that the source's language is English.
    Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Working my way down as far as the "Three boons" section, I've posted quite a few proofing comments to the article's talk page (Talk:Iravan#Partial proofing for ongoing FAC). With one or two exceptions, I did not make changes directly to the article, which needs proofing on down to the bottom. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posted replies on the talk. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still finding it hard to decipher this article at all. Example from the lead:

  • In Koovagam, Tamil Nadu, this incident is re-enacted in an 18-day festival, first by a ceremonial marriage of Aravan to alis and male villagers (who have taken vows to Aravan), and then by their widowhood after ritual re-enactment of Aravan's sacrifice.
    • Who or what is Alis? Undefined term introduced in the lead.
lead 1st para " transgender communities called ali " Hijra is also linked. Quoted line is ahead in the 2nd para. Should I reformat it as alis? --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A ceremonial marriage to male villagers?
Yes. That's the intended meaning. The context and traditions are explained ahead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • whose widowhood?
I do not see any other nouns related to "their" except alis and male villagers. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article assumes an understanding by the reader and is hard to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not assume any understanding, however it may be hard for people to digest the facts. A male god's wedding to male villagers sounds absurd, but is true. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that it's true, but the wording is still hard for the uninformed to understand and needs adjustments. (I'm following this FAC-- no need to ping me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why "A ceremonial marriage to male villagers" is hard to understand for the uninformed. Yes, it is an alien subject for most readers, but you can't over-simplify "encyclopedic" articles. Please be more explicit. Can you tell me Sandy how to make the uninformed understand this? What adjustments are needed? Please give me an example, say reword the sentence you quoted. That would help me understand. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help to explain on first reference to "ali" in the first paragraph that the plural of "ali" is "alis"? Otherwise "alis" to a foreigner (like me) looks like a noun ending in "s" rather than a plural. Like this perhaps: "He is also a patron god of well-known transgender communities called ali (plural alis) (also aravani in South India, and hijra throughout South Asia). Finetooth (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, saying "alis" is the plural is the wrong. The plural of ali in Tamil (original language) is not alis. It is only in English that alis is considered a plural (used in Niklas (2003) and Hiltebeitel (1995)). Also, there are other similar plurals like lakons, thalis, puranas. Are we opening a pandora's box with adding the plural thing for all? I will alis to "Alis" and likewise as it is references (Alis was chnaged to alis by the copyeditor). That may help. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alis issue is not unique to this article. It must exist in other articles where non-English words are used. Any MOS commenting on this????? --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my suggestion for plurals; it was not such a good idea. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed proofing the article all the way to the end. Meanwhile Redtiger used my first set of suggestions on the article's talk page to revise. I went back through the early sections today to read them with Redtiger's alterations in place, and they were better. I should add that I had not read this article before yesterday and that I knew nothing of Iravan. I did have trouble wrapping my head around all the unfamiliar terms and the complicated interactions of the characters, and I would not like to take a pop quiz on the variants of the Iravan tale. Still, especially on the second read-through, I would say that I understand the essentials. Finetooth (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Aside from two minor quibbles remaining on the article's talk page and the [sic] that's still dangling at the end of the sentence mentioned by Steve below, the MoS glitches have been fixed to my satisfaction. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I read parts of this a few days ago, noting a few prose issues, but refrained from commenting after seeing Tony and Sandy's most recent posts, and that Finetooth was performing a followup copyedit. Parts of the article—most even—were very well written, but now I think I can say all of it is pretty good. Some of it could be tighter, but overall a fine job that I'd be happy seeing featured. This is a subject area I'm completely unfamiliar with, but I wasn't left needing/wanting to know more; the narrative flow is especially strong and held my attention. Image licenses and tags all seem fine (see below for a minor query), and from what I can see (again, unfamiliar), the sources are high-quality. On the MOS side, little jumps out as needing correction. Minor comments: 1) I'd discard italics where they've been used for emphasis alone outside quotes; I can't see any instance that needs them. 2) I realise it can only ever be an approximation, but no dates are given in the lead, definitely leaving the question begged for those unfamiliar with the topic. 3) In "Historical development", I can't see any need for the [sic] in "a representative of countless innocent youth[s] who[m] [sic] their mothers" when you've already corrected it via the square brackets. Probably no need to correct "who" to "whom" either; it may only hold readers up as they pause to consider why. 4) Do File:Kurukshetra.jpg and File:Kali South Indian.jpg have the correct tag (author +100 years)? Of course, their respective authors will be long dead, but I assume there's a PD tag available that isn't as dissonant. Overall though, nice work. Best, Steve T • C 22:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Replies: 1) Removed italics for emphasis 2) Giving one date would to be UNDUE to one view, the dates' issue is much more complex see "Historical development" section 3) Done. If "who" is right, then [m] can be removed. IMO, whom is the best here. 4) the two images you are talking about, have been replaced by new ones on 28 April 2010 (the current version). --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 3) I don't think who is right, but the correction to whom is, IMO, more distracting than leaving it as per the original. On 4) That's OK then. :-) I just looked at David's comments above and didn't note that they didn't look like those I'd already seen in the article. Cheers, Steve T • C 11:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeComments
    • Shouldn't epic be linked in the first sentence? It'd also help if "boon" was linked, since I don't know what it meant.
Why should epic, boon be linked? These links are not central ("particularly relevant") to the article and also these words are part of standard English (not jargon). IMO, WP:OVERLINK would have been violated. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fact that it is a specific type of literature is relevant, and boon has various definitions. Even if you didn't link boon in the lede, it'd help if it was later on, as I'm not sure what it refers to. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suitable article to link to boon. There is only meaning of boon as a noun, "something that is asked; a favor sought."/"something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit." Linked epic to Hindu epic. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Both these cults are of South Indian origin, from a region of the country where he is worshipped as a village deity and is known as Aravan (Tamil: அரவான், Aravāṇ)."
      • I have two problems with this sentence. First, it should be "both of these cults", but more importantly, is Iravan known as Aravan, or is the deity version of him known as Aravan? (or, is there no difference?) I was just a little confused by the wording.
Iravan is known as Aravan in Tamil. There are no two versions of Iravan: one human and one divine. There is only one Iravan/Aravan. "Both these" is acceptable in Indian English, the language in which the article is written. I am opposed to adding of the "of". Also I found the phrase in The Journal of General Physiology, [34] --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess I understand it now. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of "Etymology and other names" is unsourced.
The later paragraphs have the details and references. I have already left a hidden comment there. If needed, I can duplicate the references. This issue was discussed before. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I think you should duplicate the references, just so the end of every paragraph can have a reference (which I think is important). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated it, though IMO unnecessary as an elaborate explanation is found further. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a way you can cut down on the quote in the first paragraph of "Etymology and other names" ? - "oblatory substance consumed by the participants from which comes all fecundity of the sacrifice" - I, for one, didn't know what "fecundity" meant.
Since it is the scholar's definition, it is kept unaltered in quotes. I can link it, but that's a case of OVERLINK IMO.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, how that's a person's definition, but I think that could still be explained better. Just reading the quote gives me no context to how it relates to the article, since I don't know what it means. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't understand what you can't understand. It's grammatically correct English. The context is there: Iravan or Iravant -> "one who possessed Iḍā" -> Ida defn -> scholar's conclusion based on her defn.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thus, in the Mahabharata, Iravant means sacrificial victim" - I don't think that writing is very encyclopediac (starting with "thus"). It implies that its meaning was derived by the author (WP:OR). Can you reword that sentence?
Its meaning is derived by Biardeau. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying the word "thus" is poor writing. It's as if it talks down to the reader. I like how you give it the clarification that Biardeau made the connection, but there's got to be a better way to say it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The South Indian, Tamil name, Aravan, is popularly believed to be derived from the word aravu (snake)." - since when should a featured article include what's popularly believed? An encyclopedia is based on facts. Please reword that. It also might fit well in the subsequent section (iconography)
The reference clearly says it is popularly believed. There are views and counter-views in Hinduism, which one is the most popular needs to be noted. Initially, we had one section on Iconography and etymology, which was split into two as there are separate ideas. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the reference says that it's popularly believed, I'm fine. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Even the central Koovagam icon features a serpent on Aravan's crown." - this is the first time you mention "Koovagam", so I have no idea what it means, especially without a Wikilink.
The link is in the lead. Repeating it so soon would be a violation of OVERLINK. The assumption is that the reader reads in sequence from the lead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the link when I first read it, but no, I don't think repeating the link would be a violation of overlink. That's also the first time you said "central Koovagam", as opposed to just "Koovagam" as you used in the lede. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced central with chief. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Aravan-head icons are of two types, unpainted ones or painted" - couldn't this be written as "Aravan-head icons can either be painted or unpainted"?
"can" suggests a possibility. "are" suggests existence.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...so couldn't you just say "Aravan-head icons are either painted or unpainted", as opposed to lengthening the sentence with "are of two types"? It's obvious if you say they are either painted or unpainted, then there are only two types. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As said before, the article subject matter is perceived to be difficult may be bcoz it is about a Hindu deity. One must read it like scientific articles like FAs Scattered disc and Electron where one will encounter new terms and new ideas, which will be apparently difficult to understand. Over-simplifying the article to the level of Simple English wiki, would deplete its encyclopedic quality, though this article attempts to explain all jargon and Hindu concepts. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read FA's on difficult topics, and they a better job at carefully describing all jargon and Hindu concepts. I'm just not impressed with the writing. Here are some random examples where I feel the writing is lacking.
  • "The background to the Mahabharata suggests a time inferred to be" (rather wordy)
Any suggestions? I can't think of one that is accurate in terms of meaning and less wordy. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a little less cumbersome while not losing any of the intended meaning. Steve T • C 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is generally agreed, however, that " - who generally agreed?
"By scholars" is implicit. Ref says. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which may include an allusion in Panini's fourth-century grammar" - "fourth-century grammar what?"
Clarified. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both the birth and death of Iravan himself" - himself is redundant
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Iravan's army of Nagas slays their opponents to but one man." - "to but one man" sounds like it'd be in a story, not in an encyclopedia article
It is a narrative after all. Suggestions? --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see Hurricanehink's point; worded more simply it provides a more encyclopedic tone. Steve T • C 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Iravan, the "chastiser of foes"—versed in maya (illusion)—" - just curious, why isn't maya piped?
Actually it was initially, but any way the meaning of the jargon maya, was needed. So it was a repetition. Anyway, Done.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So, Duryodhana approaches and convinces Aravan to be the sacrificial victim for the kalappali." - it is improprer to start a sentence with "so"
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Krishna first discusses things with" - "things" is very unencyclopediac
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But no woman wanted to marry Aravan" - sentences shouldn't start with "But"
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The self-sacrifice prior to the war, is incompatible with dying a heroic death during the war; and both are incompatible with living to see the full duration of the war." - any reason for the comma in the first part of the sentence? Also, after the semicolon, you shouldn't follow with "and". You could, however, get rid of the first comma, and change the semicolon to a regular comma.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war, while the Pandavas are boasting about vanquishing the Kauravas, Krishna asks Aravan—the sole witness of the entire war—who was truly responsible for winning this war?" - little quibble, but shouldn't the last part be in quotations?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With this in mind, the head of Aravan is consigned to the river, is transformed into a child called Kuttan ("born from water") and kills the demon." - poor sentence structure, regarding the lack of parallelism between "is consigned", "is transformed", and "kills". I think it needs to be reworded, perhaps something like: "With this in mind, the head of Aravan is consigned to the river and is transformed into a child called Kuttan ("born from water"), who kills the demon."
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Following and temples" section, you have a source for some of the temples, but not all. Notably missing is a reference for "Coimbatore district".
The reference for all is at "The 32 temples are:[66]". The others are specific notes related to the temple or district. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Often it is a portable wooden head, sometimes this even has its own shrine in the temple complex." - that is two complete thoughts, so either you need a semicolon, or reword it by removing "this" and altering the wording.
Done.--Redtigerxyz Talk 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5 miles (8.0 km) north-west of Chidambaram" - any reason for the exact 8.0 km, considering it just says "5 miles"?
Have used {{convert}}. I am not writing this for only Americans. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hurricanehink was referring to the rounding error; I have adjusted the template to return 8 km instead of 8.0 km. Finetooth (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misunderstood comments. Thanks, Finetooth. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most Alis have left. and men wedded to Aravan also break their thalis and bangles and perform all the rites of widowhood (the vellikkal rites) before the image of Aravan." - please fix
Fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's still too technical for me to give my full support, but given the support above, I'm satisfied enough to strike my oppose. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the no oppose. Suggestions for further improvement are still welcome. No article is perfect. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hurricanehink; I still find many portions of the article hard to understand, but apparently that's only me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Nature fakers controversy

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [35].


Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Maria, and... well, this is hard to say, but I'll come out with it: I'm a Nature Faker. Yes, although I may appear to value verifiability over sheer emotion, I see the natural world through rose-tinted glasses. How else can I explain my love of a precious little bear cub who befriends an old curmudgeon of a bruin after the death of his mother (The Grizzly King), a domesticated dog who nonetheless hears the call to reach his full potential as an alpha-wolf (The Call of the Wild), and especially a fearless and clever wolf who is finally captured by hunters only after he is driven reckless and heartbroken over the death of his mate ("Lobo the King of Currumpaw"). Know and love these stories? Then you may be a nature faker yourself; or else, John Burroughs and Theodore Roosevelt would have considered you one of their ilk.

The Nature fakers controversy is a quirky literary debate that, although largely forgotten today, nonetheless remains absolutely fascinating. I created the article out of a redirect last summer, and have been expanding it steadily over the past month. It was promoted to GA several weeks ago, and also received a Peer Review. As always, any and all comments are welcome. On a side-note, if promoted this article will mark my tenth DYK/GA/FA! :) María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just peer reviewed this yesterday and thought it clearly already met the FA criteria then. I found a few nitpicks in the PR, all of which were corrected. On looking the article over again just now I noticed that some names are linked in both the captions and the text, while others are linked only in the text. I would be fine with linking in both places, but think it should be done consistently in either case. An interesting read and very well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments, partial support

  • The article gives Burroughs' play on the title as "Wild Animals I ALONE Have Known", while the Atlantic itself gives "Wild Animals I Alone Have Known" (which could probably be "Wild Animals I Alone Have Known" in the article).
  • "Roosevelt sent him a letter of support as well as an invitation to travel West in each other's company."—use "travel west"?

I guess there might be more nitpicks if I look really hard; otherwise, I really like this article. It looks very well put together, consistent dashes, etc. It assumes little (which is good, because I simply wasn't aware of this controversy pre-article :sadface:), and explains the background nicely and succinctly. The images, from the info given anyway, appear to check out (I love Kloss's notes on File:Theodore Roosevelt by John Singer Sargent, 1903.jpg btw)—check Google etc. further if that's a concern. I don't full-support articles for which I can't (or won't) access most of the sources, but what I see looks great, so I guess I support on all but 1b and 1c. --an odd name 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments, an odd name. I've made the two corrections you suggested ("Alone" and "west"), and I can vouch for three out of four of the illustrations, as I clipped them from Google Books myself and uploaded them to Commons; each publication was made prior to 1923. I'm glad you like the article. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting and nicely-written article, but I was left wondering where the balance of current scientific opinion on the instinct/training question lay? Hard to do without Synthesis perhaps, but was not Burroughs rather overstating the role of instinct for higher animals by modern standards? Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He definitely was; he was so resolute that instinct was responsible for pretty much any behavior displayed by a wild animal -- despite what he had previously written in his career, even -- but the trouble is is that we still don't know exactly what the balance is with learned behavior vs. instinctual. At least, that's what I gather -- this is really not my area of expertise. :) I had a line thrown in at the end of the article stating that scientists still debate the issue, but it was sourced to Lutts, whose book is twenty years old. The other sources I've used touch upon the literary aftermath rather than the scientific, so I'm not sure what to do. Any ideas? María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice read. Although I was aware of Roosevelt's involvement, I didn't know the background to the controversy. Sorry, but I can't find any nitpicks for you to work on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • The link in Ref 86 confirms the existence of the two films you mention, but gives no information whereby we can verify that "Animation pioneer John R. Bray also showcased this new definition of 'nature faker'", or that the two films satirize Roosevelt's involvement in the controversy.

Otherwise, references all look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paramount Television Network

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [36].


Nominator(s): Firsfron of Ronchester 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less flashy intro: I am nominating this for featured article because it has been through GA review and peer review and meets the featured article criteria. The article failed its first FAC due to lack of reviews, although I advertised the nomination in several places.

This article has recently caught on with bloggers who have never heard of the topic, and who write their own summaries based on this article (for example here, here, and here), and one reader left a kind message on my talk page here concerning this article. Externally, this article has received a lot of positive feedback.

Particular attention has been made to include contemporary sources in this article, since most (actually, nearly all) modern-day reference works do not mention the subject of this article. When I began this article in 2007, the subject had only three valid Google hits (the rest were actually for UPN). Luckily, that has changed.

I'm aware that the subject is on an obscure, unpopular topic; finding a GA reviewer took several months, and the article also ended up on the Peer Review backlog. Closing the FAC, Sandy encouraged me to try a re-FAC in a week, so I have done so.

More flashy intro: Please review this article on a television network which was not a television network, created by people who were, according to one source, "dead set against television". Firsfron of Ronchester 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support well-written and apparently complete. Ucucha 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links.
  • Why do you have citations for only part of the lead? I can understand the citation for the quote at the end of the first paragraph, but don't see why the first sentence needs one.
I thought it might be challenged; I've removed it.
  • "one early audience estimate"—can you give a specific year?
1949, now specifically mentioned in the sentence.
  • "Having five O&Os was critical because it meant the network's shows would be seen in at least five major American cities."—is this sentence necessary? It doesn't seem to add much meaning.
Paramount's failure to obtain five O&Os doomed its network aspirations; I thought this was important, but I have removed the sentence at your request.
That's very clear already from the surrounding sentences, I think. Ucucha 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raibourn's position as treasurer on DuMont's board of directors gave him control of expenditures."—that's what a treasurer does, isn't it? Again, I think we can afford to lose this sentence.
Removed, thank you.
  • "The table below lists stations which carried Paramount Television Network programs. Paramount's two owned-and-operated (O&O) stations, KTLA and WBKB, appear in red. DuMont's O&Os, which aired little or no Paramount programming but which the FCC ruled were O&Os of the same entity, appear in green."—WP:ACCESS says we should not transmit information using color alone.
Thanks. Do you think that including "Paramount O&O" and "DuMont O&O" next to each owned and operated station in the table would help convey the information? That information is already present. Is the coloring then superfluous here, with the text information already available? Although both networks broadcast solely in black and white, DuMont was known for using green in its (non-television) advertising, which is why I chose the green for DuMont's O&Os, and a color on the opposite side of the spectrum for Paramount's O&Os, but the color information can be jettisoned if it's an issue. Advice appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That information is in a column "Paramount programs aired", which seems inappropriate. Perhaps you can just list the three DuMont O&Os in the introductory sentence, as you have done already for the Paramount O&Os, and leave the information out of the table. Ucucha 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the colors and the mention of O&O status from the table itself, adding an intro which explains which stations were O&Os of Paramount and DuMont. I saw, also, your work on the table removing borders and such, and thank you, but now in my browser (Firefox), the table doesn't load quite correctly. There's no line between the rows for WEWS-TV and WHK-TV, and also for WCAU and WFIL, WFMB and WJTV, WOI and WWJ, WBNS and WFAA, and WTOP and WTTG. The table's right-hand border also doesn't appear. Do you see this as well? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that in either Firefox or Safari. I just made an edit which might solve it; if we can't get at something that works without the unnecessary borders there were previously, we'll have to revert to the version before I made my edit. Ucucha 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the support. I added some code back which fixes the problem in my browser and screen resolution (Firefox 3.5.9 at 1024x768) but YMMV (or, rather, your browser and resolution's MMV). It seems to work in IE 6 at 1024x768 or higher, too. Feel free to rework as needed. And thanks again for the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think the border surrounding the two tables is ugly and unnecessary, but if it solves your layout problem, it's the lesser of two evils. Ucucha 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your borderless table better, too, and I am not opposed to further experimentation. This version loads ok for me, but we should be able to get a borderless version to load correctly in most any modern browser. I have a feeling the solution is something easy, like a missed - or |. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here works for me, and also looks quite nice. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those minor quibbles, a great article, and I look forward to supporting soon. Ucucha 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, Ucucha; I'm working on your remaining observations. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way, I'd appreciate it if you let me strike my own comments; in this case I agree they were all resolved, but that may not always be so. Ucucha 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Up until this year, I have not struck through other editors' comments on FACs at all, but I participated in several FACs recently where this was done; I thought this was the custom now, and am sorry that I need correction. Please excuse the breach of etiquette. No offense was intended. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and sorry if I sounded snarky. I know of other FACs where this happened, but there Sandy did not like it either. Ucucha 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. It did not sound snarky. I appreciate your review, comments, and thoughts, and absolutely do not want to offend someone who has taken time to actually review the article! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Charles. The pun is appreciated. :) If you see further issues, please feel free to bring them up. Again, thank you for everything. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Image What makes fortune city a valid source for the screen shot? Fasach Nua (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is not pictured in any book source. The only alternate image is this one, which is less than ideal. I could drive 8 hours to the UCLA Film and Television archive and possibly get another screen shot, but this would fail Wikipedia:FU#Policy_2 #4: Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. No, each FU image needs a source, and this has one. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link is dead, though. Ucucha 03:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This link loads ok for me. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If book sources don't use it, why are we using it? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron: it doesn't lead to the logo, but to a "denial" file with "FortuneCity" on it. Ucucha 11:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha: I couldn't get the "denial" file until I hit "refresh" on my browser. I now understand what you're seeing. I've replaced the link with one to the full page that has the image on it. Does this load for you? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach: One of Wikipedia's few advantages over books is our vast editor base, which allows us to include pertinent material which other authors, working individually, have neglected to include. A single image of the company's logo, with fair use rationale, is pertinent here. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. And I agree with your rationale for using the logo. Ucucha 16:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does the use of this image advance the mission Fasach Nua (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ucucha. Let me know if you notice further issues. Your attention to detail (the work on the table, the link checking) is greatly appreciated. Fasach, English Wikipedia's use of non-free images is beyond the scope of this FAC. I appreciate your efforts to cull overuse of non-free media, but an article's use of a single non-free image in the infobox, with accompanying fair use rationale, has been deemed appropriate by the larger Wikipedia community for nearly a decade. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  1. Overlinking: "film"? "Television network" is ok as a link, on this rare occasion. LA and Chicago, sort of ... so well known to every English-speaker, same with NYC and Washington. The thing is, they're "chain-links", in that they're directly linked from their adjacent, more specific links (e.g., "KTLA").
  2. "the Emmy award winning children's series"—properly, it should be a triple hyphenated adjective. Or reword: "children's series ...., which won an Emmy award in [year]".
  3. "never" ... I toyed with just "not". Up to you.
  4. Do we need "also"? Perhaps there was an intention there, but I can't see it.
  5. "dropped" instead of "gave up on"? Not sure. And should it be "of owning and running a network", to contrast with selling to others?
  6. Last sentence could be a little repetitive with the previous. Can they be retionalised?

Origins

  1. After "Hollywood", perhaps a period, and after "properties" a semicolon? "were" after "among".
  2. "The company was one of the "big five" Hollywood studios."—by when? Link to previous or subsequent sentence more clearly?
  3. "were interested in the new medium of television"—now there's a place you could add a link: is there a section in "History of television" (or of US television, if there's such an article) that you could specifically link to?
  4. "in fact" not encyclopedic, usually. It's all supposed to be facts.
  5. "Paramount's Los Angeles television station, KTLA"—we've been told its location twice already.
  6. Do you need to mention that this was all monochrome until later? (I presume it was.)

I think the whole article needs a careful, independent copy-edit by someone who's not close to the text. Tony (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Tony.
  1. I've reduced the linking throughout most of the article. I kept the links to cities in the affiliate table, but they can be jettisoned if you prefer. Most people will not know where Wausau, Wisconsin is.
  2. I rephrased "Emmy award winning children's series". Thanks.
  3. I changed "never" to "not"; this seems one of those 'six of one/half a dozen' type changes.
  4. Removing "also" makes the sentence weird here, IMO.
  5. "dropped" seems even less formal than "gave up on" to me, but I have incorporated "owning".
  6. I considered merging them to, "Paramount executives eventually gave up on the idea of owning a television network, but continued to produce series for other TV networks until 1995,when Paramount again entered the broadcast network field, launching the United Paramount Network (UPN)." but it's snaky and it wouldn't be correct: Paramount produced non-UPN series after 1995.
On the second part:
  1. I've changed the punctuation and wording exactly as you have requested. Thank you.
  2. I have reworded this. Thanks.
  3. History of television has little that I think is really germane to the subject of this article; it doesn't mention Paramount, KTLA, broadcast syndication, etc. But I can certainly link to it.
  4. I've removed "in fact". I have a pet peeve about "due to the fact" and "due to the fact that", and nuke them on sight. Thanks.
  5. I've removed the redundant mentions of where KTLA and WBKB were in several places in the article.
  6. I thought everyone knew that television started off in black and white. It seems obvious, and the black and white company logo reinforces the idea; Ucucha pointed out above that I didn't need to point out what a treasurer does, and this was a valid observation. I can include it, if you or someone has an objection to it not being included.
Regarding copyediting, I placed a request for copyedits on this article's companion article two years ago, and it's still sitting there without a copyedit. I've asked individual editors on both this article and that one, to no avail. I did send this article to PR and GA, so this article has had a lot of pruning and rewording by editors unfamiliar with the subject.
I thank you for your efforts, comments, and review. I am on hand to make whatever further changes you would like. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. WikiProjects on film and on TV might have copy-editors lurking about. Perhaps check the history pages of FAs in these subjects for tell-tale edit-summaries, and approach them? B and W TV: the problem is that colour was introduced into different jurisdictions at wildly different times. No big deal here, though. Tony (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ideas, Tony. There are several good editors on those projects who I approached during the development and various peer review processes of this article. I contacted user:DCGeist, an editor with Featured Articles in the field of broadcasting under his belt and a history of good copyediting, to tale a look at the article here, but he was apparently unable to look at the article or to respond. I left a second note, but he was apparently busy with other projects, and couldn't respond. I asked User:Mrschimpf, a serious WP:TVS editor for feedback here, but he, too, did not look or respond. I asked User:Mattderojas, the uploader of the logo, for input and feedback here, but he was not able to look or respond. I asked User:TMC1982, a WP:TVS editor who has added sourced content to articles, for feedback here, but he was unable to look at the article or respond. During this article's first FAC, I left neutrally-worded notes at WikiProject Television, WikiProject Films, and (against my better judgment) WikiProject Television Stations, but was unable to interest any of the editors at those three WikiProjects. The only editors who took a peek were FAC regulars, all of whom have now again weighed in above. I asked editor User:Edison, an editor with FAC experience and an interest in films and television, to take a look here, and this met with the most success, with four words removed from the article. Other than Edison's four-word change, my attempts at finding outside editors to review the article have not been successful. I can leave additional notes for individual editors, but am afraid the results will be the same. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have sent out new copyediting requests at related WikiProjects here at WP:Television, here at WP:FILM, and here at WP:TV Stations. I've also asked User:Nehrams2020, an editor at WP:FILM with prior GA and FA experience, for copyediting in exchange for same. I will continue asking individual editors every day until you are satisfied with the quality of the prose. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second update: David Fuchs and Nehrams made copyedits from the lead to the end of this article. David made these changes and Nehrams made these ones. Nehrams also made some suggestions on the article's talk page, which resulted in these changes. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Escalating disputes between the two companies—concerning breaches of contract, company control, and network competition—erupted regularly between 1940 and 1956, and culminated in the dismantling of the DuMont Network. I'm not sure that the parenthetical bit is strong enough for dashes rather than just running through to the 1956 comma
  • Programs section treats projects without articles inconsistently, redlinked before "additionally unlinked after. Personally I'd unlink, but your call
  • Some unneeded padding. please check that However is always necessary, and I don't think you need the additionally above.
  • outside of Los Angeles: redundant "of"
Thanks for the review, Jim. Greatly appreciated. I've removed the dashes and the "additionally". In the "Programs" section, I only wikilinked the nationally syndicated series, and did not wikilink the series which were planned for national broadcast, but which were seen only locally: nationally-aired programs are usually considered notable; local programs often are not. I've removed all the redlinks in that section, and will re-link them only as I (slowly) blueify them. I hate how the five sentences with the word "however" would read without the "however"s, and have kept them for now. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, David. Yes, I drew the broadcasting towers myself; they were intended to look like the tower in the logo. I've clarified that the base U.S. map used was this public domain map, recommended for use at Wikipedia:MAP#Hi-res_2_color_images. I've added to the FUR at File:Paramounttelevisionnetwork.jpg, with details on how it's low-resolution and why it's not replaceable; I thank you also for tidying the headings. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
    • "Escalating disputes between the two companies"→between Paramount and DuMont? It's not exactly clear.
    • " "undercut" DuMont, a company it had invested in"→whose quote is this? I don't really think the language is controversial enough to need quotes, but if it is being cited thusly it really should have inline credit.
    • Some of the paper publications have accessdates. Considering we have no idea where you retrieved them online, they're rather unnecessary with no URL.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I've clarified in the lede who the two companies were, I've attributed the quote to Auter and Boyd (the citation is in place seven words later at the end of that sentence), and I did a browser search on the word "Retrieved" and found it only in use with URLs. All citations to newspapers came from NewspaperArchive.com and NewsInHistory.com, two pay services which require log-in, so URLs are useless for non-members (and probably members, too, based on their searching algorithms). I greatly appreciate your continued comments and your work copyediting the article. Be aware that on line 15, you changed "which won an Emmy award in 1949" to "including the Emmy award-winning", which was the original wording before Tony asked for the change to "which won an Emmy award in 1949". I do not mind either version, but do not want to get dinged at FAC for failing to respond to reviewers' observations. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat the Emmy thing—I defer to Tony on that score. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry. Any other observations? The comments have died out. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. I greatly appreciate the review. If you see anything else, please feel free to mention it... or fix it yourself, natch. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: All sources seem OK, links check out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. And thanks also for your earlier peer review of this article. Both are greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [37].

Brian Eaton

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another RAAF pilot, but one of the few who made the transition from distinguished World War II combat leader to senior commander of the post-war era. What particularly struck me about this bloke was how easily he could have got the chop before any of it got under way—plenty of his comrades were not so lucky... The other thing was the challenge to see if I could put together an article of A/FA length and standard when there are no bios of the guy among the usual sources such as the Australian Dictionary of Biography, the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, or RAAF historian Alan Stephens' High Fliers. Performed the trick with John Lloyd Waddy, so we'll see if lightning strikes twice... ;-) Currently assessed as GA, plus A-Class in the MilHist and Aviation projects, this is also a WikiCup entry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. I briefly saw his personnel file in the National Archives online, which mentioned that he went to college after Carey Grammar and joined the RAAF straight from there, then they removed the file! (Didn't include exactly when he left Tassie anyway.) So in the end I could only cite his parents' names by checking his brother's Roll of Honour entry... Even when these guys appear in the ADB, their early info can be pretty scant; we at least have something for every year he was in the RAAF prior to WWII. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I made a few exceedingly minor copyedit tweaks. I would like to see the last sentence rephrased to avoid the construct "his widow Josephine donated...the award to the RAAF", as presumably she donated funding for an annual award. A pity that there is no more available about his personal life, but otherwise excellent as usual. Well done! Maralia (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Maralia -- those little changes of yours always improve an article; I added a couple of words along the lines of your suggestion re. the award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: All sources look OK, no issues here. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images -- Guys, a general thank-you to all who've taken time to stop by and comment. With the apparent dearth of image experts in the FAC environment these days, I wonder if I could prevail on one of you to confirm for the sake of this review (and especially poor Sandy, who always seems to have to scribble "promoted without image check" on my recent submissions) that all images are PD or otherwise free... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. However, next time for photos with named authors on the Australian War Memorial websites, please check that the authors are either government employees or has passed away beyond the requisite time. Luckily in this case, Jeffrey G Sebastian is a member of the RAAF. Jappalang (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Oryzomys

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [38].


Nominator(s): Ucucha 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the genus that includes four of the rice rats I've recently brought here. There are eight historically known species, five (with a little bit of hope for a sixth) of which are still around. They live in all kinds of wet habitats from New Jersey to Venezuela. This article summarizes what we know about the eight species (of which currently four are FA and four GA) and I hope will soon be the lead article of an Oryzomys featured topic. I am looking forward to all comments. Ucucha 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick driveby comment (I'll review properly when I get the chance): even though it would probably breach every convention of biological writing, might it be useful to have a very quick summary of how Oryzomys differs from Rattus, which I assume is what 99% of readers picture when you say "rat"? – iridescent 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps; I put some of that in marsh rice rat. The problem there (as with many other parts of this article) is that there is little that discusses the genus in general, so it's hard to make general statements. For example, one of the differences between the marsh rice rat and Rattus is that the upper- and underparts are more different in color in the rice rat. I think that's also true for the rest of Oryzomys, but I do not know of any source that says this for O. dimidiatus or the other rare species, let alone for the genus in general. But I'll try to see what I can do. Ucucha 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done; I simply limited the statement about the difference in color to the marsh rice rat and also added something about the cusps of the upper molars. Ucucha 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • more species may be recognized in the future in addition to the current eight. repeats number of species, why not just additional species may be recognized in the future?
    • Changed.
  • at least some species, with webbing between the toes. do you need "with"?
    • Yes, otherwise it would sound like "hind foot without ... interdigital webbing". I don't think there's any definite record that they lack it, and Sanchez et al. include the presence of webs in the diagnosis.
  • The vibrissae (whiskers) what's wrong with just the whiskers?
    • "vibrissae" is the term of the literature
  • fundamental number redlinked and unexplained
    • Reworded.
  • Support I can't find anything else to comment on other than (nitpicky) stylistic preferences in prose, so am supporting. Sasata (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from a quick read-through. More later. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…and most were at one time included in the marsh rice rat" sounds a bit odd to me… how about "were considered the marsh rice rat" (or something similar, to eliminate "included")
    • Not sure I see your problem here; your suggested wording sounds a lot more odd to me.
  • "…was soon applied to a wide range of American rodents, including over a hundred species." maybe "was soon applied to a over a hundred species of American rodents." ?
    • Yes.
  • "became more narrowly defined until its current contents were established in 2006" "contents" sound funny to me in this context… maybe "members"?
    • It's standard wording in this context; your wording would sound to me like the species were first described in 2006.
  • Does penis really need to be linked?
    • No.
  • "…(as characteristic of the Sigmodontinae)…" -> "as is" ?
    • Yes.
  • "…various kinds of wetlands, such as marshes, and rivers." second comma unneeded
    • Instead put a third kind of wetland in.
  • link gestation period
    • Done.
  • link tribe
    • Tony1 would call that a chain link: the link would be right next to the link for Oryzomyini, which links to tribe (taxonomy) right in the first line.
  • "A possible Oryzomys has been recorded from the Irvingtonian (Pleistocene) of Saskatchewan." Hey, that's my back yard! Should I be looking for rat fossils when I dig up my garden this year?
    • I would be much interested to see the fossil that record was based on, though I'm rather skeptical it's really Oryzomys. Do look for rat fossils; it's more likely you'll get Peromyscus or so than Oryzomys, though. :-)
  • "The next year, Delton Hanson and colleagues published a study using DNA sequence data to assess relationships within Oryzomys." what gene(s) did they use?
    • Cytb, IRBP, and ADH1. Added.
  • link pelage
    • Replaced with "fur" instead.
  • suggest relinking zygomatic plate in description; its previous link is way up the page
    • Done, though the next reviewer might chide me for overlinking. There are various other anatomical terms for which the same is true, by the way.
  • does anyone mention what the evolutionary advantage of a spiny penis is??
    • Not in the papers I've read. I suspect it may have something to do with getting rid of sperm from a previous mating. I guess it may also explain why female marsh rice rats don't like mating.
  • link mangrove, Andes
    • Done for mangroves; I think we can assume readers know what the Andes are, just as we assume for countries.

Thanks for reviewing. I should warn you that if you do a literature check, a lot of results won't be applicable due to the 2006 redefinition and some earlier ones—just about anything from South America applies to other genera, for example. Ucucha 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a cursory check for Oryzomys, which turned up almost 1300 results in the ISI Web of Knowledge. It appears all the important papers post 2006 have been included, so I'm satisfied with respect to criteria 1b/c. Sasata (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; there's nothing that I didn't understand, and nothing obviously missing that I can see. My usual biology article disclaimer, that I know nothing about rats and am taking the accuracy of all statements on faith, applies. – iridescent 00:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: minor format query: why the extra urls on the downloaded items? Otherwise, sources all look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [39].

Japanese battleship Tosa

edit
Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC) and Cla68[reply]

Tosa was a super-dreadnought battleship that was never completed. As a general rule, ships like this don't normally have individual articles, but this one is special due to the many tests she was put through, which later influenced the well-known Yamato-class battleships of the Second World War. With the help of Cla and the members of Tullys Port, I believe this is now a well-referenced and full account of the ship; the only thing missing is where the wreck is, but I can't find any information on that. I'm wondering if a Japanese language newspaper archive would have something? Anyway, thanks for your comments and reviews; I'll address them as soon as I can. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This is an excellent article, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach FA class:
    • It would be worth noting somewhere that Kaga was completed as an aircraft carrier. Was there any reason that Tosa also wasn't converted to a carrier? (presumably as she was too close to completion as a battleship to make this practical)
    • The second para in the 'Design and construction' is poorly structured - sentences jump from the ship to the treaty negotiations (eg, "While she was being fitted out with a projected completion date of July 1922, Japan was party to the talks at the Washington Naval Conference; work on Tosa was halted on 5 February 1922, one day before Japan signed the treaty that was formulated at the conference.")
      • What do you think now?
    • What's meant by the barbettes for the 406 mm (16 inch) guns being 'present'? - had they been fitted to the ship, or were they in the vicinity?
      • Copyedited
    • What's a 'frame'?
    • The outline order of the ship's sinking doesn't seem necessary Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was looking at a different pic (the one below the infobox), I see what was meant here now. I moved the one I was referring to to the left, which solves the white-space problem on bigger monitors. I'm not sure what to do about the "sandwiching" pic though. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved them around and deleted one; what do you think now? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for my monitor, the left align of the image under the infobox is needed to avoid whitespaceitis (see article talk page), but it works fine on a 1024-sized screen. Nothing to hold it up about, just a quibble. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - mainly nitpicky:
    • I generally like to see more than one paragraph in the lead. Is there any way to split and lengthen it? Perhaps include the significance of the gunnery testing, and maybe some of the specifics of the ship's construction (i.e., keel laying, launching)
    • "frame 228 10.8 feet" reads really awkwardly, sort of like there's a missing unit symbol or something. I know what you mean, but is there any way to split the numbers up with a word or something?
    • Do we really need the arcminutes of the ship's list? That seems needlessly specific.
    • In the second para of the "Sinking" section, who is "they?" You and I know you mean the miscellaneous tugs/observation ships/etc. that accompanied the ship to be scuttled, but it would be better to specify somewhere, if possible.
    • You've got a 360-millimetre (14 in) - three problems: first, it's in BE and the rest of the article is in AE, and second, it's metric first. I believe all of the Japanese guns followed British practice of measuring the diameter in Imperial units. Lastly, it's an incorrect conversion, 14 inches is approximately 355 mm, not 360.
  • Everything else looks pretty good. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - my nitpicks have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very niceSteven1969 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments It's good for what it is, but it seems 'light' to me. I can't tell if it's a problem with notability or citable content and maybe it's because I just did the (awesome) Battle of Villers-Bocage review. I know it's a tough request, but how about a series of graphics indicating the effect of the explosions on the hull? Any engineering drawings or equivalent estimated from sources would also add immesurably to the 'weight'. Doug (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oof, that's tough. The only drawings I've seen are in Lacroix/Wells and Garzke/Dulin, and I suspect that Lengerer would have them (but I was only provided with a relevant excerpt by him). See page 759 here for a diagram of the 406-mm shell hit which so dramatically influenced the design of the Yamatos, and I could get a similar scan from G/D, but I am not an artist. I can crop and rotate images, that's about it. :-) Would you be able to draw a diagram up if I gave you a scan of G/D (so you can use both sources and not create a derivative work)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all three images are PD-Japan-oldphoto, which stipulates that they be taken before the 1946 cutoff and not published or published before 1956. In either case, these images satisfy that because they were taken between 1922 and 1925. More discussion regarding images similar to this can be found at the FAC for Amagi-class battlecruiser. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: In the bibliography the Langerer entry does not seem complete (lacking publisher and location?) Otherwise, sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really 'published' in the traditional sense; from what I understand, people pay for each issue (two each year), and then he emails it to them. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what makes it a reliable source? Does it meet WP:SPS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said this before—he's also a published author and expert in the field.[40] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [41].

Cottingley Fairies

edit
Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 100 years ago, two young girls took a series of photographs that they claimed were of fairies at the bottom of their garden. The photographs convinced Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, and subsequently became perhaps the most famous photographic hoax of the 20th century. The younger of the two girls maintained until her dying day that the final picture was genuine however. Make your own mind up. I only intended initially to do enough to this article to justify removing all the disfiguring tags it contained when I came across it, but I became fascinated by the story. I hope you do too. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: Great article, well-written and entertaining. Just a few small concerns.
  • The first image's description page gives a date of 1916, but the article says that the first photos were taken in 1917.
  • Caption for the third photograph gives the girl's name as "Francis", as does the "author" field on the description pages of the second and fourth photographs
  • The picture of Conan Doyle and the second photograph sandwich on my screen
  • The "two reprinted, better defined prints" are the 1917 photographs?
  • Is Conan Doyle's book The Coming of Fairies or The Coming of the Fairies?
  • Formatting in bibliography should be consistent.

--Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies:
Thanks for taking the time to read through the article and for your observations.
  • The description given for the first image was wrong, so I've corrected it to 1917.
  • She's consistently called "Frances" now.
  • What resolution screen are you using? The pictures of Conan Doyle and the second photograph look fine on my laptop.
  • Yes, the "two reprinted, better defined prints" were of the 1917 photographs. I've clarified that.
  • Conan Doyle's book is called The Coming of the Fairies. Fixed.
  • What's the problem you see with the formatting in the Bibliography? Each entry is using the same {{citation}} template.
Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the bibliography: the second is the only one that includes a location; the last is the only one with publisher in parentheses. As for the sandwiching: I was using a smaller screen to view the article (not sure of the resolution), but on my regular computer it looks fine. --Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the location is especially informative, so I'll remove that. The last entry is the only one that's an essay in a collected edition, which is why the details are shown slightly differently by the template I suppose. Fixed the formatting issue. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this at WP:GAN a few days ago and I am happy to see it at WP:FAC. I remember being told about this investigation and seeing these pictures in the late 1980s. Its a well written article and is deserving of FA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Read over the original drafts, and it's only improved. I found the story entertaining the first time I heard it, and now that it is laid out in front of me, it is excellent. ceranthor 00:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and, no doubt, ignorant ones, but from an "outsider" nevertheless...)

  • I thought that the MOS suggested not squeezing text between a pair of images.
  • "he gave around the UK" just reads a little odd, why not around the United Kingdom?
  • Not sure that Conan Doyle's image adds anything to the article. What's the relevance?
  • "He agin brought" - typo.

The Rambling Man (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies:
  • I seem to remember that the MoS did at one time have a recommendation against sandwiching images, but it no longer does.
  • I don't see a problem with "around the UK", any more than I'd see a problem with "around the US".
  • Conan Doyle was very highly regarded, and it was his belief in the authenticity of the photographs that gave the hoax credence. He is a crucial figure in the story.
  • Typo fixed.
Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For astetic reasons I would cut the pic of Conan Doyle and shift the lower pic before the 2nd para of that sect. Most know who Conan Doyle is, we dont necessarily need his big tash and grim stare to remind us. Ceoil (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, very well then. Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was advice rather than an order. Its your call. Ceoil (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well done, my only quibble is that there is one hanging sentence at the end. Some latter day pop culture stuff could do with a little better embellishment and analysis. The film review cited notes the rather facile road the film by assuming the fairies are real, and I think that is worth putting in (as it is there is a one sentence para sticking out like a sore thumb at the end) I recall the photos being talked about or discussed in the Brian Froud book faeries which I think was on many bookshelves in the late 70s or early 80s, and hence got more popular there. The other film Photographing faeries is based on a really cool novel I read of the same name, so is sort of an indirect path (the book was more call of cthulhu-esque in its tale-telling and I in fact wrote a Call of Cthulhu adventure based on it).

Blah, to sum up, not a deal breaker but could be embellished. I will try and find the froud book in a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Lady Cottingley's Book of Pressed Fairies? Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not seen it. Just found my copy of Faeries by Froud and Lee - my mistake, no Cottingley mention there but they do have a bunch of pretendy B/W photos of themselves in the back. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great fan of the "in popular culture" stuff (in case you hadn't noticed), or more specifically perhaps, the way it's handled in so many wikipedia articles. I really don't see what they tell us about the subject, but out of deference to whoever started the Cottingley Fairies article off I left in the reference to the two films, only one of which really has much to do with the fairies. I'd just as soon take it out. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. I love the stuff but it is often hard to get decent references. I do like the film article's discussion of the main film, and has prompted me to find the other. I was going to add that the film interprets the fairies as real but then I paused for plotspoiler-type reasons. Given all that, I didn't see non-embellishment as a deal-breaker. If I find anything cerebral I will add it but I am not holding my breath as I have alot on my plate ATM. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A fascinating, well-written snapshot (haha) of an interesting tale. I've made a few minor changes myself, but have a few more suggestions, which shouldn't be difficult to incorporate.

  • "Elsie left open the possibility that she believed she had photographed her thoughts"; something similar appears twice. It seems a bit wordy. Is the "believe" part necessary?
  • Who said "must have seemed like a godsend"? Magnusson, I'm guessing, but this should be clearly attributed/referenced.
  • second opinion -> another opinion? In my view a second opinion had already been sought.
  • When and why did Sir Oliver Lodge get involved and give his opinion? This info would benefit from a bit of context. Doesn't need to be extensive, but enquiring minds want to know...
  • Can we have a reference after the first paragraph in the 1920 Photographs section?
  • I'm a bit confused by "Geoffrey Crawley explained the discrepancy in the women's accounts...." sentence. It seems to me that he is offering a third option rather than anything else, but perhaps not. May need rewording/amplifying.
  • "Reflections on the Cottingley Fairies"; this may be for the future, but it seems for completeness it would be interesting to get hold of this book and incorporate some of Frances' recollections.--Slp1 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies:
  • I think the important bit is "she believed"; removing that could give the impression that someone else believed it, not Elsie.
  • "... must have seemed like a godsend" is a quote from Magnusson, yes. The citation is given at the end of the paragraph for all the quotations and material in that paragraph. Are you asking for something like "... must have seemed like a godsend", according to historian and broadcaster Magnus Magnusson"?
  • I don't follow your point about "second opinion". Snelling's was the first, and Kodak's was the second.
  • Conan Doyle showed the prints to Lodge, clarified.
  • Added citation for the first paragraph in the 1920 Photographs section.
  • I think that the explanation offered by Crawley resolves the question of why Frances and Elsie both claimd to have taken the fifth photograph. It's not a third explanation, it's an explanation of why the girls both believed that they'd taken the picture, because in fact they both had, but at different times.
  • Frances's book Reflections on the Cottingley Fairies is currently out of print, despite having been published only last year, and consequently difficult to source. I seem to remember that Frances's daughter paid for a limited print run herself. I've expanded on the book a little nevertheless, based on a newspaper review I came across.
Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine about the "believed"
  • Yes, possibly, what you've done is great. Another option would have been to put an extra citation to Magnusson at the end of that sentence to make the provenance clear, so that people don't need to read ahead too far. But I like what you've done better.
  • I still think "another opinion" or "a further expert opinion" would be better and more accurate. Doyle and Gardner had their opinions, making Snelling's a second opinion to me. Also Smith talks about how Conan Doyle had been asking his family and friends for their input before they submitted the pics to Kodak p.384.
  • Thanks for fixing up the other things
  • I got intrigued and downloaded the Times letter, and I see your explanation was accurate. I've had a go at making it clearer in the text. Hopefully it's okay. When reading Crawley I noticed implied a different order of events about the "clarifying" and printing of the pictures: that these was done by Snelling himself after he had given his opinion on the pics' authencity. Smith, which seems an excellent source, also follows this order. I've boldly moved the sentences concerned a bit later in the text, but I am aware that I don't have Magnusson to consult...
  • What you've done seems fine, and one source (can't remember which) even goes so far as to say that Snelling had a vested interest in the authenticity of the pictures, because he was being paid by Gardner to reproduce them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. £10.49 plus postage, you mean! I don't think getting Frances quotes would be the main goal of getting access to the book, though. It turns out there's a copy in the Bodleian, and also, very surprisingly, at Dalhousie University where a friend of mine teaches. Maybe one of these days I'll get her to borrow it for me. --Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This article had been tagged with a number of issues (at one point I considered tackling it), and I'm happy to see it nicely expanded. What an interesting story. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I actually only intended to do enough to justify losing those unsightly tags, but, well you know .... Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [42].

Westcott railway station

edit
Nominator(s):  – iridescent 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An object lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences. In 1871, the splendidly-named Richard Plantagenet Campbell Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville decided to make things a little bit easier for the horses transporting goods and produce around his lands and to & from the nearest rail station. In so doing, he inadvertently set in train[sic] a sixty-year chain of cause-and-effect that ultimately led to the absurdity of a tiny village deep in rural Buckinghamshire, two hours travel from London, briefly becoming a part of the London Underground network.

This one's short, but comprehensive; while it doesn't say all there is to say on the matter, it does in my opinion say all that any non-specialist would ever reasonably want to know. The initial section on the history of the line is intentionally terse; the intention is to give just enough background that the rest of the article makes sense, without including too much that would be better placed in the Brill Tramway article itself. – iridescent 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff: The link to a disambiguation page at Junction station is intentional – that page serves both as an article on the topic of junction stations, and as a dab page for the many stations worldwide named "Junction Station". There's a single non-free image, but I think it's essential to the article and no free-use equivalent exists – it may in fact qualify as public domain but I've erred on the side of caution and treated it as fair-use. – iridescent 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Great article, and an interesting read. I always enjoy reading articles about trains. My basement is a big model train playground. Just a few comments:
  • Query: "Despite the low frequency of service and relatively low numbers of people using the station, Westcott station was staffed;" - I find this curious. I am guessing that all stations had staff at least at some points during their operation. Because if some stations had no staff, how did they operate? I am guessing maybe it should say "permanent staff" or "regular staff" to clarity. I may be off base here though.
  • "...and the spur was lifted" - this might not make sense to someone unfamiliar with railroads. Perhaps say "removed" or "dismantled" instead?
  • Should reference #24 be moved with the notes rather than citations?

  • Referencing is impeccable, all are reliable
  • Prose is excellent
  • Alt text present
  • Images

Another wonderful article. Great job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Replies to your queries:
  • No, most rural stations (and many urban ones) in Britain aren't staffed (other than in the sense that a guy with a broom comes by every few days to clean the platforms, and so forth). Nowadays there are ticket machines at the station entrances; historically, trains had conductors and one bought tickets from them once on the train. Remember, this was a line with staggeringly low usage (one of the stations generated total annual passenger revenue of £4 per annum), and with the trains just shuttling back and forth along the line, there was no need for signalling. If you'll forgive a brief bit of OR, I can safely assume that the only reason it was staffed at all was to help load and unload bulky goods more quickly—while working the crossing gate was doubtless useful, it's hardly a full-time occupation and elsewhere on the line a member of the train crew would just run ahead and open/close the gate themselves.
  • Reworded to "and the track of the spur was removed". "Lifting" has a specific meaning—removing the track without demolishing anything else—but I agree that if you don't know the term it's confusing.
  • Reference 24 (the CPI link) is automatically placed in the "References" section by {{inflation-fn}}. In this case, I'm very reluctant to subst it and fix it manually to appear in the Notes section, as that template has quite complicated syntax to auto-update when the source changes and thus always show a current equivalent figure.
  • The non-free image is possibly free use, but I decided to play it safe and treat it as fair use. London Transport in this period had an odd status in that its shares were 100% state-owned but it was never formally nationalised so its unclear whether Crown Copyright (and hence, public domain 50 years after creation) applies; it's also not clear whether it was taken on behalf of LT or by someone else. – iridescent 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and one comment A good read, well up to FA. I'm not sure that there is any point to the 2010 equivalent of the house sale price. House price rises have vastly outstripped the general change in the value of sterling, so the £15,000 bears no relationship to modern house prices Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally used modern-CPI figures as the comparator here, to make it clear(er) to the modern eye the way in which ticket sales compare to the present day, and just how little was raised by the forced liquidation of the company once London Transport withdrew their services. Given that CPI is used as the figure for sale of the line's goods and chattels, I think it looks more confusing to use a different scale (or no modern comparison) for the sale of the two houses; the point I was trying to make is "how much did this raise for the line's owners?" rather than "how much would it sell for today?". – iridescent 09:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A charming little article - I enjoyed reading it. Despite its short length, I didn't have any outstanding questions. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [43].

Mycena haematopus

edit
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mycena haematopus is an common, widespread, attractive mushroom well-known for "bleeding" a blood-red latex when cut or injured. I think the article does a good job in covering the available literature on the species, and a number of editors have helped refine the prose. Thanks for looking. (This is a WikiCup nomination) Sasata (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "A key to the Mycenas of Norway" is maintained by Arne Aronsen, who has authored a number of papers about Mycena species (I find eight with the ISI Web of Knowledge), so I consider him an "expert". His site uses all the current literature for his species description (see here). The other two probably don't quite measure up to FAC standards, so I will replace those citations shortly and leave them as external links. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • saprobe — I know it’s linked, but in the opening para a gloss might be good
  • 4 cm (1.6 in) broad — I’d expect "wide". Is this an AE thing?
  • I've seen "broad", "in diameter", and "wide" used interchangably in the literature to described cap width. But I think I like wide better, so I've changed it. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • is wavy like the edge of a scallop— "scalloped"?
  • They are amyloid, so they will absorb iodine when stained with Melzer's reagent. — Makes it sound like cause and effect, perhaps “meaning“ instead of “so“
  • *33–60 (sometimes up to 80) by 9–12 µm. — Units a long way from first number, is it worth putting µm after 60 and 80 too?
  • Edibility — mention in lead?
  • Haematopodin formula would be nice, but unless you're better than me at this stuff, don’t bother, it’s too much work
  • Another good idea. My regular go-to guy for drawing chemical structures isn't around much now, but I'll see if there's someone else who can whip up a structure for me. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last doi isn’t working
  • And I don't know why that is. I have removed it, since the page it's supposed to lead to doesn't have an abstract, so it's not terribly useful. Thanks for the helpful comments. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a few copyediting tweaks, all minor. This looks great! Maralia (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have someone review the images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did (see first comment). I may, of course, have missed issues a better image reviewer would have noticed. Ucucha 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [47].

Wilfred Rhodes

edit
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Rhodes was a very significant cricketer who holds several world records. I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently GA and I hope it is at FA standard. I have expanded the article a great deal myself but several others have worked on it. It has received a peer review and was copy-edited by Brianboulton. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done the second comment, but the infobox seems to but imperial units first so I don't know how to change it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure which bits could be cut immediately; I feel most of the article is necessary as the man had a very long career. Are there any bits which seem particularly unnecessary? (Bradman's article is still longer than this one!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* references being repeated where a refname would suffice, would see a reduction from 205 to about 130;

Each ref is for a separate scorecard, even though the name is the same. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realised each was a separate card, but doesnt one of the printed references have all the cards from the one series that can be used instead. Gnangarra 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you only need runs scored, team total, O/M/R/W, then you can just use cricketarchive oracle and make your life easier per the list in Leah Poulton. If you need things like partnerships, balls faced, minutes, stumps score, then the scorecared is needed; however, CI statsguru gives you balls faced, minutes and batting position all in a list, although only for internationals YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though its a summary of the article, the lead needs some refs for the records and facts that could be disputed.
I don't think any of the facts are in dispute in the lead, and WP:LEAD states that refs aren't always necessary when the info is given a reference in the main article. Most FAs I've seen do not ref the lead, including recent cricket ones such as this or this (although I know the Bradman article does).--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from quotes or BLP issues, or really contentious subjective stuff, no it doesn't YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eight sentences in the lead start with He four of those sentences are in the first paragraph, he is used 20 times in the lead of which only 5 are in the first paragraph. Through out the whole article there is only one paragraph where he isnt used, 3 paragraphs where he is used just once and one paragraph where he used 10 times that first para of the Style and personality section. By the end of the article the repeative use of he is very noticable. Gnangarra 14:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • as a comparison the FA of Donald Bradman uses he in the lead just 7 times and he only starts 1 sentence in the lead. Also note the use of table for statistics rather then writing every thing in prose also the use of quotes instead of images to break the text up. Gnangarra 14:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun to remove some of these, although it's quite tricky in places, as you can imagine! I hope I've sorted out the lead and "style and personality" if you could have another look. I will check other sections later, but are there any others which are particularly bad? --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tables for Bradman are a career summary, which I don't think would tell that much in the case of Rhodes except being yet more statistics. Any table would just be there for the sake of being there and I don't think any of the quotes are long enough to justify using a box.--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had another look at the Bradman article, and I'm not sure counting the instances of "he" is going to tell very much: the Bradman article uses "he" quite a lot too. I think this could be unavoidable in an article about a person, although it obviously it should not come up too often in a short space. And I do accept your point about the lead and the "style and personality" section. But listing how often it comes up in other paragraphs does not really help. A quick look at the Bradman article seems to show a similar picture. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any article about a person with long term achievements using he is inevitable, but the comparison is because this article to that one(near identical subjects) the usage is 5:3 and IMHO the usage of he significantly impacts in this article to point that is the only thing when reading that had a lasting impression. Gnangarra 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through a removed quite a lot of them. How is it looking now, or does it still need more taking out? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Too much attention is being paid to the Bradman article, which was promoted a while back and may not be the benchmark that is being assumed. Forget Bradman, let's judge this article on its own merits. I will come in with some detailed comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman article was offered because Bradman is a cricketer that holds a number of records, played over a long period of time and is someone who most people with any cricket knowledge have heard of. The article is not meant to be a benchmark or style guide but rather its an FA that has addressed many of the problems facing this article in dealing with season after season, series after series of game statistics. But you dont need to compare to Bradman try Ian Johnson (cricketer), Arthur Morris, Sid Barnes, Bill Brown (cricketer), Keith Johnson (cricket administrator), Ernie Toshack, Don Tallon. My whole point is that prose of this article needs a lot of attention I offered an example of how a near identical subject dealt with it, assessing this article on its merits it doesnt compare favourably to all/any of these yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
Could you please give some other specific instances of where the prose needs attention. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see its been undergoing some heavy copy editing, I come back in two days and have another look Gnangarra 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the necessity for this personally. However, I understand your point and I've added (First Test), etc. to the references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done Gnangarra 08:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am reading through, with light copyediting as I go along. The prose is by no means bad, but needs attention here and there. My main criticism, one I raised at the peer review, relates to over-detailing. Rhodes is an important cricketer, and he had a very long career, but the article is still, in my view, too long. One reason for this is the inclusion of fairly trivial anecdotes or information. One example, regarding Rhodes's first appearance at Lords: is this really worth keeping? "One version of the story is that Lord Hawke and Stanley Jackson could not agree who should play and tossed a coin to decide in favour of Rhodes. However, Hawke later claimed that both he and Jackson were always sure that Rhodes was the better bowler." There are other similar instances, and I believe you have to be ruthless in weeding these incidental asides out of the article. Please consider this; I will comment again when my copyedit run is over. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed some of the trivia. Am I missing any other obvious bits that could go? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to supportSee below (Brianboulton (talk)): Declaration: I carried out a lengthy peer review a few weeks ago. During this FAC I have engaged in further heavy copyediting, mainly to reduce the size of the article by removal of inessential or repeated material. There may be opportunities for further trimming, but I believe that the prose is generally of a good standard now. My main outstanding concerns are as follows:-

  • Images: FAC does not require articles to be copiously illustrated, but I believe that reasonable attempts should be made to add images to text. Much of Rhodes's career was before 1923, and I can't accept there are no more free images relevant to him than the two currently in the article. What about the following?
    • File:Lord Hawke.jpg: A Vanity Fair portrait from 1892 of Rhodes's first Yorkshire captain
    • File:CB-Fry-.jpg: C.B. Fry was Rhodes's Test captain in 1912
    • File:The Oval Pavilion.jpg: This is a modern photograph, but the pavilion is the same one as in Rhodes's day, when he and Hirst won the 1902 Test for England.
I am sure that a determined search could produce useful images of, for example, George Hirst and Jack Hobbs. There is even this from Commons (a view of the Harrow School playing fields).
Added three images mentioned above. There are other images of Rhodes but I can't scan any myself at the moment (and I'm not sure how to upload them if I could!).--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution: particularly in the Style section there are statements and quotations that, although cited to sources, are not attributed. We need to know whose views these are. Check through the article for other instances of this.
I think I've covered them all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations
    • There are instances in the article where successive sentences are cited to the same source. This is unnecessary - the second citation can cover both. In the first paragraph of "Batting success in Australia", the same citation occurs twice within a single sentence.
Again, I think I've got them all. The only ones which are now the same ref in consecutive sentences are ones which include direct quotes (which I understand must always be referenced) or where the two sentences are about different things and the first one may be challenged if it is not realised the ref is in the next sentence (this has happened before!).--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the text is in general very well referenced, there are instances where citations seem to be missing. This is particularly noticeable at the ends of paragraphs, e.g. in "Professional club cricketer" section, and second paragraph of "Late career".
    • There look to be many opportunities to combine references and reduce the length of the References section (for example the last three references are all to the same place).
Not too sure about this one as if I combine too many, it may not be obvious that all of it is referenced. For example, last three refs could be combined but then there would be one ref covering a whole paragraph or lots of repeated refs; also, the info does come from those refs rather than a generic pp. 190-92. However, if it is a big problem, I will see what I can do.--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon: the article does not seem to me to be overburdened with cricket jargon, and you have inserted many links, but it would be good to have a comment on this aspect from someone unfamiliar with the game.

If you can address these I will be happy to move to unconditional support of a well-made and absorbing article about a legend of English cricket. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Over his career Rhodes appeared in 1,110 first-class matches, which remains a world record" - please mention 1107/4187 either in the text or the notes. Tintin 11:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [48].

Gough Whitlam

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it's ready. Gough Whitlam. Probably not Australia's greatest Prime Minister, but certainly its most controversial. Thirty five years after "The Dismissal", the most dramatic moment in Australian political history, when he was fired by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, Whitlam is still going (and is still married! 68 years now) and is still active and outspoken at age 93. This article, by the way, was one of our early FAs (and one of the very first TFA's) but fell from grace four years ago. Time for Whitlam to be making a comeback. This is a WikiCup nomination.Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it. Deadlink removed, it was just an EL, legacy from when I started work on the article. If you get the information sheet linked from the Australian copyright tag (downloadable in pdf format here, it makes it clear that photographs taken before 1969 expired/will expire fifty years after they were taken not published. In practice, this applies up to 1954 because a new set of rules went into effect 1 January 2005. It does not matter who took them. These are out of copyright in Australia as of 1992, which also gets them inside the Berne Convention assession by the US in 1996. That takes care of the two black and white photos, and the Goughandmark image I've deleted. Uploader hasn't been active in years. That should be everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I think the prose could do with some smoothing towards the backend. However, this is an interesting article. Well done to all involved. Aaroncrick TALK 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. Many thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoidance of clutter. So the person reading doesn't have to wade through too much to complete the first sentence. It is traditional, not just on Wiki, to put dates of birth/death. Place of birth is less crucial, it can go in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The first thought of this military historian was "not another blue orchid," but this is a great article! Gough may not be the greatest Prime Minister (but he might be - the competition is not that fierce) but this will make a great featured article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise. I was afraid that I would make all sorts of hideous errors, as I am not Australian but the local editors show no inclination to feed me to a crocodile, yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Images File:Dismissal751111.jpg no valid FU rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am about halfway through a comprehensive copyedit. Will report back when I'm done. Scartol • Tok 15:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I'll let Scartol do his work copyediting and I'll look for any overlinking per your diff on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, leaning support: A fascinating article, former FA, prose still slightly off in places. I have done some light copyedits, and have posted minor issues to the Gough Whitlam talkpage to save space here. Further points for attention:-

  • Deputy leader
    • "In early 1966, the party conference, with Calwell's assent, banned any ALP parliamentarian from supporting state aid." Needs to be a bit more informative; all state aid—welfare, unemployment, sickness benefit? Was the Labor party really advocating a total ban on these expenditures? Or does "state aid" have a more specific meaning?
    • Defeat of Jim Cairns (at the end of the section) needs a citation.
  • Reforming the ALP: Final paragraph: The 1971 ALP called for Parliament to receive "such plenary powers as are necessary and desirable" to achieve the ALP's goals in domestic and international affairs. What did this mean, in the context of the Labor Party's former policy of changing the Australian constitution? (and if this had been a party goal since 1918, why didn't they do something about it when they were in power, 1941-49?)
    • I see your note below, which explains why the ALP didn't achieve their constitutional goal when they were in power in the 1940s. What isn't clear is the extent to which the 1971 conference resolution represented a change of party policy. It sounds like they still wanted the vesting of all political power in Parliament. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leader of the Opposition
    • No real issues here, but it's interesting to see that the snake Rupert Murdoch was up to his familar tricks even then - always support the likely winner of any election, anywhere, regardless of ideology. I bet he wasn't with Gough in 1975.
  • Duumvirate
    • "Given a closely-divided electorate, this usually meant that at most a single seat in each state was contested." Sorry, can't work out what this means.
  • Early troubles
    • I'm not clear as to why ASIO might have wished to conceal or destroy files relating to threats against the Yugoslavian PM. Is something being implied here?
    • "...Queensland's border with Papua New Guinea, which came within half a kilometre of the Papuan mainland." This presumably arises from Australian-owned islands in the Torres Strait; I think it would help if this was clarified, to avoid questions about the geographical details.
    • "Liberal governments in New South Wales and Victoria..." Perhaps clarify "Liberal state governments..."
    • "...providing the territories representation in the Senate" I think a "with" is missing, but more significantly, this is the first mention of "territories", and readers unfamiliar with Australia may wonder what this refers to.
  • Second term: "Freudenberg points out that 1,026 Vietnamese refugees entered Australia in the final eight months of the Whitlam government, and only 399 in 1976 under Fraser." This post-Whitlam information would be better as a footnote. Otherwise it disturbs the narrative chronology.

More to come (on the exciting part), Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response: Yes, the ALP started on the road towards abolishing the constitution and making Parliament sovereign in the 1940s, but hit a brick wall when the Fourteen Powers referendum failed. In McMinn's book on Australian Constitutional history, he also mentions a number of court decisions and policy choices that increased the federal power vis a vis the states in the 1940s, but that would be too much detail.
I am puzzled myself by Senator/Attorney General Murphy's odd ASIO kick. As near as I can gather, and the sources do not go into great detail on this, Labor did not trust the public service. I can look for more stuff on this issue, a lot of numbers of The Age are in Google news archive.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested, the border issue was eventually settled under Fraser. He couldn't get Bjelke-Petersen to yield, so what he did was literally sit down with the other stakeholders on one of the Torres Strait islands and come to a deal that the local natives would be allowed to boat back and forth in a border zone with minimal restrictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented those. I struck the sentence about the Senate, it is clearly illustrated later on. What I meant to say is that, say, if five Senate seats were up in a half Senate election, two would go for sure to Labor and two to the Coalition, and the battle was to win the remaining seat. That is why, even though Gough got clobbered in 1975, Labor's losses in the Senate were not huge compared to the House.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more points (plus some extra tiddlers on the talkpage):-

  • Constitutional crisis
    • "Fearing that Whitlam would go to Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia..." I would like an Australian to judge whether this formality reads normally. To me it sounds stiff and artificial; I would prefer plain "Queen Elizabeth" (with link in case people wonder which Queen Elizabeth this is)
    • (later in the same sentence) "he did not give Whitlam any hint of what was coming" should be "Kerr did not give Whitlam any hint of what was coming."
    • "Kerr commissioned Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister, on the assurance he could obtain supply, and would then advise Kerr to dissolve both houses for election." The second comma changes the intended meaning; Frazer was being asked fot two assurances - that he could obtain supply and that he would dissolve parliament. The second comma should be deleted.
        • He was actually being asked for four, Kerr also wanted an assurance there would be no new policies before the election and no investigations of the Whitlam government before the election. Perhaps when I get to that point on the crisis article, I'll include that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to opposition

That is me, done. I'll be back in a day, when I confidently expect to move to full suppport. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, If not commented on, I've done it both here and on talk. Please note above comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved to full support, with the couple of issues noted above still open, but I am sure you will dispose of these satisfactorily. This was, for me, a rare glimpse into Australian politics; I do remember the Gough kerfuffle, but I was too young to take much notice. I look forward to the developing article on the constitutional crisis. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
Introduction - Leader of the Opposition, and the Opposition, are spelled with leading capitals; but commissioning of opposition leader Malcolm Fraser is different. I suggest there should be consistency on spelling of Opposition (or opposition).
Early and family life - he was called by his middle name from early childhood is poor syntax. (He has had the same middle name all his life!) It would be better as from early childhood he was called by his middle name.
Early and family life - After reaching 1947, the final paragraph regresses to 1942 to record EGW’s marriage. I suggest the sentence about EGW's marriage in 1942 should be located in its correct chronological place. The final paragraph can simply begin The couple have been married for more than two-thirds of a century …
More later. Dolphin (t) 12:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done those. I moved the marriage earlier in the chronology, but kept it all together, see what you think. All I am really trying to do there is establish the length of Whitlam's marriage and to a certain extent the apparent happiness of it, so I don't have to keep referring back to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (struck momentarily until below resolved - YM is right about (1) issues with Timor - it was and remains big news, and (2) his support of Latham, this last also was more important that his olympics role - both should be included) - I've been following and tweaking with this -I can't see anything else of vital importance left out (though maybe some embellishment of his vision and the Arts and the change on Australia's cultural landscape, although the Blue Poles episode encapsulates that somewhat). Prose is shaping up nicely - there will be some minor tweaks but no clanger/deal-breakers outstanding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing The part about East Timor is still only treated as an afterthought, and the Indonesian invasion isn't even explained. There is a public expectation that Australia should help ET because of the locals' guerrilla support for Austrlaia in WW2, and it was widely believed that Whitlam was aware of what was going to happen, but sold them up the creek. Also another big thing was surely Whitlam and Mark Latham; they appeared a lot together in 2004 and it was a big thing about Latham being the new Whitlam and torchbearer....surely this was bigger than the Olympics as Whitlam was not one of the main players to the best of my knowledge, the main players are always the sports administrators and the main celebrity impetus is from globally-loved sporting legends, eg Dawn Fraser and so forth, given that politicians are generally not widely known outside their country (apart from US/UK leaders etc) and that IOC delegates/voters are usually retired sporting figures themselves... Also as far as Freudenberg goes, he was Whitlam's staff member and you'd expect him to say something a bit warped like a Karl Rove book or whatever...About the VN refugee thing, the senior public servants and higher officers (majors and above) escaped straight away on US helicopters and aircraft carriers, but enlisted South Vietnamese soldiers, government secretaries, cleaning ladies, junior officers eg lieutenants etc, were captured and imprisoned for mostly 1-4 years, so there were no refugees that could have been accepted. After they did get released, Fraser's intake was many times higher because the refugees were actually out of jail and could escape by pretending to be fishermen for a few months; I'd say Freudenberg's twisted apologetics be cut and replaced with real, bigger picture, data. Whitlam also posed with the Vietcong flag once... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy leader – The following expression is clumsy: supporting federal assistance to the states which went to both government and private schools, commonly called state aid. The following might be better: ‘supporting federal assistance to the states for spending on both government and private schools, commonly called “state aid”’

Deputy leader - Holt called an election for November. The year (1966) should be added.

Leader of the Opposition - Whitlam came across far better on television. Whitlam performed far better on television?

Constitutional crisis – Whitlam’s 21 October quote should be highlighted in some way – italics, quotation marks or a quote box.

ditto - As the crisis dragged into November, Whitlam attempted to make arrangements for public servants and suppliers to be able to cash cheques at banks by temporary loans which the government would repay once supply was restored. I suggest this sentence is divided with a second sentence beginning: 'This strategy would be financed by temporary loans which the government would repay …'

ditto - Kerr's Official Secretary, David Smith came to Parliament House to proclaim the dissolution from the front steps. I suggest 'came to the front steps of Parliament House to proclaim the dissolution.'

More later. Dolphin (t) 03:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. It may take me several days to do these, especially the Timor matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STrangely, the Latham (another FFA) only has one word about it, which I find disagreeable YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can dig up too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've ordered a book on this, and there is some stuff in news articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding that Whitlam posed with the Viet Cong flag, I'm finding that he spoke in a hall in which there was a VietCong flag, and he was photographed with that in the background. Nasty little discussion in Parliament about it. I've got the Latham stuff done, and Dolphin51's corrections (I think putting a quote in a blockquote is sufficient emphasis, I never do more than that). I will work on the Timor matter and the corrections to the Vietnam issue and that should do it, absent fresh comments. Next couple of days, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support It's Time! Dolphin (t) 02:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want to support but initial oppose. I believe the photograph of Whitlam's bust is a violation of the artist's copyright in the artwork and probably should not be on WP/WM at all. See section 31 of Australia's copyright act for the right itself, and section 33 for its duration. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) <slaps forehead> Having had to rely on FoP before, how could I forget that? Stoopid. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this photo is OK as Australia has freedom of panorama, please see [49] and the linked materials. Hope you will withdraw the oppose once you read through that. If we can't come to an agreement here, I'll remove the image, but think it is properly free use.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even Homer nodded. Doh!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed, I hope, YellowMonkey and Caliber's concerns. Except if there are further comments or concerns, I think we're in good shape here. Four supports, no opposes, all checks done. "It's time" to make this the 37th FFA to return to the ranks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support, owing to some clarity queries:

  • "and led to one post mortem of the Whitlam government, "We did too much too soon."" Odd phrase - whose post-mortem was this? Freudenberg's, or was F. reporting someone else, and if so whom?
  • "Whitlam founded the Department of Urban Development and, having lived in developing Canberra and Cabramatta, set a goal to leave no urban home unsewered." I don't think any urban home in Canberra would ever have been unsewered, being a 20th century planned city, whereas this sentence makes it sound as though he had lived in such coditions there. The causality implicit in this sentence structure may need to be revisited.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he interrupted an extensive tour of Europe for only 48 hours to view the devastation". I don't get the "only" here. Two whole days to look at flattened buildings in what was then just a large country town? Why "only"?
    I've struck the word "only" and rephrased to include explanation that many Australians saw the period as too brief. If need be, I can add that the papers were running photographs of the ruins of Darwin side by side with images of Whitlam inspecting more ancient ruins in Europe.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to journalist and author Wallace Brown, the controversy over the raid continued to..." Only problem is, the preceding sentences have said nothing about why it would be controversial, or what that controversy was. makes it hard for a reader to understand the idea that it continued to dog the govt, when it isn't clear why it was an issue.
    I think that the reader will understand that one law enforcement agency raiding another, with a Minister leading the charge is ... unusual. I have added a couple of sentences about the controversy.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whitlam appointed Murphy anyway." Doesn't make sense coming after the explanation that is offered, because that explanation is an account of why Whitlam believed there would be no political cost to making the appointment. Given there was no political cost, why "anyway", and, therefore, why have the sentence at all? Am i missig something here?
See below, and I've spelled it out anyway now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August 1975, Whitlam gave the Gurindji people of the Northern Territory title deeds to part of their traditional lands, beginning the process of Aboriginal land reform. The next month, Papua New Guinea became independent" Is the point that Australia granted that independence? Doesn't sound connected to Australia as currently written.
Made it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might get to more later. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I will get to these later in the day, when I have the chance of viewing my reference material. Regarding the Murphy appointment, please reread it. The point is, Labor could conceivably win 3 out of 5 at the next half Senate election, (three out of five of the short term NSW senators were Labor) if six seats were on offer, it was still going to win no more than three, therefore, the Murphy appointment represented what would be most likely a lost seat. And of course with the Bunton appointment it was a lost seat even sooner than they thought, though Bunton voted with Labor on the supply votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've answered all your concerns. OK, six supports, no opposes, all checks done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment
  • THe article was missing the name of his mother, and the fact that he had a sibling (my online source does not give a name). I have added this.
  • In the early 1990s, a group of Australian musicians, Tim Freedman, Stevie Plunder and Andy Lewis formed the band The Whitlams (named, as you can imagine, after the former PM), and included a song on their first album, called "Gough". In 1998 they won three ARIA awards, for Best Independent Album, Song of the Year and Best Group: see This page from the ARIA website. The award was presented by Whitlam himself: see this page from The Whitlams' official webpage. Given their prominence on the music scene, and Gough Whitlam's presence at the awards (and his image on their first album cover: see File:INTRODUCING THE WHITLAMS.jpg), I think this needs to be acknolwedged somehow in the "Ambassador and elder statesman" section. I'm just not sure how. Come to think of it, the album cover, provided the album and award ceremony was explicitly covered in the text, could qualify for fair use in the article and may be a more interesting illustration than the photo of him at the stolen generations event. Thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sister's name was Freda, I'll add that. As for the Whitlams, there was a see also, I took it out, I'll add it back in. Unfortunately, I don't think fair use would fly, it would be principally decorative.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The ref i cited does not contain her name, so you are you able to add or substitute a source that will cover that? I have a tedious image nitpick, but thought I should make it, as this place seems pretty hard line about images. It concerns File:Whitlam1955.jpg. The inscription on the back reportedly stated "Photo supplied by Mr Whitlam 28.1.1955". The copyright claim being made for it being public domain is that it is a government owned photograph over 50 years old (criterion E). However, the definition of ownership states: "owned means where a government is the copyright owner". However, this appears not to be the case with this image. As far as I can see, the inscription on the image indicates that the Parliamentary Library owned that copy of the image, but the copyright would be Mr Whitlam's (who "supplied" the image). That being the case, I would have though criteria A or B would apply, not E, in which case the image appears to miss out on being PD by a month. Thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Date supplied and date taken are two different things, of course. I may contact the Whitlam institute or Whitlam's office, if I can find contact info for it, and ask them if they know when it was taken. If it was a standard publicity photo for Whitlam, it may have been taken prior to 1955 (remember, photos had to be developed!), but in the meantime, I've taken it out of the article and used the metal bust as the lead image. I've added a ref re sister.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I did look into getting public domain images of Whitlam from the National Archives here in the US. Whitlam visited President Nixon at the White House. However, my contact at the Nixon Library tells me that images for that date are not yet indexed. Also, the Nixon Library is not open for research presently due to materials being sent out there from the Maryland branch of the Archives. I am planning to go to California in late July, after the planned reopening on July 1, and plan to spend two days there looking at this and other research matters.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are one very committed wikipedian and researcher, and we are all lucky to have your contributions. I hated raising that issue, because it really is a very good image. I hope it makes it back in the end. You've done a good job with bringing this up to standard. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, I enjoyed doing it. If an image is bad, well, it has to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six supports, no opposes. All checks done. Just about everyone who has expressed comments has weighed back in to say the comments were addressed, and even if they didn't, the comments were addressed anyway. "We want Gough! We want Gough! We want Gough!"--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Karanacs. I found the text very dry, and in some places confusing. Below is the list of things that jumped out at me while reading:

  • I'm not fond of making references to him as Prime Minister in the sections on his early life. That type of jumping in and out of the chronology is always jarring to me.
  • Is it really important to compare Whiltam to Bert Evatt? In the next section, the article explicitly mentions his priveleged background; we may not need to bring this up again
  • The paragraph on his maiden speech is not entirely clear. Who reminded McEwen that he wasn't supposed to speak? Is this referring to Whitlam's comments? Did Whitman actually mention Disraeli, or did Whitlam's word choice simply evoke Disraeli's words?
  • The next paragraph mentions debate in the House. Were Whitlam's comments out of the ordinary for debate?
  • If neither electorate had a high school, how did the move mean longer journeys? Those two pieces of the sentence don't seem to be related
  • Do we need to know that Margaret Whitlam was interested in swimming pools and swimming clubs?
  • Do we perhaps need more details on what he actually did as part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee..., since that appears to have been such an influence on him?
  • Is there a reason that Calwell thought Whitlam was a hindrance in the 1961 election? Was it personal dislike or something about their politics?
  • In the 1st paragraph of Reforming the ALP, who is the executive? I'm confused over the difference between executive and leader
  • Is there anything that Whitlam actually did in the legislature? Did he sponsor any bills, be instrumental in the passage or failure of any legislation? We're getting a good picture of how he moved up in the ranks of the party, but there is a blur of what he actually did as a legislator. Perhaps this is just a difference between the US system and the parliamentary system....
  • In the Legacy section, I think there may be some trivial details. Do we really need to devote a paragraph (or any text) to his testimonay at the 2007 inquest? Do we really need a paragraph on Whitlam's support of Latham?

Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Karanacs, speaking on the last point - yeah, the support of Latham was prominent in the press at the time, and interesting given what happened next (to Latham that is). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses I'll take a look at the points I don't address right now.
The only Whitlam as PM is the growing up in Canberra matter. I will strike the Evatt and move the pipe to him to later.
I will make it clear that Cabramatta was farther from the schools (in Sydney) than Cronulla. Still is, actually.
Whitlam's comments were strong, but not terribly unusual. He was not ruled unparliamentary on any of them.
Well ... in view of the fact that Margaret Whitlam swam for Australia in the 1938 Empire Games, I think it is relevant. I can't totally ignore Margaret.
The Federal Executive is the 12 member body that most commonly meets to govern the party and enforce policy. The Federal Conference meets less frequently, and then there are biennial Party Conferences. Confusing, but ... the previous section explains exactly what the Federal Executive is. Would it help if I capitalised Executive?
I think the lack of specific accomplishments as a backbencher is due to the fact that the ALP was in opposition and so he would not have had many chances to propose legislation. Amendments, sometimes. In addition, pre-Whitlam as leader, the Opposition did not have a shadow cabinet. He was just very good at confronting the Coalition.
Hocking does not say why Calwell thought Whitlam as deputy cost him the election, it merely says that he did.
Both Timor and Latham are important parts of Whitlam's legacy and Aussies will expect that info to be there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few changes for clarity, pursuant to the comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, Oakes and Solomon mentions that the emnity between Whitlam and Calwell began in 1955, when Whitlam proposed a "spill" motion in Caucus designed to dislodge Calwell from his deputy leadership. That perhaps would be tedious to put in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add a side-note to Karanacs re what Whitlam "did in the legislature". You are right, this is partly about differences in political system. Individual members of Australian parliaments do not play significant roles as bill sponsors, and the committees are not significant in the way that Congressional ones are. In Aust, it is overwhelmingly about parties, and therefore becoming powerful within the party, and then its leader, is the crucial dynamic. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the explanations of individual's roles in the parliamentary system. I like the idea of capitalizing "Executive". When I see the small e I think of a single person, which is why I was confused. Also, as to Margaret, she has her own article. Why do her accomplishments need to be here, unless they are directly related to her husband, and these don't appear to be? Karanacs (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll capitalise Executive. I have struck the language on Margaret and the swimming club. Most politicians' spouses don't have articles, but she does, and the reader can turn for information there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All look good. Brianboulton (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [50].

The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman

edit
Nominator(s): JN466 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has just passed GA, over the course of which it was significantly expanded, using Swedish-language sources (thanks to User:Pieter Kuiper, who helped me with the translations). I believe it now represents a comprehensive account of this musical and its critical reception that is worthy of FA status. JN466 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this work need a visual identification beyond the text? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand your question. --JN466 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of File:Seduction of Ingmar Bergman.jpg is justified because it provides visual identification, I don't understand how "visual identification" meets wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's the album cover. Including the album cover in the infobox is standard in FAs. Cf. A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish_You_Were_Here_(Pink_Floyd_album) and many others that have an image of the album cover in the infobox, with the same nfcc rationale. --JN466 20:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inappropriate use of non free content Fasach Nua (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the sole image of the album cover is a valid fair use. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inappropriate about the use of a non-free image of an album cover in such an article. In fact its common practice, and the image upload tool actually includes a fair use rationale for an album cover. The resolution of the image is well under the required boundary of 300px. The image page includes in the licence section, the correct fair use rationale. I'm having trouble understanding exactly why you're opposing; currently I think you're in error. Parrot of Doom 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy/Karanacs, if there is some aspect of nfcc criteria that I am unaware of, please let me know, and I will remove the image. However, I believe Redtigerxyz and Parrot of Doom have got this right; including a low-res image of the album cover in the infobox is standard. --JN466 17:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NFCI "Cover art" being included in an article which includes comentary of the album being shown constitutes an "appropriate use" of non-free content. --SkotyWATC 00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; the current guidelines and policies on non-free content are such that a copyrighted image can be used to "identify the subject" (lede image) of an article, unless a "free/libre" version is available (see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guidelineWikipedia:Non-free content#Images). Of course, the rationales must still be written to state how the image complies with WP:NFCC; as a lede image, the article is expressing critical commentary about the subject (image). It would be decorative (and non-compliant with NFCC) if used in other articles (such as Ingrid Bergman, Sparks (band), or a list of the band's works) to illustrate the album, but using it in The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman as the lede image is compliant with policies/guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 09:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • First a personal note; I'm a long time fan of Sparks but I associate them more with my brother who actually bought the records (I would just get to hear them) and who died last year, so I got a bit of a twinge to see a Sparks article turn up for review.
    • I have proofread the article; can't see any little errors needing to be corrected.
    • It is quite a short FA candidate, but that alone isn't something to oppose for. It does, though, make me wonder if there may be more to be said. I wonder if the fact that there will be a film means that we should hold off on FA status until there is a film, at which point there will presumably be a flurry of activity on the article unless the film is given an article of its own. Or to couch that in more relevant terms; is the article likely to become unstable when additional material is released? If so, is that something we should be taking into account when deciding whether to promote or not?
    • Thanks to all those who contributed to the article; it's looking pretty good at the moment, I would say. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments. (I too have followed Sparks for rather more decades than I care to add up.) About expanding the article's length, I didn't really find anything more to say in secondary sources; on the whole, they're much in agreement with each other. I could mine Sparks's MySpace blog, to add a paragraph or two about their youthful love of Bergman's films etc., but then it's a primary source, and it's there as an external link for people to read already.
      • As far as the film version is concerned, there is no way of knowing if it will ever materialise (Sparks, unfortunately, have an unhappy history of unfulfilled plans). I could find nothing on further developments in the recent press. Even if the film were to come about, it would probably deserve a standalone article, with just a short paragraph and link here. So if you'd like to support ... :)
      • I added some sound samples earlier today, as that seems to be standard in album FAs. Best, --JN466 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support. JN466, I'm fairly new to FA reviews so I tend not to "support/oppose", I just like to help things along. However, there does seem to be a lack of supporting/opposing going on, so I guess I'd better step up soon. At the moment, though, I really need to be more familiar with FA criteria, so forgive me for being a chicken for now. However, I take back my comment about the article "possibly becoming unstable if a film comes out". We make featured articles about, for example, still active popstars, and they are always liable to release a new album or do something new and I haven't seen anyone argue "no, it can't be an FA because something new may come along." I have struck those comments. I will offer an amateur support but hope that someone more experienced can seal the deal. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. pending a few resolutions....;) And Bodnotbod, get off the timid newbie schtick. :)

  • Based around an imaginary.... Constructed around...Built around?
  • ...its storyline focuses on the divides between European and American culture ... divides? divisions?
    • to take that idea a little further, are the divisions between European and American culture really as basic as art and commerce? If they are, this doesn't come up later in the article, or at least not specifically, just metaphorically.
      • I guess they're really two separate aspects; in the story, Bergman experiences both a culture shock, and a different attitude to film-making. I've made it "divisions" (and "dichotomies" later on in the text), so the wording no longer implies these are one and the same thing. Hope that works for you. --JN466 01:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radioteatern, ..... what does this mean?
  • a plot device... concludes and resolves the fantasy,.... Shouldn't this be, In the concluding moments, a plot device resolves the fantasy....?
    • I think it's okay as it stands -- it both concludes the fantasy and resolves it (Garbo takes him to watch one of her early Swedish movies with her; as the film ends, Garbo has disappeared, and when he leaves the cinema, he is back in Stockholm) --JN466 01:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • awarding the album 5 stars.... don't we write out numbers 0-10?
  • Rick Wakeman’s King Arthur on Ice--italics or quotation marks?
  • The BBC review stated fans hoping for... According to the BBC review, fans hoping for....?

Lovely article. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments-I have seen Jayen editing this article and been having a look at the article and this nomination. Jayen is my acquaintance and on my watch-list. I am commenting really because it is him but not in support of him but in regard to wikipedia guidelines and criteria. This is the first time I have commented at a review and I have compared the style and content with the criteria and with other featured album articles.
  • 1

(a) article is well written.

(b) fully comprehensive and contextualized

(c) fully sourced to high quality WP:RS

(d) no visible bias-neutral reporting of the cited content

(e) stable apart from the editors tweaks and minor improvements

  • 2

(a) lead gives overview and draws readers interest

(b) well sectioned and headed, with a clear progressive structure

(c) all citations well formated

  • 3

Fair use sleeve cover with rational and fair use sound samples with rationals compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

  • 4

Content fully covers all aspects of the album, it is not as large as some other featured albums but there was no associated tour or film. It is not overlong and appears fully compliant with Wikipedia:Summary style.

Sources comment: Can you clarify what information is being supported by refs [3] (Amazon) and [4] (allsparks.com)?
Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JN, this is strictly personal preference (I don't believe there's a guideline), so ignore me if you disagree, but putting the foreign language icon before the citation, rather than at the end, is easier on the reader, because it allows them to know the language before deciding whether to click on the link, and easier on reviewers, because they can quickly see how many sources are non-English. I always place them at the front of the citation. Also, on non-English sources like nt.se, are you able to give us a rough equivalent (in English?) of what those are (a name for the site)? Otherwise, we can't evaluate reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the icons to the front of the refs; it does make sense. As for nt.se, this is the website of Norrköpings Tidningar, a Swedish daily published since 1758 (tidningar means newspapers).
The other Swedish sources cited are:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [55].

Silky shark

edit
Nominator(s): Yzx (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It passed GA last October and I've improved it some more since. Yzx (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Iridia (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Quite a nice read.
  • There seems an excessive amount of overlinking to place and country names, particularly in Distribution and habitat, which appears almost solid blue with links, making it quite hard to read.
My policy in writing articles is to the link the first instance of every geographical location, so that if the reader doesn't know where it is they can look it up. I find this preferable to linking only the locations that I think are obscure, as that can introduce biases based on my personal knowledge. What would you suggest be delinked?
Perhaps unlink country names and leave the state names and the oceanographic locations (Gulf of Aden, etc) linked. That should be sufficient. Iridia (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree, since I wouldn't necessarily expect an average reader to know where, say, Angola or the Maldives are (or maybe I'm being cynical). -- Yzx (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a MoS guideline for this, but it's never possible to find these things when they're needed... Iridia (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, this has been improved. Iridia (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found the linking of hearing to be unnecessary in a sentence that says "Its sense of hearing is extremely acute".
Unlinked
  • Some of the images do not relate to the text they are with: those in Distribution and habitat and in Feeding.
Appropriately licensed pictures of sharks are very hard to come by, and these were the ones I found. I tried to make the captions as germane as I could. I can replace the image in Feeding with that of a food fish; would that be better?
Yes, that would be good; particularly if the image has some sense of scale, so that the size of the food fish relative to the size of the shark stated elsewhere can be inferred. Iridia (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a tuna image; I see your point about scale but I prefer to use images of living animals in their natural habitats (or as close as can be found) whenever possible. The relative sizes of the prey and shark vary with the size of both anyway, so I don't know how informative that would be. -- Yzx (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image looks good. Iridia (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any better image available for the juvenile shark picture? Maybe of the significant live birth?
As far as I know birth has never been photographed, and if it has it would almost certainly be proprietary.
  • Distribution and habitat: in "Its range extends farther north and south along continental margins than in oceanic waters", it does not seem helpful to link "continental" to Continent; preferably link "continental margin" - except then that's linked in the preceding sentence. Perhaps rephrase to "these continental margins" and leave unlinked.
Unlinked "continent"; "continental margin" is pretty self-explanatory anyway
  • Biology and ecology, para 1: "watery desert" seems like a statement that should have greater support, either through citations or linking.
Removed it; two words aren't worth another ref
  • In Human interactions: while the first instance of bycatch is linked as "caught incidentally", it might be better to put "bycatch" in parentheses after, as the term is used unlinked later on.
Linked both "caught incidentally" and "bycatch", since I don't want to put a word in parentheses that also appears regularly in the next sentence
  • also there: link "blue shark", as the last mention of it was three sections earlier.
Done
  • In Conservation, are there any concrete numbers on how the population has benefited from the bans on finning? That seems quite a sweeping statement to leave hanging, given the careful statistics above on its decline.
No statistics are available, but it's mentioned on every IUCN page on pelagic sharks. I added the qualifier "likely" in there to make it sound more vague
Then it should be "the IUCN suggests the population has benefited", if they're the assessors. Iridia (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this is implied by the attached ref, as since the IUCN is the source for almost all the conservation data I don't like making an explicit reference to this one particular statement as though it's qualitatively different from the rest of the section. -- Yzx (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ref states "The adoption of shark finning bans by fishing states (e.g., USA, Australia), regional entities (EU) and regional fisheries organisations (e.g. ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC, WCPFC) is accelerating and should increasingly prevent the capture of oceanic sharks for their fins alone. " That's quite a different implication from "likely benefited": there is no data to show it has yet happened. I suggest rewording the sentence. Iridia (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to "It should benefit from bans on shark finning, which are being increasingly implemented by nations and supranational entities, including the United States, Australia, and the European Union." -- Yzx (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
Thanks for the support and the review. -- Yzx (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support Comments: This is my first stab at assisting with one of these reviews. With that said, I want to say that this is a very nice article. There are a few small points, though.

  • I'm used to WP:MAMMAL, and specifically WP:PRIMATE. Does this WikiProject prefer lowercase names when mentioning species? I'm used to uppercase.
The policy for fish articles is to use sentence case, yes. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, the last half of a sentence reads, "...this species has behaved aggressively towards divers and should be treated with caution." To me, this goes against WP:NOTHOWTO. I suggest finding a way to reword this such that you are not telling people how to act around the shark.>
Removed it. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your range map is very good. Personally, I prefer to have the descriptive text reference the source for the map, so just add a citation. I know it's cited on the image description on Commons, but I just feel this is good practice.
Ref added. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it conventional to put a portal link under the taxobox? I honestly don't know, so someone please tell me.
That's where it is on all shark articles, and it's been that way since before I started here so I don't know who decided it. I don't think it looks bad there. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I ask because I might want to eventually link the Primates portal to my lemur articles. Good to know... – VisionHolder « talk » 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the etymology of the scientific name, you translate the species name, but not the genus (which is Greek and means "jagged nose" according to "Dictionary of word roots and combining forms", ISBN: 978-0874840537). Personally, I like for the full name to be translated, but that's just me.
My preference is to save the translation of the genus name for the genus article, as I like keeping species articles as tightly focused as possible. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect that. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oligocene epoch (34-23 Ma)" and "Eocene (56-34 Ma) epoch" – pick a place to put the parentheses and stick with it. (I prefer after "epoch", or omitting "epoch" all-together.)
Fixed. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The silky shark apparently reproduces year-round in most of its range, whereas in the Gulf of Mexico mating and parturition take place in late spring or early summer (May to August)." I don't like the way this one is worded. Maybe something like: "Most silky sharks are known (or thought?) to reproduce year-round, whereas mating and parturition in the Gulf of Mexico take place in late spring or early summer (May to August)."
Rephrased to "Silky sharks in most parts of the world are thought to reproduce year-round, whereas mating and parturition in the Gulf of Mexico take place in late spring or early summer (May to August)." -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some sport fishers value silky sharks.[5]" This sentence seems out of place in its current paragraph. I suggest moving it into the next paragraph.
Moved. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All numbers should have a non-breaking space ("&nbsp;") between them and the following word to help with readability when a line ends (depending on the window size of the browser).
Added. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you've thoroughly searched the academic literature for studies on this species and represented the available material, you should be good once these issues are addressed. I also recommend contacting any one of the authors you cited for an expert review, if you can manage it. Otherwise, well done! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes! I've added my tentative support, pending the support of more experienced reviewers. I also hope someone can check the references and the available literature since I only have access to Google Scholar. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. -- Yzx (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks very good! All suggestions I can offer are minor: Sasata (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • lead: suggest linking life history, conservation status
Done.
  • link to the protologue? (available here)
Ref added.
Links added.
  • "This species may also be referred to…" I've been told that self-referencing was to be avoided, so maybe swap "This" with "The". There's further instances of "this species" in the article too.
I personally think "the species" sounds wrong, since I don't read "the" and think "this". I don't really see a problem with using "this species", and I see this type of referencing in books all the time. I have changed some of the instances in the article for variety.
Fair enough.
  • Are there links for "Old Church formation" and "Ashley formation"?
Probably non-notable, though I'm not familiar with what the geologists here do.
  • "…based on allozyme data…" could this be clarified? I'm assuming this is sequence data (but maybe not, perhaps electrophoretic mobility?)
Added "sequence"
  • link cosmopolitan distribution, tagging
Done for the first; electronic tag is actually about surveillance, not the tags used on fish. There ought to be an article on it, but I don't know what it should be called; fish tag? research tag?
Ah, the dab page was misleading ("recording data on saltwater marine species") and I didn't actually check the destination page. I'm not sure what to call that device, you're the fish guy! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The circular, medium-sized eyes and equipped with nictitating membranes (protective third eyelids)." Either missing something or need to swap "and" with "are"
Fixed (should've been "are").
  • "Their vulnerability to predation compels young sharks to grow quickly within the nursery" "compels" seems to me like the wrong verb to use; would they all of a sudden grow more slowly if there weren't predators?
Changed to "The risk of predation has selected for fast growth in young sharks..."
  • I'll have a look at references and do a lit review tonight
Thanks for commenting. -- Yzx (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b/c review:
  • there's quite a few scientific papers in the academic literature about this species, and many are cited in this article. There's a few more that caught my eye; do you think any of these article might have relevant and interesting information? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries
Author(s): Cortes, E; Arocha, F; Beerkircher, L, et al.
Source: AQUATIC LIVING RESOURCES Volume: 23 Issue: 1 Pages: 25-34 Published: 2010
  • The silky shark is highly vulnerable to pelagic longline fisheries
I think the article already covers longline mortality sufficiently. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Determining shark size from forensic analysis of bite damage
Author(s): Lowry, Dayv; Fagundes de Castro, Andrey Leonardo; Mara, Kyle, et al.
Source: Marine Biology (Berlin) Volume: 156 Issue: 12 Pages: 2483-2492 Published: NOV 2009
  • forensic analysis can differentiate shark size and species based on bite damage
I think this would be better under shark attack than on a species article. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Trade-Offs in the Design of Fishery Closures: Management of Silky Shark Bycatch in the Eastern Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery
Author(s): Watson, JT; Essington, TE; Lennert-Cody, CE, et al.
Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Pages: 626-635 Published: 2009
This article is mostly about how to determine where and when to stop fishing to reduce bycatch, which
Added some bits; the modeling is probably beyond the purview of the article. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Two Shark-bitten Whale Skeletons from Coastal Plain Deposits of South Carolina
Author(s): Cicimurri, DJ; Knight, JL
Source: SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Pages: 71-82 Published: 2009
  • "…compelling fossil/sub-fossil evidence, in the form of bite marks and shed/embedded teeth, that the elasmobranchs … Carcharhinus falciformis… fed on cetacean carcasses"
Material added. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Fetal mummification in silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) from the Gulf of California, Mexico
Author(s): Sandoval-Castillo, J; Villavicencio-Garayzar, C
Source: BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY Volume: 51 Issue: 3 Pages: 551-554 Published: 2008
A rather odd and anomalous phenomenon that also affects mammals, and I think would be better placed on a fetal mummification article. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: The Silky Shark, Carcharhinus falciformis (BIBRON, 1841), in the Pliocene of Cava Serredi (Fine Basin, Italy)
Author(s): Carnevale, G; Marsili, S; Caputo, D, et al.
Source: NEUES JAHRBUCH FUR GEOLOGIE UND PALAONTOLOGIE-ABHANDLUNGEN Volume: 242 Issue: 2-3 Pages: 357-370 Published: DEC 2006
Note added. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Is the collapse of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real?
Author(s): Burgess, GH; Beerkircher, LR; Cailliet, GM, et al.
Source: FISHERIES Volume: 30 Issue: 10 Pages: 19-26 Published: OCT 2005
Added a note about the dispute, and refs for the dispute, the rebuttal, and the counter-rebuttal. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: A Monte Carlo demographic analysis of the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis): implications of gear selectivity
Author(s): Beerkircher, L; Shivji, M; Cortes, E
Source: FISHERY BULLETIN Volume: 101 Issue: 1 Pages: 168-174 Published: 2003
I think this is a bit too specific and technical for the article, not to mention the model came with a whole bunch of caveats reflecting limits in current knowledge. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the review. -- Yzx (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: images need some sorting out Images okay.

Well, hopefully the image by Andrejs Jegorovs is legitimately licensed, since it's by far the best image of this species currently available. Thanks for that site recommendation though; it's got some great stuff. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status here? Please have Jappalang update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yzx is trying to contact Andrejs to ask his friends to send an OTRS? Until then, the copyright status of Chernikh's photo is dodgy (and not something we should try to promote on an FA). Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a request on Andrejs' talk page, but considering he has not contributed since 2007 I'm not holding my breath on a response. Might I ask though, is there reason to suspect bad faith on his part in uploading the image? I'd hate to see such a great image be omitted because of over-caution. -- Yzx (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bad faith, just good faith in that he had good intentions in uploading his friend's work, but did not consider the implications of the licensing Commons demand, or had not considered if his friend (Chernikh) was agreed in releasing his work to the public in such a manner. Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should I replace the image until (or if) Andrejs responds then? I don't like losing the image, but I don't want the whole FAC to get held up by this one point. -- Yzx (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to replace it; Chernikh's photo can be put back once an OTRS is received for it. Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, though for the record I disagree with the rationale for its removal. -- Yzx (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement image File:Silky shark makunudhoo.jpg is okay. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Yzx (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the first two; the photos are not directly linked from the page though are hosted at the same spot. I swapped out the third as I didn't upload it and had trouble finding the page it was linked two. -- Yzx (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Silky shark esb.jpg: since "You might want to bring binoculars and your camera. If you wish to donate any photos to our collection, we would be glad to accept them. Please email your photos to: jakub.kircun@noaa.gov"[57] and "Some are public domain, some are created by NOAA Fisheries contractors, and some are used by NOAA Fisheries with specific permission granted by the owner. Therefore, graphics found on the NOAA Fisheries web site should not be reused without permission."[58], please contact NOAA to verify the authorship of this photo (might need to use the OTRS).
    Rethinking about this, the photo is either taken by an NOAA crew, or a volunteer surveyor, who I think can be considered a "temporary" government employee during his or her stint aboard the ship. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the decision. I had e-mailed the contact from that page and thus far received no response. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I have now received a response confirming that the image is public domain. -- Yzx (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to forward that response to the OTRS; even though I think it is a work of a "government employee" (volunteer), that might not be true (although I am not opposing on this image) and clarification would dispel the doubts of others. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be resolved to comply with the image policies. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Images are compliant with policies/guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • "under the name Carcharias (Prionodon) falciformis, in their 1839"--Not sure the comma's necessary here.
It's to break up what would otherwise be a long sentence
  • "It can be distinguished from other large requiem sharks by the relatively small first dorsal fin with a curving rear margin, the tiny second dorsal fin with a long free rear tip, and the long, sickle-shaped pectoral fins."--I think this sentence is trying to do a little too much, it's quite cumbersome.
I'm not sure I agree. It's simply a list of three things. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " [...] other feeding animals, and by extension sources of food [...]"--comma needed between "extension" and "sources"
Done. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is significant geographical variation in its life history details."--this sentence (2nd par. lead) seems kind unrelated to the sentences around it.
Life history includes timing of reproduction, litter size, growth, aging, etc. The sentence after it ("Reproduction occurs year-round except in the Gulf of Mexico, where it follows a seasonal cycle") follows this thought by pointing out variation in the timing of reproduction between different regions. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I laughed when I read this: "cutting teeth of the silky shark make it potentially dangerous"--potentially!
Shark sources are careful to include "potentially", because in the vast majority of cases a shark will not attack a human unless provoked. Just putting it as "dangerous", without qualifications, would simply perpetuate the myth of a shark as a "killing machine". -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the teeth themselves are still very dangerous (maybe you could say they are potentially dangerous to humans).
It does say that, in the first sentence of Human Interactions. Besides, I think it's implied with mention of divers in the second half of the sentence. -- Yzx (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enter its oceanic habitat"--we all know it lives in the ocean.
Silky sharks are occasionally found in places like reefs, where there are more people; the qualifier is there to clarify that the open ocean is what's specifically referred to by "habitat". -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S. state of Massachusetts to Spain in the north"--no link to Spain (or Massachusetts for that matter)?
The links to places were all removed earlier by User:SandyGeorgia, citing the MOS. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "southern Brazil to northern Angola in the south, including the Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea"--no links here either (or in the rest of the paragraph)?
See above. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but may dive to at least 500 m (1,600 ft).[3]"--Do you mean at most?
The sources say "at least", because it may very well dive deeper than that. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still isn't clear to me...It may dive to at least one meter, since it can exist right at the surface (at least 500 m doesn't make sense).
Changed to "500 m or more" -- Yzx (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moving up to 60 km (37 mi) per day, and covering distances of up to 1,339 km (832 mi).[18]"--1,399 km in a month, year, what...surely not day.
1,339 km is the longest distance over which a tagged shark has been recaptured, and thus the longest distance we know that an individual shark has moved. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be clarified in the article if that is the case?
Is this necessary? The sentence already makes it clear that we're talking about records from individual sharks. -- Yzx (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but I still think some sort of time-line is necessary. Something like "covering distances of up to 1,399 km (821 mi) over the course of one stint of data collection (awful wording, but I think you know what I mean).
1,339 km is the farthest apart that two captures of the same shark has been. It makes no assumptions about those captures being consecutive or in the same bout of data collection. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skin in front of the nostrils."--I don't think the link to "nostril" is particularly necessary here (unless the page was specific to the nostrils of aquatic animals...which its not).
Delinked. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first dorsal fin is relatively small, less than a tenth as high as the shark is long, and originates behind the free rear tips of the pectoral fins; it has a rounded apex, an "S"-shaped rear margin, and a free rear tip about half as long as the fin is tall."--This sentence is also quite cumbersome.
Split into two sentences. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "Known parasites of this shark include the isopod Gnathia trimaculata,[32] the copepod Kroeyerina cortezensis,[33] and the tapeworms Dasyrhynchus variouncinatus and Phyllobothrium sp.[34][35]"--since in most if not all other instances you put the scientific name in parenthesis, I think it should also be done here.
Putting scientific names in parentheses are for species with common names. These parasites don't have common names. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including tuna, mackerel, sardines, mullets, groupers, snappers, mackerel scads, sea chubs, sea catfish, eels, lanternfishes, filefishes, triggerfishes, and porcupinefishes"--seems like a little too many examples.
These are all taken from the source, and without information on their relative importance I don't want to make a value judgment on which ones to cut.
  • "Studies conducted off Florida"--off the coast of Florida might be a little more conventional.
Changed to "Florida coast". -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curiously, these studies [...]"--don't know if "curiously" is needed.
Removed. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the placenta of the silky shark is less similar to the analogous mammalian structure"--sort of a second-hand way of saying they're not the same (maybe you could just say "different" instead of "less similar").
The point is not that it's different, but in the degree of difference relative to other sharks, which the sentence states. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whereas mating and parturition in the "--I would link parturition (or say birth instead).
Changed to "birthing". -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The litter size ranges from 1 to 16 and increases with female size, with 6–12 being typical.[2]"--6-12 being common for what size female, full grown?
Only mature females (I assume that's what you mean by "fully grown") bear young. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Across all sizes of females. "Typical" implies that if you were to randomly select a pregnant female from the population, that her litter would most likely be somewhere between 6 and 12. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the now-subadult shark migrates out from the nursery"--the sentence before has a plural subject, this is singular.
Fixed. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"growth rate of the silky shark is moderate among shark species"--The silky shark is a species all its own, how can the silky shark rate be different among different species?

I don't understand your point. The sentence means: among the growth rates of different sharks, the growth rate of the silky shark is moderate. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "moderate compared to other shark species."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some sport fishers value silky sharks.[6]"--A bit of a cliff-hanger...value them for what (the sport they provide)?
The source doesn't go into any more detail. I assume so. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like removing information for this reason. We know that sport fishers sometimes catch silky sharks. Regardless of why they do so it's still relevant information. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they value catching them, than say that (just saying they value them is ambiguous).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "catching them" seem a tad obvious to need such explicit phrasing? They are sport fishers after all. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Some sport fishers catch silky sharks." -- Yzx (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total annual catch reported to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)"--sort of an aesthetic choice, but this sentence may mark a good spot to start a new paragraph.
The statistics are a direct continuation of the thought of the previous sentence, which is the decline of silky shark populations. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It should benefit from bans on shark finning,"--unsure if it refers to the silky shark of the aforementioned law (It makes the most sense if it's the shark, but still unclear).
The sentence only makes sense if "it" refers to the shark. -- Yzx (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would put two sentences in a row that start almost the same way. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the grammar of these several sentences makes what it means unclear.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree. Interpreting "it" to mean "silky shark" is the only interpretation that remotely makes sense given context. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This caught my eye... why not just change "It ..." to "The species ..."? Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would resolve my issue with the sentence.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. -- Yzx (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed learning about this species of shark, great work by the nominator (changed to support).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources all look okay, but I have one comment. Instead of "hiding" the alphabetical list of sources, why not show it? It would be a useful rapid guide to the sources used. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not hidden, it's just a list-defined references format so they're all under References. No need to duplicate them to have them in alphabetical order. -- Yzx (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. Personally I find an alphabetical summary of sources very useful, but it's your call. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct or a typo?

  • Garrick, J.A.f. (1982).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [59].

Bog turtle

edit
Nominator(s): NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I and a group of high school students have been working on this article since the middle of September 2009, and we feel it is time to pull the trigger on it. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images These should alternate left and right (as far as possible) to balance the article, Faces generally point into articles, so a file like File:Bog_Turtle.jpg should be in the infobox. For nature articles I would prefer a geographic map rather than the political map File:Bog_turtle_distribution_map.svg being used. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a geographical map is absolutely critical, but, if it proves to be in the future, it shall be changed. Thank you for the feedback.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have left them a message anyway.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After several days, someone popped in and explained that a geographical map wouldn't make sense in this article because the bog turtle exists only in the eastern U.S.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like overciting-- why do simple statements like these require four sources?
  • The bog turtle is the smallest species of turtle in North America.[6][7][8][9] The adults weigh approximately 4 ounces (110 g) when fully grown.[10] Its head is a dark brown color that matches the shell;[9] however, it has a bright yellow, orange, or red spot on each side of its neck.[2][6][11][12]
  • I don't think this is so unnecessary. Descriptions of colorations in animals often vary among sources, so it is critical to consult multiple sources to get a handle on what the consensus in the literature is; and if you do so, you should document that you used those sources. Ucucha 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn as well, I have removed two of the four citations to these two statements, leaving the two I found to be most reliable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: spot the redundancies and punctuation error:
* The bog turtle lives out its life almost exclusively in the wetland where it hatched. It has a life span of 20–30 years, although many do not live that long.[16] The turtles have a higher life expectancy in captivity, where they are protected from many of the natural and man-made hazards encountered in the wild. The Bronx Zoo's on-display population contains several individuals 35 years old or more, the oldest known bog turtles.[46] The Zoo's population of bog turtles has successfully sustained itself for more than 35 years.[46] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this passage reads smoother now. Thank you for your comment.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • "smallest North American turtle" and "One of the smallest turtles in the world" - these phrases could be combined, as they're basically cover the same ground.
  • "north and south between Vermont and Georgia, and east and west between Vermont and Ohio" - use of "north and south" and "east and west" here read awkwardly, perhaps rephrase to "from Vermont southward to Georgia, and westward to Ohio"?
  • "and feeds mainly during the day" - this is basically covered by the reference to "diurnal" in the previous sentence, maybe replace with what it eats specifically?
  • the intro could use a sentence or two of description, as it's meant to summarize the article.
  • "first discovered and scientifically identified" -- suggest leaving out "discovered", since that implies that it's never been seen by anyone before, which I find unlikely.
Also, it still says "discovered" in the intro. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would move that phrase to later in the intro, as generally you want the first sentence in an article to define what it is, e.g. "The bog turtle is a..." --

Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the bog turtle was initially named Clemmys muhlenbergii" -- by who?
Looking up the original name and author (Schoepf) in Google Books or something similar should give more reliable sources if you're unsure. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried this in several locations and turned up nothing. However, the webpage is a .org and it perfectly answers any taxonomic concerns. I don't know how to cite it however because there is no apparent author or...anything really. It would also address the concern directly below this one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a book that mentions it (near the bottom of the page). Note that Schoepff's original name was Testudo muhlenbergii, not Clemmys muhlenbergii. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be New Jersey State Museum. -- Yzx (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, bog turtles and wood turtles were found to be closely related, but neither species were directly related to spotted turtles. In 2001, both were moved to the new genus Glyptemys" -- did these come from two separate studies? If so, when did the first occur?

* "due to an alteration of the blotches on its head" -- "alteration of the blotches" = "different blotches"?

"because of a variation in the blotches on its head" -- this is not grammatically correct; do you mean that this variant's color blotches are different from regular bog turtles, or that it's more variable than regular bog turtles. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Any information on how the blotches were different? -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this species hybridizes with Clemmys guttata." -- why use the scientific name here when the common name is used earlier?
  • "often found on the edge of or bordered by woods" -- what's the difference between "on the edge of" and "bordered by"?
  • "causing oxygen depletion" -- consider clarifying what is causing the oxygen depletion; surely it's not just being wet.
  • "common habitat size" -- do you mean territory? Home range?
  • "live their by" -> "live there by"
  • "Successions that are caused by humans have engendered the eradication of bog turtles from areas where they would normally survive." -- A bit confusing; do you mean human-caused acceleration of succession reduce the time that the habitat is suitable for turtles, or that successional stages resulting from human activity are unsuitable for turtles in some other way?
  • ("Gap" here refers to an area that lacks bog turtle colonies) -- this clarification doesn't seem necessary.
Well, I still don't think it's necessary, but if you keep it you should move the parenthetical definition next to the word it's defining, rather than put it as a separate sentence within parentheses afterward. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider adding time ranges to the geological epochs to better contextualize for the reader
For example, the Blancan stage was 4.75 to 1.81 million years ago. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just putting down "Pleistocene" would be meaningless to a general reader. Also putting how long ago it was would be more useful. -- Yzx (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can also add a time range to Rancholabrean. Also, you should use the time range for Blancan, not Pleistocene, since that's more precise. As for formatting, just make sure you're consistent across the usages. -- Yzx (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But wait, the Blancan period is from 4,750,000 to 1,808,000 years BP and the Pleistocene is from 2.588 million to 12 000 years BP, isn't the Pleistocene more precise? Also, Rancholabrean years have been added.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've looked more carefully. Blancan should not be put in a parentheses behind Pleistocene, as that implies that the Blancan stage is a subset of the Pleistocene epoch when that's not the case. You should pick one or the other and give the range for it. -- Yzx (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Receding glaciers lead" -- "lead" -> "led"
  • don't need to put general behavior under a separate subheading.
  • is it considered both "threatened" and "endangered" in those four states?
It still has the same issue: you give a list of states where it's "threatened", and a subset of those states where it's "endangered". Does that mean that in New Jersey, for example, it's listed twice as "threatened", and as "endangered"? -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still don't really understand. What is "similarity of appearance" and does that affect the designation of "threatened"? Is it similar to another endangered turtle and thus also protected just in case? -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't apologize, your concern is legitimate. I have clarified it a bit more with information offset in parenthesis. Also, some of this is explained in the "Northern and southern ranges" sub-section.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • also, the second list of four states should be alphabetical like the first.
  • "Bog turtles often fall prey to a variety of birds and mammals including skunks, foxes, dogs, and raccoons" -- if these are natural predators they shouldn't be in a section about conservation threats.
The problem is that you're merging together two fundamentally different topics: natural predators are an issue of ecology, and human-caused threats are an issue of conservation. Most professional sources would not do this. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you recommend forming a new section called "Biological threats," (or something like that) putting all the natural threats in that section, and leaving the current "Conservation" section?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's only one sentence it would be best to merge it into another section; "Habitat", behind the list of plants it's found with, would work (though it'd be a bit odd), or you could rename "Diet" to something like "Interspecific interactions" and put it there. -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took some work, but these two sections ("Threats" and "Conservation") have been completely changed. I renamed the first "Natural threats," which, naturally, deals with the things found in nature that are a threat to the bog turtle. The "Conservation" section deals exclusively with human effects on the bog turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion of non-native species should be under conservation, as it's a result of human activity. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destruction its habitat" -- missing "of"
  • "its slowness in adapting to change" -- this sentence seems odd; if evolutionary change is meant then this is the case for the vast majority of species.
  • What was meant here was its inability to adapt to a changing habitat (i.e. clearing of land, destructive construction of buildings etc.)
"slowness" implies that it is evolving, just not quick enough, in response to human-caused habitat alterations. The source does not support this. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, would you mind pointing out where it says this. So much has been moved around I can't quite find it anymore (I need to find it to see what it's resource says). Thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think it got removed at some point. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in general:

  • the prose quality can be improved, particularly in missing commas as in this sentence: "The bog turtle prefers calcareous wetlands (areas that contain lime) including meadows, bogs, marshes, and spring seeps that have not only wet areas but dry regions as well".
  • also, in the arrangement of phrases within a sentence, such as here: "The female digs a cavity and lays her eggs in grass tussock or on sphagnum moss, in dryer, sunny areas of a bog." This would read better if it were "The female digs a cavity in the dryer, sunny areas of a bog, and lays her eggs in a grass tussock or on sphagnum moss."
  • finally, sentence organization in some sections can be improved. For example, the first paragraph under Movement starts out talking about migratory movement, then daily movement, then migratory movement, then daily movement, then migratory movement again. Another example is the third paragraph under Threats, which sandwiches talking about obstructions to movement in between sentences about habitat degradation.

That's all for now. -- Yzx (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: why is Reproduction behind Threats and Conservation? Usually in field guides and such human interactions and conservation go last. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Threats" should moved down, since "Conservation" follows immediately from it. -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some more notes:

  • Maybe put alternate common names in quotes (or nothing at all) rather than italics, as that's generally reserved for scientific names.
  • Is the "base color" the color of the shell and legs/tail, just the shell, or just the legs/tail?
  • "the bog turtle has no coloration on the upper shell" -- it looks like it does, since it's not white.
  • "is positioned inside the under shell" -- since you introduced the term "plastron" earlier you should use it consistently.
  • "spring seeps that have both wet and dry regions" -- should there be a comma after "spring seeps"?
  • "home range is relatively the same for" -- I think "generally similar" or "approximately similar" would be a better choice of words here.
  • "trees and shrubs such as willows, red maples, and alders" -- since your examples are trees, this would read better if "trees" and "shrubs" were reversed.
  • "have initiated the elimination of bog turtles from areas" -- this is a very convoluted way of saying "have begin to eliminate"
  • "In both communities" -- You should stick to saying population here and later, since "community" in biology has a different meaning than the way you're using it here.
  • Similarly, be consistent in using the word "population": there are different ways you can use it, but for instance, if you're defining the northern and southern groups as "populations", then you should not also say "populations often consist of fewer than 20 individuals".
Some more cases where "population" seems to refer to something other than the northern and southern populations:
  • "the populations often consist of fewer than 20 individuals"
  • The instances of "population" under Movement, where you seem to be talking about interchange between adjacent groups within either the northern or the southern population. You can get around this by referring to them as "subpopulations".
  • "an area known to support a small bog turtle population"
"farmland near County Route 565 in Sussex County, New Jersey, an area known to support a small bog turtle population" -- there's still this one, as I assume you're talking about a colony in New Jersey, within the northern population. -- Yzx (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the fact about colonies consisting of <50 individuals to the first time the word "colonies" appears.
  • "making it difficult to estimate its numbers" -- this is redundant with the previous sentence.
  • Do males and females maintain separate home ranges, or do they overlap?
  • How do the figures for the majority trip distance (68 ft) relate to the figures for average daily movement (6.9/3.1 ft)? Are majority trip distances calculated over multiple days?
  • We have two facts, one that says "Males move an average of 2.1 meters (6.9 ft) per day and females an average of 1.1 meters (3.6 ft)," and another that says "The vast majority of bog turtle movements are less than 21 meters (69 ft)."--These two things seem, at least to me, to make sense together. The second reinforces that relatively long-distant trips are rarer than shorter ones. Thus a turtle may travel 15 meters in one day, but a more average number would be about 1 or 2 meters. Is this what you meant?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on what "endangered" and "threatened" mean should go right after the list of states where those apply.
  • "numbers of the bog turtles' natural predators." -- the source mentions both natural and non-native predators.

-- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only minor issues remain, so I'm changing above to Support. Good job! -- Yzx (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYMFan69, this is the third time I have asked that you please read the WP:FAC instructions and stop adding templates to the FAC. Please don't alter reviewer comments, and Done templates cause a problem in FAC archives. Please remove the templates, and indicate below the reviewer comments what has been done, with your sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry, I hadn't realized this was a problem. Thank you for telling me.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Stunk photo is difficult to make out. At first I thought it was some sort of bird. Consider using the standard Skunk photo (File:Striped Skunk.jpg) instead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much clearer. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for User:Yzx's sixth concern, would this be a reliable source to help answer his question? http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/gmuhlenbergii/taxonomic%20history.htm
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'one of the smallest turtles in the world', this wording in the lead does not appear to be supported/referenced in the text. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — I have made a few edits rather than list all my nit-picks here. I hope the nominator does not object and all the changes are negotiable :) My support is conditional on fixing the "citation required" tag and answering the two remaining in-line questions. Recent edits (not necessarily mine) have improved the article and the prose is now professional and engaging. I enjoyed learning about this delightful little turtle. My congratulations to the team of editors involved. Graham Colm (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest simply deleting it along with the in-line comment and the reference. The latter is given in full a few lines later it seems so nothing will be lost. Bye the way, once a reference is "named" there is no need to write it in full again. You just put <ref name=example/>, but don't forget the all important forward slash. Graham Colm (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, sorry, I lost track. Which one?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section <!-- This opening has, I think, always been troublesome--> <!--The bog turtle moves for various reasons including to feed, mate, and protect itself from predators.<ref name="Lovich92">{{Cite journal | last = Lovich | first = J. E. | last2 = Herman | first2 = D. W. | last3 = Fahey | first3 = K. M. | title = Seasonal activity and movements of bog turtles (''Clemmys muhlenbergii'') in North Carolina | journal = Copeia | volume = 1992 | issue = 4 | pages = 1107–1111 | year = 1992 | jstor = 1446649 }}</ref> -->. Graham Colm (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it has all been taken out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grammer haz been alwayz my wurst subjekt (thanks for fixing that, it was rather embarrassing).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • scientifically identified in — perhaps scientifically described from a Pennsylvania specimen
  • Changed to: "The first specimen was scientifically identified in Pennsylvania [...]"

:*Why have you departed from normal biology article practice, even for US species, of having international units first and local units in parentheses? Not consistent with painted turtle spotted turtle wood turtle either

  • I'm the one who advised to do it this way... sorry if it was incorrect. It made sense to me that if the distribution was US only, the leading units should be the US ones. Do you know if there's a MOS guideline about this, or other examples (of FAs)? Sasata (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mos says In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always; for example, natural units are often used in relativistic and quantum physics, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1. This article sticks out like a sore thumb, inconsistent with even closely related biology articles. How is it helpful? This is a global encyclopaedia, and outside NAm most people would expect, and be more familiar with, international units especially in a science article. Giving a regional units priority in a science article seems strange, especially as contrary to what many Americans think, most English speakers are not Americans Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't link US states
  • United States federal Endangered Species Act. — federal is redundant
  • The bog turtle was first identified in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania — described again I think would be better unless you are sure that non-scientists eg the aboriginal population did not know this creature
  • In 1801, the bog turtle was initially named Clemmys muhlenbergii, or Muhlenberg's tortoise, in honor of Gotthilf Muhlenberg Who named it? Also in honor of its discoverer would be less repetitious.
  • bog turtles and wood turtles were found to be closely related — How and by whom?
  • The bog turtle's closest relative is the wood turtle already been stated earlier
  • .43 to 3.29 acres (0.17 to 1.33 ha) for males and .16 to 3.11 acres — contra MoS, you need leading zeroes.
  • Holman — who he? No link or indication of whether he/she is an American scientist or British librarian
  • I did some general research and dug up some backround information: "The late J. Alan Holman, a paleontologist and herpetologist [...]" is now in the section. Does this need to be sourced?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images — I've removed the article name from the captions, per MoS, but you could say whether they are adults
  • This area in specific — is this English?
  • a fighting match — a fight
  • the bog turtle has a maximum life span of 20–30 years, although many do not live that long. — Average?
  • Fine, you had life span and lifespan in the same sentence, I've made them both the single word, but change them both to the two-word form if you prefer, just needs to be consistent. Note that you have a frmatting problem with the ref for this, ref 37, which is coming up as a cite error in the references section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reed plants — Phragmites if that's what's meant, or just reeds
Thanks for your comments. All taxonomy issues will be solved once the google book mentioned in an earlier discussion on this page gets correctly cited.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Very nice improvement on this article! I'm glad to see these class projects continue. I only have a few comments:
Withdrawn: Due to uncivil comments and personal attacks made outside of this FAC by one of the editors involved, I am withdrawing from this review. My apologies to the nominator. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The bog turtle lives out its life almost exclusively in the wetland where it hatched. In its natural environment, the bog turtle has a maximum lifespan of 50 years, [37] although an average lifespan is 20-30 years.[15] The turtles tend to live longer in captivity where they are protected from many of the natural and man-made hazards they would encounter in the wild. The Bronx Zoo houses several turtles 35 years old or more, the oldest known bog turtles.[38]" How can we know that they tend to live longer in captivity if in the wild they could potentially life 50 years, and the oldest in captivity are around 35 years of age? I know what you mean—I work with exotic wildlife. The statements are not very clear. Also, I looked at the source for the first statement (ref #37), and it says "perhaps 50 years or longer", which is different than saying a "maximum lifespan of 50 years." Please clarify and correct these sentences.
  • From what I've always gathered, if a paragraph only cites a single source, then you only need one citation at the end of the paragraph, not several throughout. Maybe another reviewer can comment on this before you go deleting redundant citations.
  • I removed about ten more, I am unsure of what I should touch, because some are different page numbers.
  • It seems like there are some errors in the citation handling. I just looked at the second paragraph under "Evolutionary history" and noticed that the ref named "RosenbaumP1" includes multiple citations: {{Harvnb|Rosenbaum|2007|p=331}} and {{Harvnb|Rosenbaum|2007|p=337}} Each named ref needs to be unique, including page numbers. This needs to be fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the citations in this section have been removed save the last one (becuase they were all from the same source), which reads <name="RosenbaumP1">{{Harvnb|Rosenbaum|2007|p=331}}</ref>.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations look better, although now there is only one lingering problem: The last sentence in the first paragraph of "Natural threats" is unreferenced. Fix that, and my issues with citations will be resolved. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several articles about this species do not appear to be referenced and may provide additional details:
  • Yes, some primary sources go a bit overboard on technical detail. However, it's worth reading the abstract, discussion, and conclusion for more mundane, yet useful, information. This article is talking about learning population structure. Even just a brief sentence about it would be useful. However, if you haven't see the whole article, it might be worth a look before you try using it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it sounds like the article discusses detecting small, viable populations—something that would be beneficial to the article. See my comment under the next article if you need help accessing the full article. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you need help accessing a journal article so that you can read more than just the abstract, just make a request. Ucucha and Sasata help me with this all the time. We would rather be certain that the article is as comprehensive as possible than let it slide by because the nominator "thinks" the information is covered. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have some information in the article (under the "Evolutionary History" section) that is very similar to the info in this last article (from what I can gather from the 'abstract' at least).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the article looks very nice. Keep up the good work! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by mav
    • "1700s" is ambiguous since it can either mean the 18th century or the first decade of that century.
    • "The first specimen was scientifically identified in Pennsylvania in the 1700s and is the smallest North American turtle, measuring about 10 centimeters (4 in) long when fully grown." Long sentence. I suggest breaking out the size-related phrases into their own sentence.
    • Lot's of paragraphs start with "The bog turtle." I suggest trying to, where it can be done naturally, mix things up a bit. This is especially distracting when several paragraphs in a row start the same.
Thanks a lot for your comments and support!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't find anything negative to say here. It could maybe (emphasise "maybe") do with clarification on whether the conservation effort involves planting new colonies in sites identified as suitable or just improving the existing sites, which is the only thing that isn't clear to me. Plus, the map of distribution seems to have them on the western end of Long Island—is that correct? (It may be—it just seems odd to me that, if they live on the island, they'd be in the distinctly turtle-unfriendly Brooklyn but not in the less populated areas.) – iridescent 10:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a while ago, I sent the map makers the following links, asking them to create the map:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7164.html
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/TechnicalLeaflets/bog_turtle_Oct%2023.pdf
  • Note to closer: My support here is explicitly on style grounds, and I know nothing about the accuracy of the article and am not in a position to judge; if Ucucha's concerns below aren't addressed then the support is retracted, as I trust his judgement regarding reliability of sources on biology topics. – iridescent 13:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contradiction
    • The lead says:
      • However, the young tend to grow rapidly and reach sexual maturity within 6 or 7 years
    • The text says:
      • Bog turtles reach sexual maturity between 4 and 10 years of age (both sexes).[13]
    • And the cited source does not say that's when they "reach" sexual maturity.
  • This has been changed so that it reads: "Bog turtles are sexually mature when they reach between 4 and 10 years of age (both sexes).[13]" That appears to be what the source is driving at.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose:
    • The study of bog turtles in the wild is a significant conservation strategy.
  • A study is a strategy? I don't know what that sentence is trying to say.
    • They were interested in educating others about the bog turtle and in increasing its population, and they released many healthy bog turtles over the course of many years.[3] Several organizations, such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, have been permitted to captively breed bog turtles.[46]
  • Many, many, captively breed ?
    • Captive breeding is another method of stabilizing the bog turtle.
  • Stabiling the "turtle"? Should that be the turtle populations?

These are samples from only one section; please review prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  • I've fixed the discrepancy you pointed out in the age ranges quoted.
  • The source explicitly says "Age at sexual or reproductive maturity ... 4 to 10 years. It's in a box to the right of the text though, so maybe you were looking only at what the text says, which is "Growth rates can be rapid in the first few years but taper off as the turtle nears maturity, at an age of four to ten years"?
    • I did see that, but read it as their age *at* (of) sexual reproduction, not the age at which they *reach* sexual maturity. I would think a six-year span of *reaching* sexual maturity is unusual-- can a turtle person clarify? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support; my very long list of issues has been addressed, and I think the article has been improved with a lot of interesting information. Ucucha 15:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose for now, pending resolution of issues listed below. Ucucha 15:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (and others listed on the article talk page Ucucha 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)) (Moved resolved comments to talk Ucucha 20:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Any information on why it was moved to Emys, Clemmys, etcetera?
Thanks so much, they have been added, however I am unsure if the formatting is completely correct.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Home-range sizes in Maryland vary from 0.0030 hectares (0.0074 acres) to 3.1 hectares (7.7 acres) with considerable amounts of variation between sites and years."—any information on what kinds of habitats have larger home ranges?
  • Any information on internal parasites (flukes, tapeworms, nematodes, etc.)?
  • "often fall prey to mammals and birds"—such as? (perhaps the sources don't say this)
  • Which snakes, foxes, and skunks prey on it? There are several snakes in its range, but only one skunk and fox; why not name the species? (Two skunks actually, I now see—Spilogale putorius occurs further east than I thought.)

Ucucha 13:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes the Turtle Conservation Project and Environmental Defense reliable sources?
  • Currently 12 and 30, but that may have changed again by the time you read this. Just search for "Turtle Conservation" on the page and you'll certainly find them. Ucucha 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FA criteria require high-quality reliable sources; I don't think newspapers like the Tortuga Gazette and the Intelligencer Journal are high-quality reliable sources for a biological article.

Ucucha 14:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref. 1 and 15 are both newspapers. Under certain circumstances they are reliable; however, a biology article - not so much. I suspect this information can be easily linked to a more authoritative source. I'm personally not a big fan of the Animal Diversity Web site either (ref 16). The referencing of an encylopedia with another encylopedia is not appropriate. This too, should be a quick fix. Good thing there are three of you assigned to this article?! --JimmyButler (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - with bias: (Nominator is my student). I do not doubt Ucucha expertise and have read the primary source to which is the basis for his concerns over "omitted information". The discrepancy in our perspectives however are more philosophical, regarding what an encyclopedia is and is not. A general reference for even an advanced reader would not include most of the primary research proposed for inclusion here. The reference from which the concerns are generated serves as a guide for other experts, which in some cases is intended to encourage additional research for verification; it is not for those seeking a general understanding of this turtle. It is not advisable to emulate its contents in this article, to do so would result in transforming a clear, concise and enjoyable article to a bloated summation geared to experts only. My advice to NYMFan69-86 is to look at each suggestion carefully and discern whether it is essential for a general understanding or more suitable to those in field. Addressing every minutia on any subject is not the basis of FA status; in fact inclusion of excessive detail could as easily be problematic to reaching that goal. A list of omitted information can be performed on any article; ultimately the true skill is to summarize essential and relevant content. Best of luck ascertaining what defines "overkill" --JimmyButler (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, Ernstand & Lovich (2009) is a high-quality secondary source, and I agree that many (not all) of the omissions that Ucucha has listed on the talk page should be included in this article. Things like egg size, clutch size, details about behaviour, parasites, etc. are important aspects of the turtle's biology, and if the information is out there (conveniently summarized for us in the recent secondary source), then the Wikipedia article can't really claim to be "comprehensive" and "well-researched" without mentioning these aspects. That being said, this article is coming along nicely, and the extraordinary level of editor involvement in this FAC will mean that the final product will indeed be an example of our "very best work". Sasata (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sasata, I think we agree. My apologies for the mis-use of "primary", when describing the source; I was referring to "main" not intended to imply that it was "original research". A poor choice of terms on my part. I suspect that the text in question albeit a secondary source does little to summarize the primary research on which it was based - it simply restates it. For example a detailed listing of gut analysis from a randomly selected group of turtles specific to a certain location is absurd. They consume primarily insects supplememted with berries, but to suggest that in New Jersey, in August a turtle's gut analysis showed an elevated level of June Bugs - seriously.NYMFan69-86 may require some guidance as to what truly reflects a difficiency in content and what was merely listed because it was in one and not the other. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for my ignorance about some of the comments you are referring to, since I don't have time at the moment to review them. However, sometimes one needs to see the forest for the trees. The information Sasata mentioned should definitely be included, especially if covered in a secondary source. But if Ucucha or I point out a heavily detailed primary source, please browse over the article and look for the highlights. I've had to do that many times with the lemur articles both Ucucha and Sasata have reviewed. Sometimes a complex research articles can be covered in a single sentence. For example, "Studies in X, which also look at Y have shown Z about this species." We don't need to know the full details, especially since we have the citation. But it does tell the reader that studies concerning this topic have been done and that more information is available. To give a more specific example, in one of the sources I listed above, I believe it talked about capture methods to determine population structure. This could yield a very informative sentence when talking about conservation and studies pertaining to conservation efforts. I hope this helps. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by support - impressive article. Just one minor quibble:
  • That would be good for me, NYM. Congrats on authoring an excellent and informative article! Thanks for the explanation, Iri, although I will admit that I did not try to see what it looks like. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) diff.[reply]

Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season

edit
Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this season, Keith Miller gained attention for a series of hard-hitting innings for Victoria, and he was also one the leading batsmen and bowlers in the Tests. It has been copyedited by Ling.Nut and Brianboulton is kindly doing another pass. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All images are fine. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I don't feel that the opening sentence introduces the article very well. If the reader did not know who Miller is, they would want a brief description. Even if it's only a few words.

  • "On his Ashes debut in the First Test in Brisbane, Miller scored 79 in his only innings before taking match bowling figures of 9 wickets for 77 runs (9/77) in an overwhelming Australian victory at the Gabba ground." Very snakey sentence that needs breaking down. "Gabba ground" sounds horrible but I guess there's no other way, unless you use Brisbane Cricket Ground. What was the ground commonly known as then?

Hope to be able to have a look at this article when I have the time. Aaroncrick TALK 11:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Early Season: I feel this starts a little abruptly without any context. While I realise the article is about one season, could a short paragraph sum up his career to that point? For example, a summary of the previous season(s).
  • Related to this, the media obviously took an interest in him. What were media and public expectations of him at this stage of his career? Was he a superstar yet with high expectations?
  • Excellent summary of his season up until the Tests.

More to follow in the next few days. Seems a very good article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Early Season: At the end of the second paragraph, the footnotes are not in numerical order (4), (5), (3).
  • Could you explain what an Australian XI is? For the non-cricketer, it may not be clear what kind of a team this was - i.e. not the full Test side.
  • Is there any information about how Miller did bowling against Bradman?
No. He bowled 11 overs, and some were against the opener and a later guy 60 runs after Bradman was out. I guess nothing much happended YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Take first innings points..." Could be explained for non-cricketer.
  • First Test: "the biggest hit at the ground at the time": Is it "at" the ground or "on" the ground.
  • "Miller cut down the English top-order ... third wicket in as many balls." This sounds laboured. Not sure about "cut down" but it's ok. The next sentence ("Miller had removed...") runs away a bit in a list of who got out. Also not clear in the second sentence who got out first, Ikin or Compton, as it mentions Ikin first then goes back. Maybe something like "Miller removed Edrich, Washbrook, Compton and Jack Ikin on the fourth morning to leave England on 5/56. Compton and Ikin were out to consecutive balls but Norman Yardley prevented Miller from taking a third wicket in as many balls to take a hat-trick."
  • "The pitch, still rain-affected, saw England reduced to defeat by an innings" Reduced seems to be the wrong word. Why not just "defeated by an innings."

More later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the rest YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second Test: "In the hosts' reply, Miller contributed 40 with seven fours in a 63-run stand with Barnes as Australia reached 4/159,[36][37][38] before Bradman—who had dropped himself down the order—and Barnes both scored 234 and put together a world record fifth-wicket partnership of 405 to propel Australia to 8/659 declared." Long run-on sentence, probably needs splitting.
  • "After starting the over one three..." Presumably this should be "on three"? Maybe better to say "with his score on three" as it may get confusing with all the numbers in this sentence and the next.
  • "He then lifted the sixth ball over square leg, was dropped by the bowler on the seventh ball and then drove the last ball into the crowd at long on." Too many thens?
  • Third Test: "and he put on an average performance in a drawn match." What do you mean by "average"? Seems a little woolly. Maybe "unremarkable" or "quiet" would be better. And do you put on a performance in a cricket match? Possibly better to say "produced" than "put on".
  • "He scored 33 before being caught behind by Godfrey Evans from the bowling of Wright as Australia stumbled and lost three wickets in four runs to be 6/192, before recovering to reach 365 in the first innings." Another run-on sentence.
  • Does "Miller also ran out Compton, but England held on for a draw with three wickets intact" really need five refs?
  • Link "opening" and "follow on"? And the phrase about light workload is repeated from earlier. It stands out a bit to me.
  • "Miller made another famed innings in the return Sheffield Shield match". Famed does not work. Famous? (Poor Toshack really suffered in that season!)
  • Can a contract be "recanted"?
  • The manager of North Sydney? I know it's linked, but unless I've missed something, it is not explained here what North Sydney is, and the sentence would make more sense if it was mentioned briefly. How did Rawtenstall react to this?
They didn't know. I specified private. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth Test: How do we know Miller's state of mind? No ref except Statsguru.
  • Ref for extreme heat? Or am I just being really pedantic?
these two, I moved the book ref up from the end and reiterated YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Open up": jargon? Also, "tail fell apart"?
  • Fifth Test: Should it be "each" innings, rather than "either"?
  • "Wearing wicket" may be tricky for non-cricketers.
  • Playing role: I'm not sure how all of this relates to Miller. I understand that you are setting up the context for Miller's role, but it seems that the only directly relevant part is about where he batted and how much he bowled. The rest seems to be more about other players and not about Miller.
Let me ponder YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it seem more relevant by rearranging it so it's relevance is more obvious. Bradman wanted the most "complete" attack he could get, so he packed the team with every type of spinner, meaning that he could only have 2 pacemen, which meant that Miller had to bowl a lot. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)

Rest of the article is good and very detailed. Excellent background and explanation of Miller's view of cricket compared to Bradman. Descriptions of the innings very good too. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Cleaned up a few things in this article, but found this sentence from Fourth Test that I'm unsure about: "Miller was not required to bat after Australia were set 314 runs to win in 195 runs". I think the second one is supposed to be "minutes", but I figured I'd leave this to those knowledgeable about cricket. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yet another strong cricket article, to the level that I've come to expect at this point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided the following two issues are fixed. What I know of cricket I've gleaned from your articles, and although I didn't follow all of the play-by-play, I think it's written at the lowest level it could possibly be, and I just need to read the judiciously linked articles to figure out what it means. Even with that handicap, I got a good idea of Miller's role in the season and what his strengths and weaknesses were, so I think the article did a good job. My two nitpicks:
  • Is this a misspelling or a word I don't know - prcontract?
  • The body of the article should wikilink or otherwise explain Rawtenstall? I know it is in the lead, but lots of people don't read the lead first.

Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources

**Is the title of Whitington's book "Keith Miller: the golden nugget" (as given), or should it be "the Golden Nugget"?

    • Is the publisher of this book worth a redlink?

Otherwise sources look okay. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piped link to parent company. Yes it was lower case. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [60].

Terry Fox

edit
Nominator(s): Resolute 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked to see if an article for the Terry Fox Award had been created yet during the Olympics, I came across Fox's main article and found it quite lacking. Given his status as one of Canada's most famous heros, and with the 30th anniversary of his Marathon this year and the 30th annual Terry Fox Run coming up in September, I felt it important to bring the article to the highest standard possible. Between Nikkimaria's amazing GA assessment and the spontaneous copyediting from a couple other users, I believe this article is ready to face the scrutiny of the FAC process. Regards, Resolute 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Can we get an WP:OTRS on File:TerryFoxToronto19800712.JPG, but looking good otherwise! Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I value WP:AGF myself, but I can certainly ask Canada Jack to do this. Resolute 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And he has done so. Resolute 03:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have this important article (for Canadians especially perhaps!) on my watchlist and have been delighted to see how much it has been improved in the last few months. Congratulations on all your work, Resolute. I have a few comments and suggestions.
  • Lead: second paragraph. The word "leg" is repeated many times. Is "after losing his leg" really necessary?
  • Lead: third paragraph. "...he attempted to run across" sounds weak; maybe "developed a plan" or something similar. Is it worth specifying the length of a "full Marathon" in the text?
  • Early life and cancer . What did his mother do as a job? Worth specifying I think. It seems like the Fox's competitive streak should go after info about the sports he played rather than before. Many paragraphs start with "He/he". Consider replacing with "Fox". Do we know why the coach suggested cross country running? Inquiring minds want to know. What does "last player on the team" mean? I presume he played with his team "for the national championship". It sounds a bit odd currently.
  • Marathon of Hope- was it just the participants who cheered at the end of his first marathon?; the "respectively" quote about how he solicited the various corporations doesn't make sense. Probably the original had a list of companies? Consider rewording and getting rid of the quote.
  • Trek across Canada: "where he was heralded in Nathan Phillips Square". There is something odd about this sentence; "The physical demands of running a marathon" would benefit from some reorganization to put the "problems" and his refusals of help etc together.
  • Terry Fox Run. "offered Fox and his companions free accommodation at his hotels where he could". What does this mean? Were there places he couldn't? Or just that he didn't have hotels in the right place for Fox?
  • Honours. Was he named Newsmaker of the year twice in 1981?
  • Prose generally: there are very short sentences that could probably bear combining, and some grammatical issues (e.g. use of "while"). I will have a go at this myself rather than detailing here.
  • References. Sources look good, but there are some inconsistencies in the citation formats used for newspapers (and perhaps others too). Is it because you've used web citation formats for some of the newspapers? There are some typos too. St Petersburg is spelt wrong in one place for one thing.
All of the preceding should be fairly straightforward to work on, I would think and hope. What may take more time is that I think this article is missing a more scholarly discussion of his status as a "hero" and as a "disabled hero". For example, why did Fox strike the chord he did, despite his flaws? The facts of his life and run and the practical legacy are all here, but to be truly comprehensive it needs to cover these more esoteric aspects too. This book [61] provides a start, and so might [62][63][64]. Perhaps the bios have some discussion on this too?
I realize this is probably a bit frustrating. Sorry. However, I am committed to helping out here, since I too would love to see this article up to snuff for the 30th anniversary run in September. I have access to Factiva and Lexis-Nexis and will do some searches to see if there are any articles that can help. I had been meaning to work on the article already, and will certainly prioritize this since it is at FAC. Unfortunately I am currently on vacation, so access to physical libraries won't be possible till I get home. --Slp1 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not frustrating at all. This is an interesting thought, and something certainly worth addressing. I'll investigate the availability of the books you are suggesting. Resolute 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments should all be addressed, and thanks for some of the prose corrections if you get the chance. I've been over the text so often it's hard to see some of the issues anymore. Programing Reality is a book I can get from the Calgary Central Library on the weekend. Images that Injure does not seem to be available from the library system, so I'll be restricted to what's in the google books link. Resolute 00:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you feel that way! Here's some more references that will help give more comprehensive coverage to the topic. [65][66][67]. I've also done a journal search and if you send me an email, I will forward the articles I found.--Slp1 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additions made per several of the sources you've provided. Thanks! Resolute 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen, thanks. Offline I have been looking through the sources and working on some further changes/additions, but it isn't quite ready yet (and I have to do my taxes too). I'll try to do it soon, but in the meantime, let's hope that others comment.--Slp1 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done my best or worst, depending on which way you look at it. I've added more details from the more scholarly perspective and also some of the darker aspects of the Marathon which I think are important for balance. There may be more that could/should be included, but I don't have access to the bios so don't really know. My final issue is with the Canadian Cancer Society Letter. I think it is very long to quote in its entirety in the middle of the article and not terribly encyclopedic in form. What would you think of replacing it with a short summary of the text, and putting a shortened version of the original letter in a quote box on the side? --Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was contemplating that as well. I'll give it a go tomorrow. Resolute 03:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Resolute 00:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support--Slp1 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I was just about ready to throw out a Support prose for this article, since I think it's very good and I enjoyed reading it. But I decided to look at the link checker first, and it showed that reference 12 (from The Sports Network) was a problematic redirect; a manual check revealed that it was dead, at least for me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like TSN removed that story within the last couple weeks. I've replaced it with a live reference. Resolute 22:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [68].

The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan

edit
Nominator(s): Moisejp, Mick gold and I.M.S. 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced and otherwise meets the FA criteria. It was recently promoted to GA and the reviewer said that he or she believes it is a good candidate for FA. Moisejp (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add myself and I.M.S. as co-nominators. This nomination arose from work done by WP:DYLAN collaboration team. Mick gold (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone seems to have revamped their website very recently and the Greatest 500 Albums list appears to have disappeared from their archives (temporarily?). OK, I will try to find another source for the information or remove it. Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check the Wayback Machine. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stonemason89. It seems Rolling Stone is blocking access to it's archives on the Wayback Machine by robots.txt. Oh well, back to plan B above. Moisejp (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The dead link has been removed and replaced with other sources. Moisejp (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.jpg no valid FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Template:Album cover fur as a fair use rationale. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Sfan00 IMG. Moisejp (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I have added myself and I.M.S. as co-nominators above. Mick gold (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding yourself and I.M.S. as co-nominators, Mick gold. My apologies for neglecting to do that. Moisejp (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Proofread done: made a couple of minor edits. Rest looks good.
    • Section Political & Personal Background - 2nd paragraph - "fraught relationship". Definition of fraught gives "distressing". Does that refer merely to their separation or were their other factors? If it's only distance perhaps another word could be used. If it refers to something more, then perhaps it could be described briefly what the problem(s) was/were.
    • Section, Song Girl From The North Country: "pining for as he finished the song in Italy". That makes it sound like he was pining for her as he finished the song in Italy. But I thought it was her that was in Italy. Can you reword to make it clear?
    • Other than that, a good article. I have no interest in Dylan. Indeed sometimes hate him (he is, after all, a copyright supporting behemoth that threatens us all. And, to think, he stole songs from history. The cheek!). However, I kind of wish I had the album to listen to. So it piqued my interest as a good article should. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
bodnotbod - thanks for comments.
  • Dylan relationship with Rotolo was fraught. All the biographies comment on this. Her decision to go to Italy was, in part, an assertion of her independence. (Encouraged by her mother who did not approve of her scruffy boyfriend. Not promising son-in-law material.) On her return, there were tensions, in part provoked by Dylan's roving eye (his relationship with Baez began at the end of Freewheelin'); in part provoked by Rotolo's wish to be more than 'Bob Dylan's chick' as his fame and his power grew. Rotolo writes about this in her autobiography. I've added a sentence describing this tension.
  • I've tried to explain Dylan was in Italy when he wrote GFTNC. "Traveling to England" section explains that from London, Dylan went to Italy - to meet Grossman and Odetta - but also in hope of seeing Rotolo. While in Italy, he wrote the song and played it to Carthy when he returned to London. I thought that section was clear. Mick gold (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the "fraught", you could either add a sentence exploring it a bit, or you could use the [nb:x] style where people can click on it and it leads to a greater explanation. It's like a reference, but instead leads to a footnote instead of a ref. It's a way to add more material without breaking up the flow of the text. People that wonder can find out; people that just want to read on aren't distracted from the subject of the article. I've not done it myself but this appears to be the relevant idea.
  • Re: Italy... OK, looking at it again now, that makes sense. Maybe add in brackets "(she had already made her way back to New York)". I realise it's a repetition from the bit you mention, so y'know... I leave it to you. --bodnotbod (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-reading Rotolo's autobiography reminded me that she describes decision to go to Italy as going along with her mother's plans. (Her mother had conceived the plan in part to get her away from Dylan.) She writes she was very torn about whether to go, but in the end accepted her mother's plans "even though they'd been presented to me as a fait accompli". I've tried to add this sense to article. Mick gold (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it anyway. Thanks for the support! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I probably won't have time to revisit, but here are a few points I think you should consider:

  • Not liking the big Outtakes table bang in the middle of the article. I don't see why you should include that table at all, as there is no need to list out stuff that didn't make the album. At least move it down, along with Track listing, so that it doesn't interrupt the prose.
  • Overlinking: New York City, iconic, music manager.
  • This article is about an American, so use American English.
  • The Chart section is unnecessary here. The two chart position for the album are covered by the prose, and the single didn't chart at all.
  • The first paragraph of Returning to New York is stubby (just one sentence). It is also unreferenced, as is the third para.
  • Adrian Denning and Georgiy Stratosin are not reliable sources. Please remove their reviews. (do you need an infobox for just two reviews?)

On the whole, a very comprehensive article.—indopug (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for points. I've re-written 'Returning to New York' and added references. As for spelling, I'll happily modify to US English if I knew which words to target.
  • I believe Outtakes table contains important information. Since recording of Freewheelin' went on for a year, a large number of outtake songs have been released on various albums over the last 40 years. What do others think of moving this table? Mick gold (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a minute now, so I can't get to most of the points, but I just want to say that I really don't think you have to change it to American English, Mick gold. You're British, you've written most of the prose on this thing, and if you are consistent in using British English throughout, that's perfectly fine. I don't think there's any rule that American subjects have to be written about in American English. But if any reviewers disagree and think it'd be better in American English, then that's fine. I don't have a preference either way, but I'd hate to see you waste your time unnecessarily changing it—you'd have to go through it line by line making sure every single word was U.S. English. Moisejp (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See note above, it took 5 minutes. WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic would support the use of US English in this article. In addition, I support the retention of the Outtakes table, but I think that it is a valid point that it could be down at the bottom, below the track listing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you Jezhotwells. Good idea about using Word. Moisejp (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jezhotwells, that's what I had in mind, I knew there were specific words to target. (I remember when Dylan recorded his first edition of TTRH that would go out on BBC radio, he said: "This evening's edition is coming to you from the British Broadcasting Corporation, so my flavours, my colours, and my humours will have an extra 'u' in them.") Mick gold (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the Outtakes table I have tentatively changed it to a "collapsible collapsed" table which means it is "hidden" until the reader clicks on "Show." That way it doesn't get in the way for people who aren't interested, but people who are can just click on it. Another option would be to make it a "collapsible uncollapsed" table, which means it appears when someone opens the page, but they can click on "Hide" if they don't want to see it. Still other options would be to make it collapsible and move it down at the bottom, as has been suggested, or move it down to the bottom but make it a normal table again, not collapsible. I personally slightly prefer it where it is now (as opposed to at the bottom), because it naturally progresses from the description of the released songs, but what do others think? Moisejp (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good. I would support leaving it where it is. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it looks good, and would support leaving it where it is. Mick gold (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take note of the correct use of p and pp in citations (p is singular, pp for more than one page), and WP:ENDASHes on page ranges. Also ^ iTunes 2005 is an inconsistent citation-- it should specify the title-- there is no item listed as iTunes, since the title is listed first, so it's hard to find the corresponding citations. Collapsible charts do not mirror or print, please don't use them in text, see MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the iTunes ref. Thank you for pointing that out. I think you caught all of the p and pp inconsistencies (I couldn't find any other ones)—thank you for changing those, as well. Moisejp (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia above says collapsible charts are not a good idea in text. Shall we convert chart back to non-collapsible? I would favour leaving chart in present position. Other opinions? Mick gold (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [69].

Battle of Villers-Bocage

edit
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third times a charm eh?

Ok during the final attempt to get the article passed we hit a few hiccups, which have now been surpassed. We also gained access to basically the only book missing to throw in further POV, and additional information. I believe the article now covers every possible angle, sufficiently covers the controversy in detail, and ticks off everything in the FAC list.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I got rid of the one dab link. There are no dead external links. Ucucha 11:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • propably Support good coverage of a relative "little" but controversial battle. Very detailed. Very good maps. Germans point of view is present. Some "negative" comments: Schneiders anti SS-tanker opinion too long, overweight? Value of Strengthsection in the box is a bit suspect. The excessive analysis tries do focus on german tactical failures ( wittmann ) and on british command failures. I see no proper coverage of the british infantry "fleeing" and "hiding" instead of attacking a single tank without infantry support. If the articles goes into such detail that he pick the descisions of a first Lieutenant to pieces than include british infantry too. But its very good article even with some shortcommings. Blablaaa (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont want to get into this argument yet again Blablaa; Schiender is a GERMAN TANKER, SOLDIER, and HISTORIAN; he decided to rip apart Wittmann's actions because they deserve to be after the hyberold that has been described and equally attacked. If you want further detail you need to bring sources to the table; considering i have now exhausted every source i have or know of on the subject and none of them detail anything in support of your opinion - drop it unless you can support. Am extremely disappointed that you have used this to carry on your attacks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm i guess u misunderstand my intention, i gave u a "support". i also questioned the room for schneiders comments. i not questioned that u mentioned him i said that in my opinions hes maybe a bit overweight. I simply give my comments to the FAC. Blablaaa (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I not even expressed my opinion about anything..... Only about the FAC... Schneider is the historian with the most words! far more than any other. His analysis of german side has the most space in your article. Thats all what i said. Relax... Blablaaa (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took my comment back Blablaaa (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. EnigmaMcmcx, I am very disappointed in what I see as a personal attack against another editor. Focus on content and not on other editors. Blablaaa gave you good feedback in regards to undue weight issues concerning Schieder. He focused on this FAC while you focused on him. Please strike your personal attack. Thanks. Caden cool 10:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: It has been a four-five month long argument, am fed up of it. If there was a violation of the WP:Undue weight policy myself or one of the other editors who have been involved in this article would have acted accordingly as we have done in the past (in fact my fellow editors have already acted, months ago, adding added further detail of the praise various sources have gave Wittmann). Considering the role Wittmann plays in the literature surrounding the battle that explains the reason for the detail in the article; the first section soley on Wittmann is split 50-50 on positive and negative aspects while the tactical section devotes just over 50% to the Germans and Wittmann. Granted the latter section comes from mostly one source - an expert opinion - it rounds off the section with positive comentry from his Corps commander.
    The article and tactical section also weigh in on the errors the British made but as, in various "debates" with Blablaaa we cannot go further if there is no source. I would rather get back on reviewing the article than carry on a tried, overdone slinging match that is going no where to be honest.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects balance on Wittmann's actions - there is praise, there are those

  • Support—My concerns have been addressed. I think this is an excellent article that satisfies the FA criteria and deserves to be promoted.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment—It looks good and I am close to support. But first I have a few issues:
    • The image caption in the infobox should explain the relevance of the picture to the subject. Captain Paddy is not mentioned in the article, so his mention here is obscure.
      The Cromwell OP tank mentioned in the article; i have redid the caption.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some minor inconsistency in the placement of the periods at the end of a quote. Some sentences end with [".], others with [."]. This may be switching between British and American practices; it would be good to be consistent.
    • 5th Royal Horse Artillery was mentioned as being in the battle, but their role is somewhat unclear. For example, was their fire part of the called-in British artillery fire in the "Afternoon battle"? Do we know where they were positioned?
      Seems we forgot to add in the abbrevation on first mention - i have added in 5RHA after the first mention in the text. I will look into changing the sentance that deals with the allied fire and smoke screen as 5RHA did this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) We have made a little rewording to clarify their role in the latter part of the battle and i will reconsult the sources to see if i can nail down where abouts they were positioned and then clairfy in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Position established and mentioned in the planning section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice to have a tactical map of the battle in Villers-Bocage, but I understand if none is available.
      As far as i am aware there isnt really one showing the deployment of forces in the town during the fightin, i will double check however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I cant currently find any free images of a tactical overlay of the afternoon battle (since the morning is already covered) we may be able to produce one although that will take some time and organisation.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments RJ!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. There's just the one issue left with the inconsistent double quoting punctuation. Examples:
    • ...to Wittmann's "courage, ... his Panzer crew."
    • ...followed as "remarkable but massively over-written".
    • ...the moment that "marked, ... since D-Day."
    • ...a scene of "burning tanks ... and dead Tommies".
    I have checked the article that deals qith quoation marls, it states that it is common practice in most of the western world to place the period inside the quotation marks so i have done so.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs dude, thanks for the comments and review :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for not seeing this and responding sooner. See WP:LQ; the punctuation should be inside the quotes if part of the quote, and outside if not. The above were all consistent with this; they should really be changed back. Sorry... :) EyeSerenetalk 07:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should i, or one of us, then revert the edit?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They should really be double-checked against the sources. Sentence fragments (their reverse speed was "painfully slow.", "remarkable but massively over-written".) should normally place the punctuation outside the quote; the others will depend on whether it's a complete sentence or a significant part of one being quoted and where that quote uses punctuation. It's really pretty trivial though, so I don't think it's too urgent :) EyeSerenetalk 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article! The spacing of the first two pictures in the "Aftermath" section leave some white spots on my browser. Can this be fixed? Maybe move on to the left MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comemnts and support MisterBee; i have had a quick play around and other than the removal of the images it doesnt look like we can much am afraid.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only joking! Big Support, but better include a disclaimer. I supported this article in its last FAC, and have made some minor edits to it during copyediting in the wake of that. I don't consider myself to be a major contributor to the article though (if that makes any difference to my support). Ranger Steve (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very impressive piece of work, congratulations to the authors involved.
  • Source POV issues handled skillfully: personally, I don't see any undue weight problems.
  • One comment: I trust there were reasons for doing so, but consider being less coy about the name of the British commander(s) in the lead.
  • Excellent use of images.
  • Prose is engaging, quotes and details keep the action (and reader interest) alive.
  • If there is a 'next level' of FAC criteria, I believe this article meets them. Doug (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with two caveats:

  • Please review the image captions for proper punctuation: only full sentences should end with a full stop.
  • I saw so many full stops inside ending quote marks (in all but two cases, one of which originated with me) that I suspect that logical quotation hasn't been employed here. Reading this FAC page, I see that this was raised above. EyeSerene is giving it to you right.

Otherwise, looking great. Nice work! Maralia (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [70].

Funerary art

edit
Nominator(s): Johnbod, Madman2001 and myself. • Ling.Nut 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art, a well-researched article and the product of a true collaboration, brings to the public a survey of the best sources and a representative sampling of the practices of cultures from around the world. For those of you who like your FAC noms to be somehow outside the standard mould, the article offers an academic slant on a cool topic.• Ling.Nut 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reordered the Ancient Egypt section, adding a paragraph or two and retitling it "Ancient Egypt and Nubia". I didn't mention the Sphinx, partially because as Johnbod said it' s not clear what function it performed, and partially because it's almost 2am. The section could use other eyes... • Ling.Nut 17:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are entire sections and entire paragraphs without citations and many paragraphs without a closing citation. As well, the citations are not consistent with 2C. All of this was found in 45 seconds. --Brad (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend actually reading the article too? Some material has been very recently added, and still is being, further to requests from Pt 1. Other sections namecheck links to other articles saying only things that are unlikely to be challenged. Feel free to tag anything that you think really needs a ref - I don't say there aren't any such places. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to read the entire article when it fails one of the fundamental requirements for FA. 2C is no consistency with the referencing. You have combinations of "Bonnefoy, pp. 133-137", "Levey 1967, 57–59", "Boardman et al, 688&ndas;9", "Welch, 26", "Hall, 15, 35 78" etc. Citations need to be consistent to one style and not a psychedelic mix. Pay attention to where you need to use commas, periods and endashes. When this is fixed then there is a reason to read further. --Brad (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are now all fixed, so you'll have to read the article now. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing citations are required? That's a new one on me. But I'll salt 'n pepper with refs... and btw, what does "not consistent with 2c" mean? • Ling.Nut 01:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're no where near fixed. I noticed that another editor brought up this same issue during the last FA pass and it's still a problem. There does not seem to be any effort by the nominators to correct this. An article in this condition should be withdrawn from the FAC process. --Brad (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous commenter (Ucucha) was happy with the changes made & struck his comment. I notice the number of refs was increased by 25% during the period covered by "There does not seem to be any effort by the nominators to correct this" and is (updated May 4th) currently 100% higher than when Brad first commented. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citations have been standardized. You'll have to give examples on referencing; linked, and often well-known dickdefs do not need a reference, at least in the opinion of the nominators, at least until they are challenged. The article currently has 137 citations, and a considerable number have been added recently. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a further run through the cites and the biblio. Some, though not all, of my changes can be seen here. Perhaps Brad would like to take another look? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said on the previous it cannot possibly accomodate the variations and exceptions - nevertheless it is an admirable job, to try to appease the criticisms, but in doing so it ends up like an Asian template - its all there but for what purpose? (I vehemently oppose the existence Asian templates on the basis that they include totally unrelatable sub regions in a one size fits all scope template as if a single attribute 'geography' binds the incongruities) Similarly here - I am not supporting or opposing, I am just wondering when the penny drops somewhere and someone realises that to have separate articles could solve quite a lot of issues - it clearly has not really hit any of the article editors yet - as the extent of 'defending' the article and stretching it seems to be the main energy consumer. SatuSuro 03:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've had this conversation before. Ideally, every section of this article would simply be a little WP:Summary that would have a {{main}} link to a heart-pounding, leg-tingling FA-quality article with expert-level accuracy and comprehensiveness and Pulitzer-prize winning prose. That would be wiki-paradise. Unfortunately, few if any of the relevant articles exist. If any do exist, I'd be quite surprised if any are legitimately beyond "C" on the qualify scale. SO... let's deal with reality, shall we? If we break this article up, what do we accomplish? The costs are far weightier than the benefits. The benefits are... well, there's only one: we've satisfied some Procrustean vision of organizational purity in article construction. By doing so, we have perhaps made one or two (I doubt there's more than two) editors happy. What are the costs? The costs are that you have won the battle but lost the war. Breaking this up would result in six or eight sad, scattered little nubbins of STUB articles. These will languish undeveloped until the heat death of the sun, simply because no one will notice them. The current approach puts them all in one place to attract editorial attention; if the article gets the bronze star, it will be an even better advertisement for the topic.• Ling.Nut 07:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • As always, positions get somewhat overstated. I'm pretty sure we'll get there in 250 Ma, and LingNut should know that that is long before the heat death of the sun :-). Satu: "it clearly has not really hit any of the article editors yet".. well, yes i think it has, they just don't agree. Neither do i on this point. But I do agree with Brad. Reference all the major facts and I would probably be a support. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohmigod (as my teenagers used to say), good luck to you all from your different planets - as a dark underground troglodyte with serious interest in tagging category talk pages - I never thought that I was in a battle/war - (ling nut) t this is a good article - but ideally - some subsidiary would be useful - (you do get a bit loquacious unnecessarily) for example - the christian section is potentially a stand alone article - and I dont think it would be sad :) SatuSuro 11:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re christian funerary art section! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Brad: I sorta think "psychedelic" is... overstated. Are there a few problems with commas? I suggest {{sofixit}}. Content reviewers are editors too...
  • Dear Satu: battle? war? Where does this language come from? I see neither... The point remains: Break this article up, you'll have many stubs that will be completely forgotten by everyone.
  • I don't wanna uglify the article as I work on the sections that we feel are under-referenced. Similar to the way I handled the Egyptian/Nubian section, I'm temporarily working in User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox2. If anybody wants to help, please do be my ghost. • Ling.Nut 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why haven't Totem Poles of North America been discussed and the burial mounds of the Mississippian culture? I am glad to see the Egyptian section expanded to include the pyramids although I still think the Sphinx should be discussed...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have added the mounds, although only some appear to have been anything to do with burials at all, & apart from the mounds themselves, they don't seem to have many artifacts within. With totem-poles a connection with burial seems only speculative in respect of earlier ones. We have to stay focused on the subject here. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went with Grave Creek Mound, which is nice & big, & certainly a burial site. More could be added on the matter, with clearer sources, but they are in there anyway. Really we are supposed to be covering art made specifically for burials rather than normal life stuff buried with people, but when the experts aren't sure of the situation it's difficult. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the one in Easy Rider? We have Père Lachaise Cemetery in a caption, but the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno would definitely be the next to add - perhaps I should. Ok done that - I think you have to hand the top slot to the Italians. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think its the one in Easy Rider, amazing place...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree that there probably needs to be several related articles; this one which attempts to cover all cultures cannot provide all the depth needed in such a short format. A volume perhaps...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I like this article, but I'm not really qualified to evaluate the quality of most of it. As to to the Christianity section, I can refer you to a few articles that I wrote (the Tomb of Antipope John XXIII has already been mentioned) when I took an interest in the limited topic of papal tombs a while ago. I leave it up to the authors to decide whether to link to or incorporate this material, as I acknowledge that papal funerary art is only a small component of Christian funerary art. My main criticism would be that this section is written with somewhat of a Catholic focus (e.g. "The Catacombs of Rome contain most of the Christian art of the Early Christian period"...this seems to conflate Early Christianity with the church of Rome). Also, "St. Peter's"--the article linked to--is hardly an early Christian structure. St. Peter's tomb or Old St. Peter's Basilica might be more appropriate. Savidan 07:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That "The Catacombs of Rome contain most of the Christian art of the Early Christian period" is simply a fact (depending slightly on the period that is assumed to cover, which we don't go into); there are no other sources with anything like the quantity of works, and mostly rediscovered in good and unaltered condition. Talking about non-Catacomb Christian art and even churches from before 300, or even later, is notoriously mostly a matter of using literary references and speculation, with the odd exception like Dura Europos on the eastern border with Persia. See the first chapters of the Syndicus book cited, or Beckwith's Penguin/Yale history of art volume on the subject. After that you go to a handful of remnants of mosaic schemes etc, many heavily restored, from grand, often Imperial, buildings from the period of Constantine on, many in fact also in Rome. The context in which St Peter's is mentioned is "... building churches, most famously St Peter's, Rome, over the burial place of martyrs..." so it is the site rather than a particular building that is the point. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is that Rome contains most of the extant Christian art of that period, that may be true. However, I fail to find a single mention of Eastern Christian funerary art in the entire article, with the exception of a single uncited footnote. Savidan 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the case, though most of what is said, at least for the earlier period, covers East and West equally. Do you have anything particular in mind that should be mentioned? There is generally much less monumental funerary art in Eastern Christianity, a point that might be made, especially if you have a reference - nothing like the wall-tomb tradition. Most of the very plain sarcophagi of the Russian Tsars sit in two cathedrals in Moscow or Petersburg arrayed like cars in a car park. see here and here. This article is a tour d'horizon and does not aspire to cover equally all the world at all periods. The rather later Armenian Khachkars could be mentioned, although I think they were initially mostly not funerary, but later used for this, rather like the Celtic cross. I'll add "surviving" to the catacombs bit anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a short paragraph on Byzantine sarcophagi, & the List of extant papal tombs to See also. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing I know about Eastern Christianity is that some Western Christians tend to write as though it didn't exist. I did a quick google books search and found Death and religion in a changing world by Kathleen Garces-Foley, which contrasts eastern and western practices. The extent to which this and other sources may be relevant I do not know. It seems axiomatic, though, that if Funerary art is virtually non-existent in some cultures that you might mention that in the article. I am generally a fan of your articles, but I am troubled by the "tour d'horizon" concept. It can be difficult call to make with articles that cover large topics, but I tend to prefer an article that is complete in its scope. If daughter articles are necessary, I do not ask that you write them, but only that this one represents the level of detail that would be appropriate for the main article on a large topic. Savidan 00:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of "practices" but far fewer funerary works of art than in the Western tradition, though even here the tradition is now in steep decline for private burials - Bill Gates will not I think end up under a large sculpted memorial, though there is hope for Silvio Berlusconi. I should add this when I have refs. I can hardly be accused of ignoring EC art, on which I have written quite a few articles. The book you mention is almost entirely about ceremonies or liturgy, which we are not covering, but any other suggestions are welcome. You may have seen already what extremely slim pickings a gbooks search on "Eastern Orthodox" + "funerary art" produces! The lead mentions the notable absence of a Hindu tradition, & there are mentions elsewhere of absences, though these can be tricky to reference. From my POV a big problem with WP coverage of art & many other topics is that many small subject articles are good, but the big subject ones are mostly pretty poor - the FA population shows the same problem. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a superb and interesting article. The writing is great and it's nicely illustrated. I have a few quibbles, but none that affect the support:
  • In the lead, not sure what this means: "It can ... serve as an article for use by the dead in the afterlife ..."
Several cultures believed that things deposited in the grave could actually be used by the dead, either as they were, or after some sort of magical reconstitution. The Terracotta army is an example, also those Etruscan "actual eggs". These have already been defined as "cultural functions", so I don't think we need to make it clearer that Wikipedia does not endorse as fact the regeneration of terracotta warriors. Or do we? Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deposit of objects with an apparent aesthetic intention goes back to the Neanderthals over 100,000 years ago ..." The footnote doesn't seem very clear on that.
I've softened the claim, & changed the date, & added this and this as refs. It does seem to be still the majority view, though hotly debated. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on unattributed quotations, as they raise the issue of why quotation marks are being used rather than rephrasing, e.g. "Household bowls, cups, and pitchers are sometimes found in the graves, along with foodstuffs such as 'actual eggs, pomegranates, honey, grapes and olives'[33] for use in the afterlife."
I don't suppose he'll claim copyright on the list, so I've removed them. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering why there are separate sections on China, Korea, and Japan and only one on the Americas. And why such a long section on Christianity, which seems to overwhelm the others.
The issue of balance was raised in Part 1, and additions have been made, including some you mention, but I still think we have got the essential balance approximately right. Only what one reviewer called the "Mediterranean littoral" (Egypt, Greece, Etruria, Romans, Christians) has such a lavish and continuous tradition of monumental (ie big) sculpture on tombs, that also reaches well beyond royalty into the upper and middle classes. These areas certainly take up a large proportion of the article. East Asia's big tomb traditions are more restricted socially, but continuous over long periods, and well understood from literary sources. That is where America falls down. The first ghit on a search on "Aztec tomb" is this on what may be ""...the first look at a royal tomb in all of Central Mexico," Nichols said. "There are many things we haven't understood well—like the religion and symbolism of the Aztecs" ..." It seems a little premature to add this until they've got the slab off. For other American cultures there is big uncertainty, since almost all known finds are from burials, whether objects such as pots and figures were particularly associated with death, or just everyday stuff, favourite possessions etc, so not meeting the definition we are using. This is a problem with a great number of cultures around the world; for example the non-Egyptian Ancient Near East, which offers a striking contrast to Egypt in this respect. Believe me I have tried to expand these areas, though they are not my specialism I readily admit. In other cultures memorials of the rich were temples, mosques, churches etc in the usual style of the time & place, with a memorial inscription, and perhaps a fairly simple burial slab. These also fall outside our scope. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the second sentence here: "Some are fairly traditional, while monuments reflecting more contemporary styles include the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ... These are in notable contrast to the style of most war memorials to the military of World War II; earlier modernist memorials to the dead of World War I were sometimes removed after a time."
Just that; Mosse gives examples, though mostly WWI memorials found in decadent taste by the Nazis. I'll make it clearer. Many thanks for these comments! Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support.

  • This has come a way since nominating and looks good. I have one main overall concern: the lead does not appear to be a summary of the text, but a kind of big-picture introduction to the subject. As such, it should mostly be the actual first section of the body text - and needs cites for arguments such as "Funerary art can serve many cultural functions, although generally it is an aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife." For example, do we have sources that say that this particular purpose - "aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife" - is the general / dominant one ahead of other explanations? I ask this partly as a matter of WP policy on what the lead should be, but also as a check on OR in the lead. For example, the lead has an earlier sentence that says that grave goods may include "miniature versions of things believed to be needed in an afterlife". To the extent that funerary art is the result of preparing a person's body for the next life, I'm not sure i would call that an "aesthetic attempt to capture or express" something. The more obvious explanation in that context would seem pragmatic rather than aesthetic, and to be preparatory rather than expressive. I have no idea whether that is the case, whether it is commonly so, or not; hence my suggestion that it be cited body text, rather than uncited lead. I would support the article at FAC were this addressed. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Am I right in thinking your problems are mainly with the 2nd para? I'm not sure this was mostly mine. I'd say "an aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife" is vague enough to cover all the more specific things listed next myself (if one goes to "death and the afterlife". I don't myself see why miniature model grave goods do not fit under the phrase - they are expressing the belief that the objects will be usable in the afterlife, surely? There is obviously more of an issue when there is no belief in an afterlife. On reflection I've just cut it, and moved the psychopomps down into the "Common terms". There is a problem referencing completely global statements as there simply appear to be no art history books of the sort of quality we are trying to use that take a global approach across time & space - art historians tend to regard such treatments as for popularizion only. So we have avoided these as far as possible. I suppose I should crudely summarize the rest of the article in a new lede para, which I'll do later. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. I think one of my concerns was the implied intentionality of the language ("aesthetic attempt to capture") - that is, implying that the intention of the creators was aesthetic, whereas the best i think we can do, with ancient examples at any rate, is to interpret the outcome. Anyway, i'm now game to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [71].

Free State of Galveston

edit
Nominator(s): Mcorazao (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because

  • The article has passed GA.
  • The article has had two peer reviews.
  • The article has had a thorough copyedit by a formerly uninvolved, FA-saavy editor.

I am available to respond to any concerns. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The previous FA appears to have failed because people had questions about the writing or topic that they could not precisely express. I encourage commentators this time to point out any specific flaws with the article. Personally, I think this is an excellent article covering a crucial part of Texan history. Shii (tock) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nsaum75 has graciously offered to run this question down with Galveston city hall ... --Mcorazao (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nsaum75 verified that the city adopted this symbol in 1915. I have updated the image description accordingly on good faith. Nsaum75 is getting written confirmation on this from the city. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC3 Pending Fasach Nua (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Were gambling and prostitution legal in Galveston, or just tolerated? It's never actually specified in the article anywhere I can see. – iridescent 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the lead says The success of vice on the island, despite being illegal, was enabled by lax attitudes in the society and the government, both on the island and in the county. and the "Prohibition and the Maceos" section says Galveston's already lax social attitudes allowed this, as well as brothels and other illegal businesses, to blossom in the city. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is this sufficient, or is there something specific that needs to be included? --Mcorazao (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [72].

Lemur evolutionary history

edit
Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria or will within short order once its shortcomings are exposed. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with this article's story, it expands on the corresponding section of the new Lemur article. It is the first of up to 6 such articles. Once all 6 articles pass FAC, Lemur will be submitted for FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I commented and supported last time around, no change of opinion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An impressive achievement and a great resource. (Note that I extensively edited the article and helped with sources.) Ucucha 22:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha[reply]
  • I'm still not sure about this sentence: "Monkeys had evolved by the Oligocene, and it is commonly accepted that their intelligence, aggression, and deceptiveness gave them the advantage in exploiting the environment over the earlier lemur-like primates in Africa and Asia, ultimately driving these diurnal forms to extinction, leaving only the nocturnal lorisiformes." and specifically the part that contrasts diurnal and nocturnal strepsirrhines. I couldn't find that in Garbutt on Google Books. I don't have easy access to the other ref, but I don't think it is right to source a statement that says this is "commonly accepted" to a 1991 book that's not even paleontological in nature.
    • The claim has been weakened a little now, which is good, but I'm not convinced it reflects current knowledge: for example, Godinot (p. 447) says lemuriforms are a "nocturnal radiation". Now, his "lemuriforms" of course includes lorisoids, but I don't think his text supports the claims made in this sentence. Ucucha 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossil record suggests that haplorrhines (tarsiers, monkeys, apes, and humans) and strepsirrhines diverged approximately 58 to 63 mya,"—from re-reading Godinot, it is not apparent to me that this estimate is based solely on the fossil record, and I think this sentence makes him sound more confident about the 58–63 Ma estimate than he is.
  • You re-inserted Phaner because the section is now not only for recent changes. That is fine, but it means you should also include other genera—I think most lemurs in the 18th and 19th century were actually originally described in the genus Lemur. The Aye-aye was originally a Sciurus, incidentally (Groves 2005:121).
  • Under family-level classification, there's room for some historical data: many of the currently recognized families weren't separated until somewhere during the 20th century. In general, I suggested this arrangement of the section to provide an opportunity to review not only the recent changes in lemur classification, but also those over the previous centuries. That doesn't need to be in much detail, but I do think the article needs some of that to be comprehensive.
Changes made per our Gmail chat. Thank you very much for the help with these old sources. I think this is as far was we can go without crossing the line of WP:OR. If someone publishes a paper or book on primate taxonomic history, maybe we can resolve this even better. For now, I think this article covers this history better than any available single source. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. The article has evolved nicely. Some further observations:

"Not everyone in the scientific community supports these taxonomic changes, preferring instead an estimate of 50 living species."

I suggest "Not everyone in the scientific community supports these taxonomic changes, with some preferring instead an estimate of 50 living species." Otherwise, the people preferring in the second part of the sentence are the people specifically excluded from the first part of the sentence.
I'm not sure if I understand this one, but your recommendation sounded fine so I changed it. If anyone disagrees, they're welcome to revert me. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"stem strepsirrhines evolved on the Afro-Arabian landmass, spreading to Madagascar once and more recently from Africa to Asia"

I suggest rewording this; it can be read as "once and more recently". Is the 'once necessary here?
Given the importance of the "single colonization" idea, it is important, but it has been covered in detail in the article. For that reason, I've dropped the word per your recommendation. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of serial commas in this article is not consistent. compare:

"Old World monkeys, dogs, and cats"
"Suborder Haplorrhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes"
This is a minor detail, but should be consistent throughout the article.
Thanks for catching this. I hope I have fixed this. If you catch any others, just let me know or feel free to fix. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor nitpicks, and I'm close to supporting. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My remaining concerns have been addressed. The article is well-written and understandable to the lay reader. I couldn't catch any inconsistencies between the maps and the text, the sections seem complete, and the references I checked all checked out. Nice work on lemurs (again), VH. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2010&oldid=364662173"