Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Featured article candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, embolden headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Ucucha—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks
Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Related pages:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Hotel Polen fire

Nominator(s): SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it complies with the FAC after having been looked over by several experienced users. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Birth control movement in the United States

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for Featured Article status because it is an important chapter of United States history which deserves to be well represented in this encyclopedia. The article has been through a GA review and a Peer Review. I'm familiar with the FAC criteria, and I've had one article promoted to FA before. I'm prepared to make any improvements to the article required to meet FA standards. Thanks for your consideration. --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Note inconsistent use of named refs, sometimes used, sometimes not. I was gonna {{sofixit}}, but didn't know if you wanted them in or out. If you keep them, fix them for: Engelman, p. 134; Engelman, p. 148; Engelman, p. 160; Engelman, p. 167; Engelman, p. 6; Engelman, p. 92; Engelman, pp. 101–103; Engelman, pp. 107–109; Engelman, pp. 113–115; Engelman, pp. 13–14; Engelman, pp. 132–133; Engelman, pp. 92–93 (In her memoirs, Sanger often understated or entirely omitted the contributions of fellow activists); Hajo, p. 85. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to work on the article: your copyedits are great. Regarding the references: I thought long and hard about that: I was balancing two competing goals (1) using "name"d footnotes to reduce the bulk of the Footnote section; and (2) avoiding multiple footnotes at the end of sentence.[1][2][3] by using WP:CITEBUNDLE. I struck a compromise: I used Cite bundling everywhere (so every sentence has at most one footnote), and I used named footnotes everywhere (that did not interfere with bundling). Thus, some cites are duplicated but only if they are bundled together with another cite. So, there is method to the madness. That said, if the reviewers decide that all must be named, I can undo the bundling. Or, if all must be not named, I can undo the naming. Personally, I like it the way it is, but I'm flexible. --Noleander (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. But there are still problems with the refs: who is Praeger? Who is Baker? What does (Goldman/Sanger) mean? I forgot to check for all of these, or more accurately, forgot to check if you were using templates or not for your refs. You aren't, so these have to be checked manually... –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Amon of Judah

Nominator(s): Magister Scientatalk 23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, while it's certainly on the smaller side, it's a high quality article that fully covers the life of the subject. Magister Scientatalk 23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyscape search: No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's a typo in the second sentence. The past tense of "lead" is "led".
  • I cite-checked the bible verses, and they are accurate.
  • I'm not sure what to say about the length. I'd like to think that any article can be featured if it's comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written, which this seems to be, but there's really not much historical information on this guy, is there? Criterion #4, on length, says "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." That seems satisfied, at least. And there are FAs nearly as short -- Tropical Depression Ten (2005), for one. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment (Note that I was the GA reviewer of this article): I am certainly not opposed to short articles become featured, however, I am not convinced that this covers the topic completely comprehensively. As I said in the review, before this is ready for featured status, you'd really need to cover everything that there is to cover, and look into every source. "The historical background of the assassination of Amon, king of Judah" by Malamat is not referenced, and I assume that you have not read it. There also seems to be some textual debate of interest concerning Amon, which is discussed at length by Begg; this is not addressed in the article, and some of the primary sources mentioned by Begg are also not mentioned. Also, that image needs to go. The deletion debate on Commons was a fucking joke. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi J, I'm pretty busy right now IRL so I'll respond to the Begg stuff later. In regards to the image, you're probably right, truthfully I don't even really understand what the closing admin meant. Yet, I'm also of the feeling that if the consensus of the XfD was keep, than regardless of our opinions it can be kept. Magister Scientatalk 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Policy is policy (and law is law) regardless of what a "discussion" containing three voices somewhere on another project "decided". For what it's worth, I've contacted the closing admin. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The image has been replaced with the {{Kings of Judah}} template. Magister Scientatalk 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
J, I found it!. Magister Scientatalk 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - There is not enough historical or theological context, and there are stubs longer than this. Does this represent our best work? It is little more than a DYK. I know that length is not a criterion for promotion (although I disagree with this) but the article is too short to be engaging (Criterion 1A). Graham Colm (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify why the article didn't engage you. Thanks, Magister Scientatalk 04:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, but this doesn't seem comprehensive. A cursory search on Google Books and academic databases reveals any number of potential sources that haven't been used here. Many of them appear to contain substantive information about the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:-

  • Bearing in mind the extremely meagre nature of the text I think it important that you investigate fully the additional sources that J Milburn has identified above. I don't know these sources, but what they contain needs to be established.
  • The statement that Flavius Josephus describes Amon as among the worst of the Kings of Judah bothers me, because Josephus says no such thing. The following is the entire Josephus text that relates to Amon: "The kingdom came to [Manasseh's] son Amon, whose mother's name was Meshulemeth [sic] of the city of Jotbath. This Amon imitated the works of his father which he so insolently did when he was young: so he had a conspiracy made against him by his own servants, and was slain in his own house, where he had lived twenty-four years, and of them had reigned two; but the multitude punished those that slew Amon, and buried him with his father, and gave the kingdom to his son Josiah". That's it, there's no more. I see your text is cited to Begg; are you sure you are quoting him correctly?
In his conclusion, Begg writes "In Josephus' version Jotham and Amon remain basically as they are in the Bible, two minor kings, one markedly good, the other among Judah's worst rulers." Magister Scientatalk 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, there you are, a "reliable source" (Begg) misquoting what his source says. Nowhere does Josephus say Amon was "among the worst", he merely says he imitated the "insolent" behaviour of his father's youth. I recommend you correct this. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sold that it should be removed. Isn't Begg just making a scholarly interpretation of Josephus' writings. Begg isn't claiming to having quoted Josephus verbatim, he's just making an observation on how Josephus chose to portray Amon. Thoughts? Magister Scientatalk 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Per your template headed "Kings of Judah", please note that Athaliah was not a "king" of Judah.
I have fixed the heading of the template. Magister Scientatalk 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lead says his idolatrous practices while king led to a revolt against him. There is no information in the article about a "revolt" (a servants' conspiracy is a quite different thing), and what is the basis for saying that this "revolt", if there was one, was caused by his idolatory? Since the people rose up against the people who killed him, it seems he may have been quite a popular figure. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This and other elements of the article will be revised after I have the time to go through the Malamat article, which had eluded me for some time. Is there anyway to postpone this discussion? Thanks, Magister Scientatalk 03:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Arawe

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Arawe was a small-scale campaign fought between Allied (mainly United States) and Japanese forces on the island of New Britain between late 1943 and early 1944. The operation served as a diversion from a larger American landing on the island, and both sides regarded it as something of a sideshow to this. Nevertheless, the battle involved large scale Japanese air attacks as well as a series of raids made by the American and Japanese forces. As such, it's an interesting microcosm of the way in which much of the Pacific War was fought during this period.

I've been working on this article on and off for several years now. It was assessed as a GA last December and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review several weeks ago. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg: source site credits "F. Temple" for this image. Same with File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg. File:Japanese_Withdrawal_Routes_in_West_New_Britain.jpg and File:Arawe_Landings.png are credited to R.F. Stibil
    • I've added full details added for all images (and uploaded File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg to Commons under a much clearer name).
  • be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
    • Only one is left now.
  • Be consistent in how reprinted works and new editions are notated
    • Fixed
  • "General Headquarters, Army Forces Pacific" or "General Headquarters Army Forces, Pacific"?
    • Oops: it's actually neither of the two versions I used, but actually 'General Headquarters, Army Forces, Pacific'. Well spotted and fixed.
  • No citations to Hough and Crown 1952, Krueger 1979
    • Both removed
  • Check formatting on Morison bibliography entry
    • Fixed
  • Osprey or Ospery Publishing? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Osprey Publishing, fixed. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
comments by Gnangarra
  • My initial read of this article is thats its comprehensive, and clear no obvious issue stand out its not over loaded with jargon. I did stumble on the Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the Joint.... <emphasis added> as British felt out of place but the link to Combined Chiefs of Staff clarified that, but I consider more during a second reading. Is the abbreviation necessary for Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) as its not used anywhere in the article. Gnangarra 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] John Balmer

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

After my recent naval sortie with the Hector Waller FAC, time for another pilot. However, while the services may have differed, John Balmer has more than a little in common with Hec Waller: both were professionals who joined the armed forces before World War II; both attained similar ranks; and both seemed destined for prominent post-war roles in the Australian military before being killed in action. For further context, Balmer preceded William Brill, whom some might recall from a FAC last year, as commanding officer of No. 467 Squadron RAAF during the air war in Europe. This is a bit shorter than either Waller's or Brill's articles but, given Balmer lived an even briefer life, I don't think it's lacking in any detail -- except how he got his nickname, for which I apologise in advance... ;-) This has passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, the latter including a spotcheck with Earwig but, oddly enough, no explicit image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources and Images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Images all fine per pre-1955 Australia rule
  • be consistent in use of "Retrieved" vs "Retrieved on"
    • Tks for finding the one that slipped through... ;-)
  • Compare FNs 21 and 22
    • Tks for that too.
  • Allen & Unwin: Sydney or North Sydney?
    • Definitely North Sydney for one that I have. Will ping Nick-D to confirm the other, which he added.
      • I added the reference to Whispering death. The publishing details page identifies Allen & Unwin as being both in Sydney in the list of cities where the firm has offices and Crows Nest (a suburb of Sydney) in the specific publishing details, so I went with Sydney. However, the National Library of Australia uses Crows Nest in its record for the book. The State Library of NSW uses 'Crows Nest' for its record for the hard copy of the book (which I what I consulted) and 'Sydney' for the ebook edition... I'd say that using 'Sydney' makes more sense, but either option works. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Well I might use Crow's Nest then as I tend to take the specific suburb if one is given. As I've mentioned to Nikki before, A&U has used St Leonards, Crows Nest, and North Sydney in its time, which could even be the same office with boundary changes over the years as the three locations are in such close proximity. Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the ADB be italicized? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You tell me -- it's a book series title, but since I'm citing the online version the context here is the website, which I thought wouldn't be italicised. In any case, tks for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Katharine Hepburn

Nominator(s): Lobo512 (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I bring to FAC one of the most famous and unique women of the last century. I began working on the article last August, when it looked like this, and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I've also had input from several experienced editors. I believe it meets the criteria, but will happily address any concerns you may have. This is a popular article that gets viewed approximately 150,000 times a month, and would be a great feature for the main page (hopefully for her 105th birthday in May). Please note that all images have been carefully checked to be in the public domain (apart from one, which I believe meets non-free criteria). Lobo (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on all the work you've done on this article. However, I have one BIG problem that prevents me from supporting it for FA status: One of your sources of information is a biography of Hepburn by Charles Higham, an author who is often derided for his lack of credibility (notably for his fabricated claims that Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy). I will not trust anything that Higham wrote and therefore must reluctantly pass on supporting this article. Jimknut (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I am refraining from making any more suggestions about this article ... with one exception: I would identify the actor with Kate in the still from A Bill of Divorcement. I believe the gentleman is David Manners. Jimknut (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm slightly resistant to do this, because the caption is already long and Manners isn't a notable enough co-star to warrant making it longer. I'll do it if it's really wanted though. --Lobo (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Higham book is one of the few Hepburn biographies that has not met with a poor reception. He makes no scandalous claims at all, unlike William Mann's book which insists she and Tracy were both gay and the Barbara Leaming book, which for some reason claims John Ford was the love of her life. These are the Hepburn biographies to avoid, which I have done. Higham may have done some questionable work, but his Kate is generally considered reliable. James Curtis recently published a biography of Spencer Tracy, and it is one of the best researched bios I've ever seen. At the end, he assesses the various Hepburn biographies (because they have played such a big part in shaping Tracy's image) and says: "The first major Hepburn biography, Charles Higham's Kate, drew its strength from the author's interviews with a number of Hepburn's friends and coworkers ... [re the Tracy relationship], Higham came closest to getting it right." He has no negative things to say about this bio. And I can assure you that I only have an interest in depicting Kate accurately and would not be using a book I felt to be unreliable. There aren't many good books to chose from for Hepburn, most seem to have an agenda, and I have made sure to use the ones considered the best. I ask you to please have faith in the article. --Lobo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Note to delagates: Jimknut explicitly identifies himself as an Errol Flynn fan on his userpage, so may have a personal and perhaps irrational vendeta against Charles Higham (I'm not being rude here Jimknut, just making an observation) --Lobo (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on the conversation above (or source comprehensiveness in general). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Ranges should all use endashes
  • Be consistent in whether page numbers are spaced or unspaced
  • What makes IMDb a high-quality reliable source?
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply
  • I looked very closely at the sources for inconsistencies and found a few things to fix, let me know if you can see any more I've missed.
  • IMDb is used only to cite her filmography stats and her awards. I feel it's a good source for her checking the stats of her career (how many films, how many tv films) because it numbers them. It makes for quick and easy verifiablity. The info here is absolutely, undoubtedly accurate. As for awards, this is the only place to get them all collected on one page. And when it comes to finding an actor's/film's awards, I'd say IMDb is considered one of the best resources available. This stuff is only added by IMDb employees, it can't be added by the public like in their "trivia" and other sections (at least I'm pretty sure this is the case).
  • BBC obituary removed from external links.
Thank you Nikkimaria for your time in looking at this. --Lobo (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Query, before I dig in. I appreciate the evident fact that there are many books out there on the subject. May I ask what your general strategy was for selecting sources? You make some comments above about how certain books were not well-received or are unreliable, but what information are you basing your assumptions on? For example, did you seek the opinion of a film scholar, or do you have a reliable source that provides insight on which Hepburn books are unreliable? On reviewing potential sources, I noticed, for example, the Worrall book Lunch With Miss Hepburn: The Last Interview. You haven't used this source and it could add to the sparse section about her last years and death. Why did you decide not to use it? --Laser brain (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair question. No I didn't consult a film scholar, but I have done a hell of a lot of reading about this woman, seen practically all her films and interviews, and consider myself pretty much an expert on Hepburn (probably as knowledgable as any film scholar would be). The books I have avoided using in this article are 1) biographies that make extreme claims and have subsequently met with a backlash from aquaintainces and experts (this refers to Leaming, Parish, Porter and Mann - although I have now made a reference to Mann and his argument in the article). Honestly, to anyone who knows anything about Hepburn, these books are considered a joke. Their research has been strongly called into question. I believe that using them would be the equivalent of using tabloid newspapers, which is something frowned upon here. 2) I thought the exclusion of rather "casual" books like Considine-Meara's At Home With Kate and Prideaux's Knowing Hepburn was fine because they are, well, so casual. As for that specific interview you linked to, there's a very practical reason why I haven't used it. It is only available as an e-book, and I don't have a device for that! I'd love to read it. But to be honest, I'd be very surprised if it includes anything previously unsaid. Also, Berg's book goes into a lot of detail about the final years of her life, so I already have the material to expand those sections. However I've chosen not to go into a lot of detail about this in the article - I think these sections are the appropriate length they should be. The article is already very long, and I don't think those sections can afford to be any bigger.
The main thing is, I have definitely made use of all the best Hepburn bios. If I had not made good use of Higham, Berg, Kanin and the new Spencer Tracy bio (probably the best research that's gone into her, even if it's not directly about her), that would mean the article was lacking. These are definitely the sources that *need* to be used for Hepburn.
If you like, I can provide more quotes from Curtis's assessment of the various bios, which confirm what I've said here...so actually, yeah I guess I kind of have had input from an expert! --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just one more thing to add. I hope you remember, Hepburn was a big celebrity, and one with the potential for lots of juicy stories. People have exploited this, and written a lot of crap about her. It's not like the respectable books that have been written about poets and artists, you know? Most of the books are people just trying to make a buck out of her. I have to be selective in the material, to make it a respectable article. I truly think it's is a good thing that I've done this (and a good thing that I am so knowledgable about her, so I know which books to avoid). --Lobo (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer! Everyone you've said makes sense. Subjects for whom so much have been written present an interesting challenge in research. I will provide a full review soon. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad you understand. :) And I hope you like the article!
If anyone else has concerns about my judgement of the sources, let me know and I will type up Curtis's comments as "expert proof". --Lobo (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] John Barbirolli

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is one of a series on British conductors on which I've worked, and having got Henry Wood, Thomas Beecham and Adrian Boult to FA, I hope I have done Barbirolli justice too. After taking the article to GA in 2010, I revised and added to it substantially last year. Barbirolli was Toscanini's successor as chief conductor of the New York Philharmonic, and was a celebrated guest conductor in opera in Rome and in the concert hall in Berlin, but he is principally remembered as the conductor and saviour of the Hallé Orchestra in England. He was a great, occasionally eccentric, musician and he deserves a top-flight article, which I hope I have given him. Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
  • No citations to Kennedy 2008
  • Be consistent in whether punctuation is linked or not, and whether commas appear inside or outside quotation marks in titles - for example, compare FNs 7 and 10
  • Check pagination on FN 37
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
All attended to, I think. Thanks as always for your sharp eyes. Tim riley (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, with quibbles. I peer-reviewed this, but that was a while back and I have not looked at the article recently. I read it again with pleasure, but of course had to find a few things to niggle about:-

  • Second para of lead: Remove comma after "Born in London..." The first half of this paragraph is rather dense with "conductor/conducting" repetitions, which could perhaps be reduced by some slight rephrasing
  • Last sentence of lead: the "but" should be an "and" ("and was also admired..."
    • Someone else is ahead of me and has redrawn this sentence. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't his baptismal names (Giovanni Battista) be mentioned in the lead intro? Otherwise an unaware reader might not realise that they are one and the same.
    • Done. Ought I to leave the repetition of his original name in the main text, too, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Personally I'd begin this section "Barbirolli was born on (date)...", without bolding - there is no real justification for bolding here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Fine with me. I'll follow your advice - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Southampton Row is within the sound of Bow Bells, and Barbirolli always regarded himself as a Cockney." Sentence looks misplaced where it is. Suggest promote to second sentence of the paragraph.
  • I also suggest you look for instances of over-punctuation, e.g. in sentences such as: "His father, Lorenzo Barbirolli (1864–1928), was a violinist, who had settled in London with his wife, Louise Marie, née Ribeyrol (1870–1962)". (Five commas among 20 words)
    • Pruned one, but most are, I think, grammatically necessary for clauses that describe rather than define. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • His scholarship at Trinity College of Music is mentioned in passing, but not how or when he acquired it.
    • Kennedy and Reid say no more than that he won it in 1910. I have changed "his" to "a". Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "regular playing partner Ethel Bartlett": Could you mention she was a pianist (if this be she).
  • "...with whom he made several early broadcasts." Can you clarify the subject of "whom"?
  • "Barbirolli's ambition remained to conduct". Perhaps "remained" is wrong here, since this ambition has not been mentioned until now.
  • I'm slightly puzzled by "Barbirolli also won warm praise from Pablo Casals, whom he had accompanied in Haydn's D major cello concerto at the same concert." The word "accompanied" does not seem apposite, if he was conducting. (see also a later point)
    • You and I have disagreed about this before. I maintain that the orchestral part of a concerto is referred to as a matter of course as the "accompaniment" (see opening para of the WP Concerto article), and you can see JB described as accompanying concertos in Bicknell's obituary tribute to him, here, or in Kennedy, p. 171, where JB firmly declines "to become a piano concerto accompanist". Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The positioning of the two sentences relating to his marriage to Marjorie Perry is chronologically correct, but awkward. Consider if this could be arranged better.
    • I agree, but short of having a separate "Personal life" section, as I did for the Beecham article, I can't think where else to put this information. Unlike Beecham's, JB's personal life was not notable enough to run to a whole section of its own, I think. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "a rough press campaign in New York from interested parties who wished to evict him from his post": I think this quotation should be attributed.
  • "In 1943 Barbirolli made another Atlantic crossing..." Can you clarify, e.g. "In 1943 Barbirolli flew back to England..."
    • I chose this phrasing rather carefully, because an exposition of the complete facts seemed to me to be rather wordy. JB crossed the Atlantic by ship to Portugal, and then went by plane from there to England. It was in Lisbon where Howard asked him to swap flights so that Howard could remain in Lisbon for a few days. According to some accounts, someone on Howard's flight bore a striking resemblance to Winston Churchill, which is why the Germans decided to shoot down a flight over a neutral country, but I cannot vouch for this. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Later he extended his teaching skills to the Royal Academy of Music..." Maybe replace "later" with a year?
  • "He found that mastering a Mahler symphony took between 18 months and two years..." Clarification necessary; maybe insert "him" between "took" and "between", since the statement is followed by a reference to "50 hours of rehearsal".
    • Much better. Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Many of Barbirolli's pre-war recordings for HMV were of concertos. His reputation as an accompanist tended to obscure his talents as a symphonic conductor, and later, his detractors in New York "damned him with faint praise by exalting his powers as an accompanist and then implying that that was where it all stopped." Again, the use of the word "accompanist" confuses me in this section:. To me, an accompanist is a supporting player to a soloist, e.g. Gerald Moore; as such, Bruno Walter sometimes accompanied Kathleen Ferrier on the piano. I can't fit that understanding into the above; can you say in what sense Barbirolli was acting as an "accompanist" in these prewar HMV recordings?
    • As above, J'y suis, j'y reste. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link, or better still describe, what is meant by an "Intendant". Otherwise it sounds like the person in charge of the cloakrooms.

These are not major matters, and I am sure you will have little difficulty disposing of them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the support, and for the comments, which I have acted on as noted above. We shall have to agree to differ over "accompanying" concertos, but for the other points I have followed up your suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I had forgotten our earlier colloquy on the meaning of "accompany" in musical parlance. My problem is with what I will call the "Walter–Ferrier question". Bruno Walter accompanied Kathleen Ferrier on the piano during song recitals, and also conducted the orchestra when she sang works such as Mahler's Rückert songs and Kindertotenlieder. There ought to be a way of distinguishing between these rather different activities; in the latter case the orchestra is accompanying the singer, the conductor is directing both. That, m'lud, is the essence of my case, but I am not pressing it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Your magnanimity is much appreciated - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. A few quibbles:

Lede
  • "seized the chance" Too dramatic for the lede, since you are not explaining at this time. You are also exactly duplicating the prose you use later, which I think is a bad idea.
Biography
  • Given his parentage, something should be said about his own nationality.
  • Date Otello's premiere
  • Although you do imply it in the lede, it may be worth mentioning his birth name early on.
  • "was to be absent in America," This sounds odd. Perhaps just say what he was doing across the pond.
  • " the other three were Elgar, Beecham and Pierre Monteux." This is clearly a great honour, then, judging by his fellows, I would move the information up in the sentence.
  • Barbirolli's name was hardly known internationally" A little too flowery, I am afraid. Perhaps "Barbirolli was not well-known internationally".
  • "In the spring of 1936, " This paragraph is a bit of a problem. As it delves further into the past it should probably be "had been confronted", etc.
  • "political lobbying" I would not disparage it with such a term. Concerns about Nazi Germany proved to be justified.
  • " the post should have been offered to "native conductors"" One post being divided among multiple native conductors reads oddly. I take it you want to keep the quote as colourful; perhaps "preference should have been given to "native conductors"
  • "Players and critics in Europe and the United States commented on the improvement in the playing of their orchestras when Barbirolli was in charge." Since the previous sentence can be read to limit Barbirolli's training to the Halle, this is jarring as the first hint that he was training outside the Halle.
  • "but he declined to be deflected from the Hallé" This seems a bit odd in phrasing.
  • "worked at " a plebeian phrase for his art, no?
  • "the Philharmonia" it is long since you mentioned them; consider a link.
  • "Barbirolli was appointed Conductor Laureate." If someone took over workaday conducting duties, I would say who. Additionally, it might be wise to mention that acceptance of such an appointment meant he was stepping back a bit.
  • "His last" Begins consecutive sentences in the penultimate paragraph of the bio section.
Honours
  • "The Barbirolli Hall" This sentence is somewhat convoluted, and might benefit from simplification.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya

Nominator(s): Pi (Talk to me! ) 05:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This article became a GA last summer and I have recently expanded it with more complete information about the specifics of the criminal charges. In addition the results of the confirmation of charges hearings came out the other day and so I have updated the article to reflect this. I think the article is now sufficiently comprehensive to nominate it at FAC. Pi (Talk to me! ) 05:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Pi. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Several WP:MOS errors throughout. Footnotes should appear immediately after punctuation, with no space in between. "%" should be spelled out in article text, use endashes not hyphens for ranges, etc
  • "Violence continued until a peace deal was agreed upon between Kibaki and Odinga under the mediation of former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whereby Kibaki would remain as President and Odinga would take over the newly-created office of the Prime Minister." - source?
  • "In order to force these communities to relocate, the group planned to inflict fear and destroy homes and property until the victims left the region." - source? Check for other unsourced and potentially problematic material
  • Citations should be complete and include at least the minimum information required - publisher and retrieval date for web sources, page numbers for multi-page sources. Don't use bare URLs as citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The source for those statements is the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute. This is the source for most of the information in the section "The prosecutor's allegation". I will go through it now and add specific page numbers. All the statements in the article are sourced but you're right, the page numbers should be there. Pi (Talk to me! ) 05:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I was going through the article putting page numbers in all of the references (and ensuring that there's an inline source for each claim) when I noticed that the judgement on the confirmation of charges has mysteriously disappeared from the internet (and the link to it on the ICC website has been deleted). Since the ICC generally has all of these available I assume this is temporary and that it'll be up again shortly (I assume there may have been a mistake in the document). In the mean time I can (I think) find alternative sources. If you could bear with me I hope to get this done shortly.
Also, as for the MOS errors I noticed a few mistakes regarding spaces between punctuation and references and am fixing these Pi (Talk to me! ) 06:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have improved the referencing in most of the article now. I just need to get the second judgement back online in order to finish referencing. I phoned the ICC public affairs unit who assured me it's being replaced. Pi (Talk to me! ) 10:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole article now adding page numbers to the citations and adding additional citations where they were missing. I have also tried to resolve the WP:MOS issues where I could find them Pi (Talk to me! ) 12:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple issues that jumped out to me at first glance, haven't read the article yet: there shouldn't be spaces before or between references, I fixed a couple in the lead (i.e. "...of the case.[10] [11]" & "...against Ali and Kosgey. [14][15]"). Also, I noticed that there are a lot of short sections, maybe condense some of them? Mark Arsten (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I just gave the article another sweep and checked each reference, fixing those with a problem. There are some small sections (I assume you mean the "prosecutor's allegation" section) but at the moment there is one section per crime and I quite like that. I could merge the sections into one for Ruto, Kosgey and Sang with a second for Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali if people think that would be better Pi (Talk to me! ) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I don't know if there is a guideline about this, it's more of what I think would work best. I guess keep that idea in mind in case anyone else raises the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:WilliamRuto.PNG has the same description as the parent image it was cropped from. Please update.
  • Other images are OK, however more images wouldn't be missed. May I suggest adding File:Cuno Tarfusser.jpg to the 'Pre-Trial Chamber authorization' section?

—Andrewstalk 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] James Garrard

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently re-written after obtaining a hard-to-find biography of Garrard. (Merry Christmas to me!) Chronicles the life of Kentucky's second governor – from Revolutionary War soldier to excommunicated Baptist minister to shunned abolitionist to the only Kentucky governor to succeed himself in office for a span of 200 years, I hope you'll enjoy the article. Hope to respond to concerns quickly. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Page number(s) for the Note?
  • Dictionary bibliography entry should use the title of the article cited, not the work as a whole
    • Apparently, the "chapter" parameter doesn't work with {{cite web}}. I've got the article title showing now, but I had to lose "Gale History in Context", which is the name of the electronic database. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether or not locations are included for books
  • Compare editor format for Blanchard and Everman 2004
    • It's not an editor format. I used "in" to distinguish between two sources by H.E. Everman. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That's in footnotes - I'm looking at Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that the Collins source is self-published, how does it satisfy WP:SPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Maria de Ovila

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been letting this one sit for a while to see how it fits, and I think it is ready for evaluation here at FAC. The article came about when I protested a bit of text inserted at Hearst Castle, text that was more appropriate to Wyntoon. This led me to write articles about Santa Maria de Ovila and Charles Stetson Wheeler, and to greatly expand Wyntoon.

This story is a complex and tragic tale and as such proved excellent material for an article. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an entrant in the WikiCup. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review and comments by --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil, I have put a full stop at the Haslett image and I changed the second bibliography entry from a book to a journal cite. Thanks for the catch!
I have put dates and English descriptions into the Commons images that were uploaded by a Spanish editor.
The Haslett warehouse is not all that important which is why I chose to force the image smaller.
Is the accessdate parameter required for the cite news template? Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You should include retrieval dates if URLs are provided, unless the refs are print-based like books. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, I added accessdate parameters as indicated and I moved the Burke reference down to Bibliography. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't read the article, but a couple quick comments at a glance: in the Golden Gate Park section I see sentences beginning "In 1940, Hearst..." and "In 1999 some..." The punctuation here should probably be standardized. Also, why do you have a picture in the Bibliography section? I don't know if there is a rule about that, but it seems odd to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I put commas in to homogenize the style.
    • I put a picture into the Bibliography only because I had an extra one and it seemed to fit there. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, well, if no one else objects to its placement I guess that's ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, try to be consistent with the use of the serial comma: "After the Confiscations, many of the furnishings and artistic treasures of Santa María de Óvila passed to the surrounding parish churches, especially Ruguilla, Huet, Sotoca de Tajo and Carrascosa de Tajo." vs "On the eastern side of the cloister lies the monastery, the sacristy, the priory cell, and the chapter house stripped of detail." Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, the commas. I took a couple out just now but the specific example you list is one I kept because the sacristy and priory cell are not stripped of detail, but the chapter house is. Thus, the comma helps to separate the "stripped of detail" from the preceding members of the listed items. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Alright, your changes look good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)

Nominator(s): Auree ★ 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A relatively short article on a short-lived yet devastating storm this time around. Cindy produced historic rainfall rates over Martinique as no more than a disorganized tropical storm, causing flooding that wiped out entire communities, killed two people, and left hundreds homeless. As if that weren't enough, it went on to bother the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico with blustery conditions before killing another two people in the Dominican Republic. The article is a GA and received a peer review from two editors, but any comments are welcome and appreciated! Disclaimer: I can fluently read both Spanish and French, so any sources in those languages were translated by myself. Auree ★ 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hylian Auree. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Binksternet
  • Yeah, the storm was "steered" by the flow, aka steering flow, which is synonymous with steering winds. I could wikify "Steered" instead? Auree ★ 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You're the expert here. I just wanted to point it out for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright. I'd leave it as is in that case. Auree ★ 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The storm track is first described as moving "steadily west-northwestward". Next, the storm is said to have "moved to the west-northwest". How about using "continued to the west-northwest", as "moved" implies a change in direction.
  • Good point. Changed it :) Auree ★ 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The name "Cindy"... I'm not much of a storm follower but this phrase to me suggests two actions, not one: "the NHC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Cindy". First, the NHC upgraded the depression to "tropical storm". Second, the NHC assigned the new storm the name "Cindy".
    • Actually, that is proper terminology how it is currently used. That is how most tropical cyclone articles are. IMO, there is no need to make it unnecessarily long. Technically, with regards to how it was handled in advisories, it went from being a tropical depression to "Tropical Storm Cindy". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The en dash should not take the place of an intermediate word in these constructions: "with totals ranging from 4–10 in"; "received rainfall amounts of between 2.0–4.5 in". Those bits should be either
    • "with totals ranging from 4 to 10 in"; "received rainfall amounts between 2.0 and 4.5 in" (ditching the en dash) or
    • "with totals of 4–10 in"; "received rainfall amounts of 2.0–4.5 in" (keeping the en dash).
  • I quite like "with totals of 4–10 in" -- short and concise! Auree ★ 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Images must have alt text. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Last I checked this wasn't a requirement anymore, unless that's been changed again now? Thanks for the comments nonetheless! Auree ★ 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Shows how behind the times I am. Malleus commented that part out in March 2010 after lots of discussion. At the time, I was blithely unaware of the drama. The hidden text is still there, just as Malleus left it. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Baldwin of Forde

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because ... once more, something wicked this way comes... oh, wait. Not so wicked, as Baldwin was not noted for the wickedness of his life or anything exciting like that. Baldwin's a rather common exemplar of the English medieval ecclesiastic - lived his life well in conformity to the expectations, served his king and his church, went on Crusade, got involved in a few disputes but was generally considered a "good egg" by most. Not a saint by any means, but not a bad boy either, Baldwin was an author as well as a cleric. He's had a Good Article review, a very exacting peer review, plus a final polish by Malleus. This is how the article looked when I started editing it, so it's been substantially rewritten and expanded during my time with the article. Note that although I'm participating in the wikicup, and there will probably be a bot slapping a notice about that on this nom, I will not be claiming this article for the competition, as most of the work on it took place prior to 2012. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Exter or Exeter?
  • "From the Conquest to the Death of King John" or "From the Conquest to the Death of John"?
  • Domesday to Magna Carta or Domesday Book to Magna Carta?
  • FN 7 vs 26
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Where in Belgium was Sharpe published?
  • Does the Duggan in Further reading not have a first name or initial?
  • Single image is unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed everything but the double period - it's a fault of the template, I'm not going to make the data field inaccurate by not including the period after the initial. Also - Sharpe's Handlist does not give a further location in Belgium other than "Belgium". I gotta say though - asking for all hyphenated or all unhyphenated ISBNs is getting into the range of way out there with consistency - I did it, but only because I was able to - most online book databases do not hyphenate and I'm not going to kill myself to find hyphens. They make it easier for people to read them, that's why I include them, but I'm more inclined to just strip ALL the ISBNs out of the references if I'm going to have to do this every time at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis of my peer review, here. I raised the question of the appropriateness of the "Legacy" title; there's precious little "legacy" there, the section is mainly a sort of appraisal of his nature (distinguished scholar, gloomy and nervous, sounds familiar). But I couldn't suggest an alternative title so I'm not pressing the point, though if someone can think of something more apposite, that would be small improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't think of one either, Brian. If I had, I'd have gladly changed it (and if anyone comes up with one, please suggest it...) Thanks for the excellent peer review, by the way, and thank you for the review here (also thank you Nikki - it's been a wild couple of days here ... I'm a bit cranky.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
And I'm quite nitpicky, so call it even. The reason I asked about Sharpe was because you have another book from the same publisher that does have a more specific location. As to "Legacy", I've seen "Image", "Reception" and "Reputation" used for that type of section, although I'm not sure I'd prefer any of those here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead with Nikki's excellent suggestion of "Reception" - I've never been totally happy with Legacy either... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Another excellent piece of work. Very comprehensive but possible to follow what is going on and no obvious problems with jargon, etc. A few very, very minor points, none of which affect my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Minor picky point, but quite a few sentences begin "In 11XX…". Not sure much can be done that is not contrived, but it is slightly repetitive.
  • "is said to have sent Baldwin to Italy to study law.[5] Baldwin was also said to have taught at Exeter, although this is not substantiated by any contemporary record." Fussy point, but who said it? I assumed that it was contemporary "gossip" or hearsay, but it can't be if it is not in the records.
  • "after his father's death": Baldwin's or Bartholemew's?
  • "Eventually all the prominent ecclesiastics and monastic houses of Europe were forced into choosing sides in the dispute.": More of a personal query than anything to change: was it really such a big deal? It seems quite a local affair, even by contemporary standards. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed the second and third points, and on the fourth - yeah, you and I would consider it very minor but it wasn't in the time frame - it engaged most of the western European ecclesiastics at some point or another. The Becket cult was HUGE in medieval Europe - not just in England, but across most of modern France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Scandinavia - and any intimation that the body might be moved was big news. The Christ Church monks were not afraid to use the revenues that came in from the cult to protect their cash cow - at the first sign that they might possibly lose their stranglehold on the cult, they started screaming bloody murder throughout Europe and that usually created quite a ruckus. I haven't really thought that the episode needed much more detail - but yes, it was a big deal that caused quite a lot of grief to Baldwin - and his successor Huber Walter also. Walter had to drag himself before the king a couple of times because relations got so bad with his cathedral chapter (the monks of Christ Church - i.e. the monks who formed the clergy staffing Canterbury Cathedral). Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments reading through now on prose and comprehensiveness....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • In the Ecclesiastical career section, I'd swap the third and fourth sentences as the third seems to postdate the fourth (?) - another option is to make the fourth sentence have the pluperfect tense "... 1138 to 1155, had sent Baldwin to Italy to study law".
  • I'm copyediting as I go (please revert if I guff the meaning) - there are alot of "Baldwin"s throughout the text. I am seeing if we can do without a few without losing context.
  • The first three paras in the Writings and studies section all start "Baldwin...", which is a tad repetitive but I am having difficulty thinking of alternatives. One consideration might be to append para 3 (collaborations) onto para 1 (works), and move para 2 (sermons) to after this. Anyway, have a play.
  • I'm in two minds whether the quoted bits in the first two sentences of the Legacy section are worth the quote marks or better reworded without.

Otherwise looking spiffy as usual, eh what? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I got the first one, the copyediting looks fine, Malleus fixed the third one, and I think I lean towards the exact quotes for those - there are only three in the section, so rather than tax my poor brain thinking of paraphrases... definitely want to keep the Saladin one at least. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Agnew

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk) & The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Posting this for a second run. Although Dweller and I thought we'd copyedited it sufficiently before its previous nom, it became quickly apparent that that was not the case! Many comments later, the nom was closed due to lack of support. I believe we have covered all the main issues brought up in the previous nom and look forward to receiving further comments and suggestions this time round. Thanks, in advance, to all contributors for time and energy expended here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: This is looking really good now and a lot of work seems to have gone into it. Very comprehensive and representative of the available sources. It is almost there; some questions and comments and then I will be happy to support. Sorry if any of these seem fussy or nit-picky, and feel free to disagree. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Agnew/archive2 to reduce clutter on the page. Please revert if there is a problem with this. All my comments were either addressed or not something that required action and none affected my support below. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment, inclined to support: I've struck the comments which have been directly addressed. Most of the others are personal preference and I have no problem with them as such., but I have not struck them in case others want to chip in. The only remaining issues I have are with the Tyson ref and use of WP:INTEXT, while I've replied with further points to a few of the other things. I would like reassurance on the dirt-in-pocket and judgements on his effectiveness as a broadcaster, but I do not necessarily insist on action being taken before supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Have attempted to cover most of the existing concerns, only one I can't directly solve with Dweller's input is the Tyson ref... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Thanks for your patience, all my concerns have now been dealt with. Anything unstruck does not affect my support, it merely suggests that our views diverge slightly! I do not expect anything further to be done regarding these. Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "in Macclesfield, Cheshire and" missing comma, please check throughout.
    • Oxford comma? Not commonplace in British English so not needed in this dominantly British English article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is the "Background and early years" coming under "Playing career"? Presumably the notes about his parents, siblings and grandparent has nothing to do with playing career; thus, I would personally split the former off.
    • Dweller, you can deal with this preference comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It's a judgement call and it could go either way. However, there's not an awful lot in the background section that isn't about cricket. It just seemed neater this way. Also, this way, the overall structure is playing career, media career, private life, which is good and tight. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Agnew was born on 4 April 1960 at West Park Hospital in Macclesfield, Cheshire; his parents are Philip and Margaret Agnew." --> "Agnew was born on 4 April 1960 at West Park Hospital in Macclesfield, Cheshire, to Philip and Margaret Agnew."
  • Why isn't "West Park Hospital" wikified?
  • "18 year old" hyphens missing
  • Alt text missing
  • Caption for infobox photo?
  • Can the panoramic photo underneath "Broadcasting controversies" be enlarged?
    • I thought MOS said not to force images to specific sizes beyond the one in the lead? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "stint as chief cricket cricket writer"
  • FN 35 and 36 need to be filled in.

Thanks for the comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Don't mix {{citation}} with the {{cite}} family
    • Done, another editor had inserted these without me noticing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 61 is missing quite a bit of info - this is a book source and should be cited as such
    • Cited as much as I can find on the internet link, doesn't appear to have a page number. Dweller? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Book does not include page numbers. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You are not required to include retrieval dates for Google Books links, but you should be consistent in whether or not you do so
  • Don't cite to bare URLs
  • FN 92: page(s)?
  • FN 101: don't italicize edition, other books don't include location or abbreviate range. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed
    • Thanks, TRM will enjoy that lot. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Dweller, you need to look at ref 88 (the bare one Nikkimaria has found), and do something about it dude. Nikkimaria, thanks for your review! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Just a few quick ones from me, since what I saw at the first FAC was taken care of...

  • County cricket: Minor style point, but the dash in the block quote is an improper spaced em dash.
  • Later playing career and retirement: Every sentence here starts with Agnew. A little more variety than this is in order for an FA.
    • Well, not every sentence, but every paragraph. Couple of switches made. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Playing style and career summary: Comma could stand to be removed from "Cricket commentator, Colin Bateman opined".
  • The references to The Times newspapers are given in the form p. p#. Is the second p what the sport section is titled? If not, some extra ps may have crept in there. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Probably my fault when converting the {{citation}} templates to {{cite}} templates per Nikkimaria's concerns. Hopefully fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Provisional support – The article is greatly improved from when it was first at FAC. Since spot-checks and an image review are still needed, I'll be conservative in my support until these reviews take place. This can be considered a full support when they are done. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Some comments, I have only reviewed an article once before so apologies if I in some way break the rules, or if I am being too pedantic.

  • in lede - "Agnew had a successful first-class career as a fast bowler for Leicestershire from 1979 to 1990, returning briefly in 1992." Agnew's brief return was in a limited overs match, not a first-class game. In any event the return is probably not important enough to deserve a mention here.
    • Agreed on the confusion between first-class and one-day. But I do think it would be misleading for the lead to say he finished in 1990 when he had that cameo in 1992. I'll ponder it. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Agnew's most successful seasons came toward the end of his career, after his last international match, when he had learned to swing the ball" reads as if he learnt about swinging the ball in his last international match.
    • Needs addressing, thanks --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Following the end of his playing career" seems a clumsy phrase. Perhaps "since his playing career concluded"... or is the phrase necessary at all?
    • I'm not sure what the problem is here. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It's clumsy phrasing because nothing follows an end. The word "since" is better. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Surprised that nothing "follows an end", but I think I've rephrased it so we can all get on nicely and have a jolly weekend. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Michael Henderson, one of Agnew's peers and rivals". Henderson is an opinion columnist in the newspapers - I don't think he can really be described as a rival of Agnew. They don't do the same sort of job.
    • Agreed, needs fixing. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it common to record the listing of his parents' marriage in a newspaper? It seems irrelevant detail to me.
    • It's cited background info, there seems little harm in its inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "From the age of 16 he developed his skills as a right-arm fast bowler out of school hours at Alf Gover's cricket school at Surrey." The words "out of school hours" seem unnecessary.
    • They're needed, otherwise it appears that he attended a cricket school as a school, rather than as an extracurricular activity --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • But you've already mentioned he went to a school, a few words before. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Different schools. One for education, t'other for clicket. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "in time for the 1978 season" the words "in time" are superfluous.
    • Have adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The words weren't superfluous - without them, it implies he was given a one season deal. --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Dweller, I'm not sure about that, in my mind it could be argued that "in time for the 1978 season" implies a single season too... Horses for courses? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Agnew found himself bowling to..." the phrase "found himself" is too flowery, why not "Agnew bowled to" or "Agnew played against"? Good writing is straightforward.
    • Actually, I think we're trying to write engaging prose, and this is an attempt to demonstrate that it was something of a shock for a young player to face such a veteran professional in his debut. You could just say "bowled to" but it would lose all sense of prominence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the phrase "found itself" is an ugly one. It suggests it was some sort of surprise to Agnew that he found himself playing or found Lloyd in the opposition, neither of which would have been at all surprising to him. The surprise element was that vhe bowled so well as is made clear in the words that follow. I don't find it engaging, but obviously it is not a major issue. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "he had taken just six first-class wickets" - shouldn't the "just" be "only"?
    • Why? --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Well I normally use "only" when I am wanting to emphasise the small number that follows, and "just" when you are making a broader statement that is more shutting down other alternatives. For example, Dean B is just a newcomer to FAC but of the two us, Dweller is the only one who is an administrator. Again, not a big issue, but as I'm what you would call a copy editor by trade, these points are of interest to me. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The award afforded him the opportunity" - again this seems too flowery. "As the prize, he spent..." is more straightforward.
    • FACs are expected to be written well, not in simple English. I don't see a problem with the phrase. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I guess we'll have to courteously disagree over whether "afforded the opportunity" really is good writing. No-one uses that sort of phrase when speaking and it really adds nothing. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I think postulating that "no-one uses that sort of phrase when speaking" is a little hyperbolic, it's a turn of phrase that seems (to me, at least) to be acceptable in general prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Agnew's career did not initially live up to his early promise" "- I think "Initially, Agnew's career did not live up to its early promise" would be more grammatical.
    • Agreed. Will fix. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Under the test cricket section there is a wikified reference to the term "blackwash". The link doesn't really describe the origin of the term which is a reference to the colour of the West Indian players. I suspect it isn't a phrase that would be used today, but in any event I don't think it's necessary here, it has no relevance to Agnew's story. "to avoid losing all five tests in the series" would be more meaningful for the reader.
    • Referenced "blackwash" with regard to this series. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • But the reference doesn't explain what a blackwash is. I think it is confusing for the reader who doesn't understand this jargon and you really need to know a lot about cricket to know what this means. I also feel uncomfortable with the racial overtones. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        • No, the reference corroborates that it was "known as" the "blackwash" and the wikilink to the specific game in the series gives it context. It's not our job to censor Wikipedia, so while I'm sure we're all uncomfortable with the tone, it is an important phrase and an important part of cricket history here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "He was immediately dropped again from the side..." I think "subsequently" would be better than "immediately".
  • Under "playing style and career summary" the paragraph about his batting seems to be overly generous about his batting ability. I have no problem with mentioning his highest score, but surely it should be in the context that Agnew spent most of his career at 10 or 11 in the batting order. At least his FC average - 11 - should be recorded here.
    • Agreed, we should mention his average - which is far better than the rabbit reputation he's developed on TMS would suggest. I don't really have a good source for him being a 10/11. --Dweller (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "His first duty was to cover England's 1990–91 Ashes tour" - this is incorrect, he covered that tour for the Today newspaper, not for the BBC. As noted earlier in the paragraph, he joined the BBC in 1991, not 1990.
    • I think he was commentating on the radio, too, but not part of TMS as in those days TMS didn't cover those tours. I'll check. --Dweller (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I can provide you some references if you wish. They would take up a bit of room here. Would it be better for me to email you some, or post on your personal talk page. Let me know if you want this and how. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 2007, Martin-Jenkins cited Agnew as the sports journalist he most respects". If you look at the reference Martin-Jenkins says he respects all his fellow cricket correspondents, and Agnew. He doesn't name Agnew as the single journalist he most respects.
  • Under "private life and personality", "when they worked together on BBC radio Leicestershire", I think Radio should have a capital R.

Again, apologies if this is all too pedantic, but I was reluctant to edit the page myself directly, given its nomination here and my relative inexperience. Dean B (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are excellent, and helpful and I agree with many of them. Thank you. Please do check back in when we've finished going through them. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good writing is, indeed, straightforward. Thanks for your comments. You are, as always (and with any article), welcome to engage in editing. Indeed, new eyes on an article are very welcome as it becomes something of a chore to repeatedly review the same prose so anything you'd like to do to the article (obviously, beyond a radical overhaul!) would be welcome. Hopefully between me and Dweller, we can address your immediate concerns. Again, cheers for your interest and detailed review comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay thanks. :) Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. My main objection from the previous FAC remains: inappropriate inclusion of the "leg over" incident in the lead section. I also had several other points during the previous FAC. While all my points have been "responded to", I have a few ongoing disagreements with The Rambling Man. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Okay, thanks. I don't see anything "ongoing" there, just matters of taste that we presumably will just disagree on. Also, it should be noted that Dweller asked in your link "I think all of Axl's comments have been responded to. If I've missed one, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)" to which you didn't respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, with the following comments:

  • I, too, have expressed criticism concerning the "leg-over" incident in the lead. I still have reservations about this, but not to the extent of opposing on these grounds. TRM and Dweller are experienced and responsible editors, and if their judgement is at odds with mine, well, that sometimes happens.
  • I have a further reservation about the use of File:Vivian richards crop.jpg. In my resolution, Richards's features are barely discernible; it could be a picture of anyone. With further editing of the image for brightness and contrast it should be possible to get a version in which Richards becomes recognisable; have you tried this? At present, I doubt that the image is worth keeping.
    • Brian, I've replaced it with a much more contrasty image, so perhaps that will assuage you concern over this image? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For some reason this article attracts more than its fair share of attention from minor copyeditors. Most of these suggestions are useful but many are very minor, and much of these long tracts of comment should I think be transferred to the article's talkpage rather than lengthening this FAC page indefinitely.
    • Agreed, of course we welcome all comments but FAC's refusal to use templates which allow compression of text mean that this has already reached extreme TL;DR length in a week. More than happy to take comments on this FAC's talk page or the article talk page or, indeed, on my or Dweller's user talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agnew is rather more interesting as a man than he was as a cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely true. And what's more, once we've got this featured, we'll let him know and see what he has to say about it on TMS, he has mentioned his Wikipedia article a few times in the past, so it'll be interesting! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now This is a very good article, but goes off the rails towards the end I'm afraid.
    • The coverage of Agnew's personal life and playing and broadcasting career is excellent, and I have only the following minor comments on it:
      • "The award afforded him the opportunity to spend a winter in Australia" - was this the northern or southern winter?
        • Well, it has to be a northern hemisphere winter or it wouldn't make sense (why fly to Australia to play cricket in their winter?), but I can't source it, perhaps Dweller can! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • "After ending his playing career at a relatively young age of 30, after the 1990 season" - this has already been said
      • It should be noted that Agnew is also part of the commentary panel on the Australian ABC radio's Grandstand program when England tours Australia
        • The first source from ABC I've found seems to imply it's the other way around, that ABC piggyback TMS with an ABC presenter joining the main panel of commentators. Do you have anything sourcing it differently? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Do we know roughly when Agnew's two marriages took place? (eg, which years?)
        • There's nothing easy online, I've asked one of our Times correspondents if he can help! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • First marriage to Beverley, 8 October 1983. Children, Jennifer 31 October 1985; Rebecca 18 September 1988. Source: The Cricketers' Who's Who, 1991 edition, editor Iain Sproat, Collins Willow, ISBN 0 00 218396 X. Johnlp (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • "It's ****ing [sic] red hot on the field, and when you come off it's ****ing red hot in the dressing-room," Agnew screamed. "Then, what do you get for lunch, ****ing red hot curry?"" - we can use the word 'fuck' in direct quotes, so the stars seem unnecessary.
        • We haven't censored it, the source has censored it so I'd be loathe to second-guess what should replace the ****'s. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • However, the last 'Broadcasting controversies' and '"Leg over" incident' sections really need a lot of work.
      • For starters, the concept of 'controversy' sections is generally frowned upon. The material they contain should be integrated into other sections.
      • How is Agnew's comments about all the British cricket media being banned from Zimbabwe a 'controversy'?
      • Likewise, what was 'controversial' about Agnew's interview with Michael Vaughan or comments about Michael Atherton? These kind of incidents seem perfectly normal for professional sports broadcaster, as they invariably interview people who make fools of themselves and are encouraged to state their opinion on various matters
      • Does the 'Leg over incident' really need three paragraphs? It could be cut down to a single paragraph (eg, he said it, it was funny, and it was voted the most popular of nine options in one phone-in or internet poll).
      • What's the purpose of the paragraph detailing several other double entendres? Part of Agnew's charm as a commentator is that he's often very funny, and I don't see why these incidents should be highlighted. It would be much better to have a paragraph discussing how Agnew uses humour to lighten up his commentary as it's an important part of his success as a broadcaster. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Noisy Miner

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Mdk572 (talk · contribs)

Marj and I have buffed this little critter (found in everyone's backyard here in Oz ("noisy" is an understatement!) to give it a shot at the mainpage one day. Feel it is as good as many other bird FAs and there are two of us to address concerns pronto. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments from PumpkinSky
  1. Who's Marj? (curious, not in article history by that name)
  2. Ref 3 has a date format that does not match the others. PumpkinSky talk 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jim usual high standard, obligatory niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I made these edits, please check. In particular, I remove much double spacing from the text. Some of this was at the start of sentences, so may have been intentional, but was not consistent so I edited it out. If you prefer the older, AE type double spacing (no pov from me!), please make sure it's reapplied consistently.
  • I pruned the "howevers", please check that the survivors are essential
  • Two subspecies have long been recognised, with M. m. leachifound in eastern Tasmania, while the mainland population has been split into three in 1999. — "was split", I think, but clunky anyway. What about something like Four subspecies are currently recognised. The separation of the Tasmanian M. m. leachi is of long standing, and the mainland birds were further split in 1999?
  • Is it worth mentioning that the change from Merops was because it was realised that it wasn't a bee-eater?
  • If I can find a source which says that, I'll add, but I don't recall seeing any thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • One of their most obvious characteristics — perhaps add of the genus?
  • A 1999 study suggested that two additional subspecies be recognised — are these now generally accepted?
  • Far North Queensland — is the capitalised "Far" correct?
  • (Ocyphaps lophotes) — why binomial for this but not other birds?
  • binomials of bird spp. (but not genera) now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, CoI as member of bird project, one more comment I notice that grevillea is lc in the text and capitalised in the image caption, they can't both be right. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've lowercased the cases where "grevillea" is used as the common name for the genus, rather than when it is italicised and used in a scientific name. Can be tricky.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Images All appropriately licensed, I wonder if it's possible with the second image to clarify that User:Noodle snacks is J J Harrison. I know one redirects to the other, but it could be made explicit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Missing bibliographic info for Officer 1964 (unless that should be 1965?)
added some info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
64 typo fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No citations to Beruldsen 1980
Reinstated. He is quoted by Higgins but is the recognised nest/eggs expert. Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 1: why the bolding?
Looks like double italics - title and scientific name. Fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
Changed to consistent single within double Marj (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What is ANU E?
Hosted by the Australian National University, ANU E Press publishes electronic scholarly works Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Looks like I don't and Cas does. Think I have them removed them all.Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't mix {{citation}} with the {{cite}} family
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals
The cite doi template does not give publishers. Do you want to change the others to match Cas?Marj (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • When listing Australian locations, be consistent in whether they include state name, just "Australia", or none of the above (more common names could include nothing, but consistently - compare Canberra and Sydney, which have about the same recognition), and if states whether these are abbreviated
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
  • What is CSIRO, and why does Emu have two different publishers?
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - a government publisher of scientific and technical books and journals, including Emu, the mouthpiece of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists´ Union. It was previously published independently by the RAOU. Given CSIRO consistently and wikilinked first mention. Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Advice? In RL I'm used to giving the publisher when it is published by/for a noteworthy organisation only. So 'Nordic Society Oikos' but not 'Wiley-Blackwell' Is there a wikipedia or bird project guideline on this? Marj (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • How I've always worked is that I've never put a publisher for journals but always for books and web links where possible. Makes things alot simpler :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

Hey, Cas, your green responses are created with some sort of template, I guess? Templates get more than double-counted (for some reason Gimmetrow can explain) in transcluded pages, and cause errors in the FAC archives per Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok -I'll de-templated them in a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Cross of Gold speech

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it meets the criteria in my view. The Cross of Gold speech is William Jennings Bryan's effort a the Democratic convention in 1896, which may have won him the nomination at the cost of the election. Though I think McKinley would have won regardless. While it is not a requirement to so state, I have reviewed the following articles which are at or have been at FAC, since my last nomination: John Tyler, Martha Layne Collins, Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song). Possibly others, I have not in the past kept track. Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: I think that this article is important enough and extremely well cited without a single citation needed tag that I can find. It is well written and appropriately illustrated as well. Zibart (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Compelling stuff; the account of the Democratic Convention leading up to the speech, and the record of the speech itself, are particularly arresting. Naturally I have a few prose quibbles and minor queries:-

  • At least one too many commas in "The gold standard, which the United States had effectively been on since 1873, limited the money supply, but eased trade with other nations, such as the United Kingdom, whose currency was also based on gold." Also "been on" jars - I'd make that "embraced". My version: "The gold standard, which the United States had effectively embraced in 1873, limited the money supply while easing trade with nations such as the United Kingdom, whose currency was also based on gold."
  • California Gold Rush: I know there's a link, but the year should be given
  • Presumably the Coinage Act of 1873 preceded the Panic of 1873, but by how much?
  • Oxymoron watch: "a riveting three-hour address". Is the adjective yours, or was it described as such by someone who sat through it?
Kazin says (page 39) "It was a riveting performance". I assume he was not there, but the description convinces me it was justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "which was until 1913 not elected by the people, but instead by state legislatures". Slightly clumsy: "which until 1913 was elected by the state legislatures rather than the popular vote" would in my view be clearer.
  • When you say he "came up" with the phrase in 1894, do you mean he used it? It would be interesting to know exactly when and where.
  • Bryan lacked a seat at the start of the convention - but suddenly we have: "Bryan, once seated, was Nebraska's representative..." etc. How did he get to be seated?
It is mentioned in the quote from Barnes near the start of the "Silver advocates" section. The Credential Committees made two key rulings, they seated the pro-silver Nebraska and Michigan delegations, and their report was adopted by the convention. I felt that the Barnes quote adequately got us by something which would slow down the story to detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "an incendiary address" - yours, or source's?
    The word is mine, but it is justified. Williams says, "Worse, he quickly lost the audience with an agitated speech which combined an appeal to sectionalism with rabid abuse of Grover Cleveland."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The dissidents nominated their own ticket; the split in the vote would contribute to Bryan's defeat". The second part of this statement is questionable; the dissidents' candidate, John Palmer of Illinois, garnered only 0.95% of the vote. McKinley's margin over Bryan was over 4%. Thus it might be worth modifying the "would contribute" statement.

All in all, an article of the best quality. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the support. I need to doublecheck sources on a couple of those. I will say that Palmer/Buckner, while negligible on a national level, cost Bryan dearly in Kentucky.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I will address the remaining comments tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
All those things are done now, or else commented on. I'm content with the language on Palmer, he did hurt Bryan badly in the border states (Kentucky, where Buckner was from, and West Virginia, especially). I just say "contributing to" because the sources don't think the split was crucial, but it hurt him, along with many other things, the money advantage of the Republicans, the failure of the Democrats and Populists to fully fuse behind Bryan, and Bryan's failure to appeal to the urban vote. And other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - All of my concerns were addressed at the Peer Review. Excellent article on an interesting (and important) bit of American history. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for the many comments at peer review, which led to a considerable improvement in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • File:Cross_of_gold_speech_cartoon.jpg: source link returns 404 error, missing a US PD tag
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Be consistent in whether journal entries in Bibliography include complete page range or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoroughness; I will deal with these tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Those things are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Glen P. Robinson

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The last FAC, started on Nov 8 and closed on Dec 12, made it all the way down the page with only one reviewer; User:Fifelfoo proposed some excellent changes. Hopefully, this nomination will receive a bit more love than that one did. :) Disavian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "Glen Parmelee Robinson, Jr." Missing comma.
  • Author for FN 3 is missing.
  • The caption for the photo is missing.
  • "Atlanta-area science-based companies." --> "Atlanta-based science-related companies."
  • "moved to Valdosta, Georgia in" missing comma after Georgia; please check throughout article.
    • Done. That was the only instance I could find. Disavian (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "American possessions during World War II." --> American possessions during the war." Stating WWII twice in one sentence is awkward.
  • "radiology-related equipment"
  • "it had $3.1 million revenue" --> "it had received $3.1 million in revenue"
  • "and $1.9 billion in revenue in 2005." for consistency with preceding figures, please also provide the amount in today's money?
  • "As of 2006, he and his wife, Jan, have had five" Not sure about this, since I have a limited understanding of English grammar.
  • FN 15 and 20 -- seasons should not be capitalised.
  • Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'll be out all day judging a LEGO robotics competition, so it'll be a bit before I'm able to attend to most of your suggestions :) Disavian (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That sounds cool -- enjoy yourself. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Support My comments had been satisfactorily addressed; 1a/b/c/d/e (✔), 2a/b/c (✔), 3 (✔), and 4 (✔) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 02:05, January 23, 2012

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
  • Be consistent in whether locations are provided for books
  • Be consistent in how magazine/journal publishers are notated, and indeed whether they are included at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Manhunter (film)

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after two peer reviews, two GOCE cop-edits and two previous FACs, I believe it ticks all the criteria. A neo-noir box office flop which seem directly responsible for the increasing popularity of both forensic science and criminal profiling in pop culture. The last FAC failed due to there still being possible sources which hadn't been vetted for use, these have now been reviewed (and rejected as redundant to the material already present). Images have been used sparingly but I'm open to adding more free images if this is seen as a detriment. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Ha! First one on an FAC for once! I've just made a few grammatical edits to the article, but otherwise I have no objections. It's very well-written and informative. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - with regard to FA criterion 1a. There is a little redundancy, e.g. "in order to", where just "to" will suffice, and I would prefer to see "a ride" expanded a little – it's a little too colloquial for my tastes. I have watched this film many times, thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Reducing "in order to" to "to" can come across as very terse and can make a sentence harder to read. I think this is why "in order to" is so common even in formal writing. However, I have reduced both instances. I'm not sure whether "a ride" is colloquial or simply AmE, but I've changed it to "a lift". Wikt doesn't mark either as colloquial or regional, but I hope this is OK. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • FN 4 and similar should use endash, not hyphen
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated
  • FN 7 and similar need not repeat publisher
  • Compare formatting on FNs 14 and 15
  • FN 17: punctuation
  • Be consistent in whether directors are listed first or last name first
  • FN 29: check title vs publisher
  • FN 30: publisher?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Check italicization
  • What is SIU?
  • FN 45: page?
  • Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using website name or base URL, and if the latter whether these are italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for combing over this. I removed the Ain't It Cool News ref and the associated text, having found that the author has had his journalistic integrity questioned in the past. I think I've addressed the other concerns, but I've quite possibly missed a few. I'm not sure, though, where I've inconsistently listed editors or directors, could you be specific with where this is? Editors are all listed using the relevant fields in the citation templates, which always spits out "Surname, Forename. ed."; and I believe anyone credited as a director in has been listed "Forename Surname (director)". Then again, it's three AM and I might have missed something GRAPPLE X 02:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • FN 7 for editor, 78 for director (and 64 is strange too, and 21 vs 45, possible others). Still several hyphen/dash issues, repeating and sometimes contradictory publishers (ex. FN 49), 14 and 15 are still inconsistent, 29 still misses the actual title of the cited page (though now includes work), still italicization problems (ex FN 14). That being said, sleep is probably more vital than addressing formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Will give it another look through tomorrow, but have grabbed everything you've mentioned specifically for now - except FN 14 (I removed italics from it earlier, if that's what you're referring to, unless you feel they should be restored? The A.V. Club is a web-only source, not sure that's meant to be italicised); and 29 (I have the title down as "The Reds Official Web Site", its title in my browser is "THE REDS OFFICIAL WEB SITE", though I believe the convention is to replace all-caps with title casing. Does the name display differently for you, or is it the casing thing just?). Going to bed for now but I'll check for further instances of what you've noted tomorrow evening. GRAPPLE X 03:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Our article does italicize AV Club, but I'll leave that to your discretion - what I was looking at there was the date formatting, and the inconsistent italicization which has been addressed. For 29, that's the name of the site, but not the specific page on the site that you're citing (you're right about the casing). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Although I'm not sure what the page title is meant to be (I'm only seeing the "The Reds Official Web Site" bit and nothing more), I've changed the title to the title of the interview given in the text, rather than on the browser tab. If that's not what you meant then it can be reverted. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Good work, even if light on images (I'm used to see these movie articles trying to become more illustrated through every free image possible). igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Golding Bird

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Article has been through GA, PR and GOCE. It is about an important figure in the history of medicine. I believe it is now ready for FA. SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "In his electrotherapy, Bird used both electrochemical and electrostatic machines (and later also electromagnetic induction machines) to treat a very wide range of conditions, such as some forms of chorea. Treatments included peripheral nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation and electric shock therapy. Bird also used his invention, the electric moxa, to heal skin ulcers." - source?
    • The sources are at the end of the paragraph. Is there a specific problem.electric moxa section. The paragraphs immediately following the "Electricity" heading are an introduction to what follows (a mini-lede if you like) and contain no information that is not referenced in what follows (other than the reference to the New Frankenstein magazine).
  • Use a consistent format for Bird's own articles
    • Done
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
    • The bibliography is consistently last name, first name where alphabetical listings are of some use to the reader. Elsewhere the natural form of names are used.
  • FN 30 and similar: there are two works with that title
    • Done
  • Why not include both authors for Payne?
    • Done
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    • Done
  • FN 72: why not put this in Bibliography?
    • Done
  • Ranges should use dashes
    • Done
  • Be consistent in whether or not months are abbreviated
    • Done
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
    • Done
  • FN 19: formatting
    • What is the issue? I don't see the problem.
  • Don't include page numbers in Bibliography book entries
    • The only one that (now) has page numbers is Steel. This is because a specific, named chapter is being referenced.

In general, citation/referencing format should be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I have gone through putting ref elements in a consistent order. SpinningSpark 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) to 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments - I'll jot some notes below and copyedit as I go. Feel free to revert me if'n I inadevertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
and was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. - I'd change "advanced" to "precocious" as it has a more specific meaning which I think is what you're trying to get at here.
I did mean "advanced" and this is my understanding of the sources, in the sense that Bird was knowledgable through his own self-study. It was certainly also precocious of course.
.. at a private school that was not very interested in science - hmm, "interested" one usually thinks of students not schools, I'd go with " at a private school that did not promote (or teach?) science"
"promote" is acceptable, "teach" is not, afair the sources do not directly state science was not taught. Science is not included in the classics so this is implied, but it would by synthesis to say so.
This must be a record - nine (9) consecutive paragraphs in the Life and career section begin with "Bird...". I will change a few.....
It was only eight before it was copyedited but that still leaves me 83% to blame! SpinningSpark 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, oops! I've never seen this problem before, and completely overlooked it. Thanks for dealing with it, Casliber. --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have now incorporated Casliber's second suggestion in the article. SpinningSpark 10:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Super Meat Boy

Nominator(s): PresN 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, take 3 for this troublesome indie video game. The last FAC died out due to a lack of comments, which wasn't helped by the fact that I was out of the country and it was the winter holidays. It's been two weeks, so lets give it another go! It was copyedited by the WP:GOCE before the first time, as well as beat on in the last two FACs; all of the refs are working and archived, and it has alt text and no redirects. It got source reviews the last two times, and a media review in the first FAC. I addressed everything that came up in the last FAC, so hopefully this will be the last respawn. --PresN 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (Not a wikicup nom, as most of the work was done last year)

  • Support I was busy and forgot to support. ♫GoP♫TCN 10:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No problem, I got busy and didn't ask people to come back. Thanks for reviewing it last time! --PresN 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support My only minor complaint is in the Reception section, websites is split into two as "web sites", despite the fact that in the article, it says that it is also spelled like that; I just rarely see it split into two words-SCB '92 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed, and thank you. --PresN 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; I think I remember seeing this at FAC before, but didn't bother commenting then. Anyway, it looks to be in good condition. Good job. Tezero (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support from a Grammar Nazi. I only had to make one minor change to the article for grammar, and it wasn't really even grammar-related. Truly an excellent article! Interchangeable|talk to me 01:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing! I agree with your change, as well. --PresN 01:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments from Mark Arsten at 03:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC): Alright, the article looks pretty good to me. I'm not familiar with video game articles (and am a beginner at FAC) so I can't comment too much on some aspects of this. Here are some thoughts though:
  • Check the use of "Due to" vs "Because of"
  • Check for the use of the noun + -ing construction.
  • "They had four months' worth of work left to complete on the game, so, for the final two months, they worked daily, slept five hours a night, and frequently forgot to eat—a process that McMillen said he "would never voluntarily go through" again." What do you think about rephrasing this so it's a shorter sentence/has less punctuation?
  • "These warp zones feature bonus levels that have either the art style of older video games and a limit of three lives, or are patterned after another indie video game.[1] The player may control characters other than Meat Boy, many of whom first appeared in other independent video games." Maybe note examples of the other games here?
  • Is the Commander Video you mention in the article the same as Commander Video? Maybe link him if it is.
  • "They felt the replay feature transformed death in the game into a form of reward." I think you could probably cut out "in the game" here.
  • Thanks for the review! Addressed all of these concerns; I find the "noun+ing" constructions hard to spot, so thanks for the link to Tony's guide on them. No worries about not being familiar with video game articles; an FA is supposed to be accessible to all readers, not just video game article editors. --PresN 04:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Finished reading the article, other than some small word choice or punctuation issues I think the article is fine. The first paragraph of the Reception section didn't seem to flow that well for me, but I can't think of any good ways to fix it. Some real small comments:
  • "Official Xbox Magazine (UK)'s Mike Channel appreciated the variety found in each set of levels." Why do you note the location here?
  • OXM UK and US, while both called just "Official Xbox Magazine" and sharing an owning company, are entirely different magazines, with different reviewers. --PresN 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Joe Leonard of 1UP.com noted that the game's humor and over-the-top gameplay help to calm frustrations regarding the difficulty. "Super Meat Boy's greatest strength has to be how it never takes itself too seriously—as maddening as some of the levels got, I could never stay angry at the game for too long," said Leonard." Maybe condense to one sentence with a colon?
  • "On January 11, 2011, Baranowsky and Team Meat released a special edition soundtrack on Bandcamp as both a downloadable and physical release." Could you rephrase to avoid "released... release"? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The PC version has a "Super Meat World" section, which allows users to play and rate additional levels that players have created with a level editor, released in May 2011." Maybe try to rephrase this to make it clearer what "released in May 2011" refers to? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • All addressed; except for one comment above. --PresN 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, every issue that I could spot has been fixed, good job PresN! I am more than willing to Support on prose/presentation/MOS criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you didn't complain about it last time. Game Set Watch is owned/run by UBM TechWeb as a sister site to the RS Gamasutra. UBM also runs Game Developer magazine, the Game Developers Conference, and the Independent Games Festival. --PresN 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
What kind of editorial oversight or fact-checking policy do they have for this site? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, can't find one, though the author is the head editor of the site. Replaced with a PC Gamer article. --PresN 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Images check out. Both are non-free, but both are accompanied by detailed rationales and clearly meet the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - I remember Meat Boy from when it was just a mediocre free-to-play flash game. Then again, I remember Kongregate from before it sold out and became a paid advertising platform for Scion. I guess that makes me, in terms of flash gamers, exceedingly old. Good article, short and easy read. Although I normally don't support FACs (I just don't feel qualified), I can't find anything wrong with this and I'd hate to see it die only from inattention twice in a row. (After all, there are so many other better ways for Meat Boy to die Face-wink.svg). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! And you're not that old, I remember finding the old Kongregate back in the day too. --PresN 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "The WiiWare version was canceled as a result of the challenge of meeting the file size limitations imposed by Nintendo, primarily due to the expansion in the size of the game from the initial proposal." has too many nouns in it, and I'm not quite sure what it means. And why the "primarily"? Would something like "The WiiWare version was canceled because the game's file size was expanded beyond the limits imposed by Nintendo." work? Ucucha (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well sure, if you want it to be easily readable instead of obtuse. Done. --PresN 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Missouri River

Nominator(s): Shannºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on the Missouri River article for something like half an year since the last (and third) FAC. Between then and now I have thoroughly copyedited the page, completely rewritten three sections (including the lead) and addressed all issues brought up in previous reviews, in the fear of breaking the record for most failed FACs on WP. The page has been a good article for over nine months now; overall I think it is comprehensive and well-referenced enough to deserve featured status.

Missing alt texts, broken links and dablinks have been repaired as of the day of the nomination for the convenience of the FA reviewers.

Shannºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Improvements have been made since the previous nomination, but I still feel the article does not meet the FA criteria. A sampling of concerns:

  • "However, his reputation was enhanced in 1720 when the Pawnee–who had earlier been befriended by Bourgmont–massacred the Spanish Villasur expedition near present-day Columbus, Nebraska on the Missouri River and temporarily ending Spanish encroachment on French Louisiana." - source?
  • "By the early 21st century, declines in populations of native species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species." - source?
  • Numerous inconsistencies in reference/citation formatting, and some incomplete citations. Journal articles without weblinks need page numbers. Same with newspapers.
  • Considerable sandwiching of text between tables and images - on my screen, the Navigation section is actually made quite difficult to follow because of the layout
  • MOS issues - hyphens/dashes, overlinking, etc
  • File:Pick-Sloan_Plan.png: source link returns error. Same for File:Yellowstone_(steamboat)_aground.jpg, File:Missouririver1.jpg, File:Nishnabotna_River_aerial.jpg
  • What makes the Ezine article, which triggered the spam filter when I tried to note it here, a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I have addressed all the above comments except maybe overlinking. Could you please specify which section(s) to look at? Also, the Ezine reference (which I replaced) did not have a URL, so I can only wonder how it triggered the spam filter... Shannºn 22:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Some reference formatting I noticed right away (in the five or so minutes I looked):
  • Some citations for PPL Montana/pplmontana.org seem to be duplicated; also, use one of the two names consistently
  • A fair few of the citations have inconsistent (to the assumed article standard of YYYY-MM-DD) date formatting
  • If you're going to use cite doi, make sure ALL names are formatted the way cite doi does it, or copy the information into a different cite template
  • Check all the ISBN numbers for consistent use of dashing.
This is by no means an exhaustive review, however. ClayClayClay 06:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, except I'm not really sure what you mean by "all names are formatted the way Cite doi does it," as far as I know this template automatically fills out the refs, and I have limited control over what it actually does. Shannºn 06:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is, since Cite doi formats its references a certain way, to use consistent style either all references should be formatted that way or Cite doi would not be appropriate: see Template:Cite doi#Formatting. ClayClayClay 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I'll use a different cite template, then, since I don't want to convert the 200-ish other citations instead :P Shannºn 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Finished that.Shannºn 01:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Still seeing MOS issues - overlinking and dash problems just in the lead. Use either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes; don't link very common terms like Europe, and don't relink terms, especially not in close proximity (like Cenozoic twice in as many paragraphs). Lots of citation issues - compare publisher formatting on FNs 5 and 6, remove stray punctuation marks as in FNs 55 and 182 among others, compare author formatting on FNs 41 and 64, need page numbers for FNs 99-101, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed all the above, except for ref 182 – Im not sure what you mean by stray punctuation mark. I looked over the citation a dozen times and all I notice is the double periods after the author name, which are caused by the template syntax. This also occurs on other featured articles including ref 84 on Columbia River. Are those supposed to exist or should I just remove the period after Lee W. ? Shannºn 06:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the nominator has done a great job on this massive 10,196-word article; given its size, the abovementioned problems are understandable. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Nominator(s): — Richwales (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it discusses a landmark US Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship — one which has increased in prominence in recent years because of renewed controversy over birthright citizenship for US-born children of illegal immigrants. The article covers the topic clearly and comprehensively, and after two peer reviews and a prior FAC (which came close but not quite close enough), I believe it is now in suitable condition to be recognized as a Featured Article. — Richwales (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC) [with additions to statement — 00:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)]

Restart, link to previous comments. After receiving a significant amount of attention and re-working, this nomination seems to have stalled in recent days, and the nominator's final comments indicates some weariness. It's hard to tell what has been addressed and where everyone now stands, so restart for a fresh look rather than close for lack of consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on criterion 3 only as per before restart. —Andrewstalk 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Newly added image File:Horacegrayphoto.jpg is OK. I changed the licence tag for File:Melville Weston Fuller Chief Justice 1908.jpg from {{PD-old}} to the more appropriate {{PD-US}} (my support on images stands). —Andrewstalk 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment — Everyone please note that there's been a lot of new work done on this article over the past several days — so you'll all probably want to go through it again and see what you think about it now. — Richwales 03:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for the time being ... Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • (extended discussion moved to talk page; please go here to find and add to this discussion)

Support: I have re-read the article, which has improved considerably during and since the previous nomination in which my detailed concerns were discussed and addressed. I find the reasoning behind Calliopejen1's oppose incoherent; this is not a legal journal paper, it is an account intended for laypersons of a case and the law surrounding it, and I think it does this job well. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Largely per Brian above, I find Calliopejen1's comments a bit vague (and maybe not even relevant to the standards). Using Roe v. Wade - the only FA court case article at the present - I think this article passes far ahead in content; specifically the significant development sections and the analysis of the Opinions itself. Also, I think a strong kudos is in order to Richwales who has worked extraordinarily hard on getting this article to where it is now! Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments, still leaning toward oppose ... Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • (extended discussion moved to talk page; please go here to find and add to this discussion)

[edit] Fellows v. Blacksmith

Nominator(s): Savidan 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's a great article about an obscure U.S. Supreme Court case from the mid-19th century. It's been a "good article" for over a year, during which time it has been extremely stable (with the exception of my recent edits to conform the citations to the Bluebook). I hope others agree. Otherwise, I'll be happy to address any concerns. Savidan 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

While I'm not an expert on law articles by any means, this seems like an interesting subject. However, the lead seems extremely awkward to me. It took me until the third paragraph before I learned what Fellows v. Blacksmith was actually about -- shouldn't that be explained up front? The first sentence of the lead currently compares the case to another which happened nearly thirty years prior; similar cases, perhaps, but not a good introduction -- especially for those who don't know anything, like myself. Also, why the lengthy quotes in the first two paragraphs? As far as I can tell, these quotes do not appear in the body of the article (which may violate WP:LEAD), and they do not seem inherently notable. If they are notable, perhaps more context should be given to show this? If they're simply long quotes taking up space, it would be helpful to paraphrase the main ideas rather than rely solely on them. Lastly, I see nothing about the companion cases, or even Fellows' legacy, both of which takes up a large chunk of the article.

I will be happy to read the rest of the article once the lead is reviewed/revised/expanded. Let me know if you have any questions, María (yllosubmarine) 20:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points. I have reworked the intro per your suggestion. I have repeated the quotes where they are relevant in the article. I hope this makes clear their summary role. While I think both are particularly well-worded, I am open to paraphrase suggestions. Savidan 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead is much improved, thanks! I hope to return shortly to review the rest of the article. María (yllosubmarine) 14:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments by CJLippert

The article is very well written. The article does summarise the case the way I understand it, and it goes into details. It does seem to be well cited with equal amounts of inline and footnote citation styles, but the actual citations listed is lacking; for a case this magnitude in US Indian Law, one would think there would be more "References" and "Further reading" than just the works currently listed. However, more importantly for a FA status, all the red links should be addressed by either making them into actual articles or de-wiki them for now; by extension, all the articles this article wiki links should be checked to ensure they don't have broken links or vandalism. Once those issues are addressed, I would most definitely support its nomination as FA! Thanks to all the past editors of this article for all the great work in bringing this to a GA status; let's get it to FA. CJLippert (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must demur on both points. First, finding sources to write this article was very much a scavenger hunt. This was not a topic where I found a lot of facts and then made an editorial decision to exclude them. For example, I did Proquest Historical and Google Books searches for the names of all the key players and followed any leads those produced. If you can suggest a specific source that I have overlooked, I will gladly check that source to see if it has anything to offer. Second, the fear of red links is very un-wiki. I have removed any unlikely red links; the only ones that remain are the names of judges or U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Red links encourage others to write articles. Creating blue links with essentially no content is therefore counterproductive—as is delinking to bow to the demands of immediatism. Nor do I think it is incumbent upon me to be accountable for every article linked from this one for the purposes of FAC. I will be glad to respond to any improvements you suggest within the four corners of this article. Savidan 17:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I have also added citations to nearly all of the 39 law reviews that cite Fellows v. Blacksmith. As you can see, Fellows is usually cited once, in a single footnote, as part of a string of cases for a given point of law, usually about treaties. Savidan 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding red links: Although they do look ugly, they are a valuable tool to invite readers and editors to create new, needed articles. They are not an impediment to FA status. Now, if the red-linked topic, by its very nature, is unlikely to ever meet the WP Notability requirement, then it should be de-linked. --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay-- just now catching up on the redlinks discussion. WP:RED is the relevant page, and filling out all red links is not necessary or part of WP:WIAFA. What is necessary is that context is given and the article is comprehensive and intelligible in spite of the red links-- in other words, even with the absence of the notable red-linked articles, we have to be able to understand this article. As long as this article is intelligible, redlinks to notable other articles can stay red. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Check Fellows v. Denniston as it depends on Fellows v. Blacksmith. From there, you may find other "See also" or "Additional reading" works. As for the replies to my original comments, I agree with the comments; good points. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Fellows v. Denniston is the lower court version of In re New York Indians. I have expanded the discussion of that case. Savidan 19:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No other issues. It looks great. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

  • First sentence longer: "Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 366 (1857), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision." It ends so abruptly. Consider adding short synopsis of the decision at the end of the sentence.
  • Not sure there is much benefit to separating Notes from Footnotes. Such a separation is more meaningful when the citations are all Shortened Citations (WP:CITESHORT); but here many of the citations are very lengthy.
  • Section name "Legacy": I think "Aftermath" would be more appropriate in this context; but I sympathize because the English language has a paucity of words for this intended meaning.
  • Wording: "...not signed by the right Seneca leaders...". The word "right" seems too slangy: is a more precise word available? I see the word "appropriate" is used elsewhere.
  • The "Litigants" section at the conclusion of the article is a slightly disappointing finish to an outstanding article. Perhaps enhance the concluding "The litigants" section by renaming it to "Tribal sovereignty", and including a very brief summary of post-Fellows developments?
  • Wording: "The Taney court had inherited from the preceding Marshall Court voluminous pages on the status ...". The word "pages" seems wrong. Even if technically correct, readers would be better served by "cases" or "decisions", I think.
  • Pictures: the pictures are lacking "alternate text" for the seeing-impaired. Use the "Alt text" link at upper right to view it. To remedy: simply add "alt=A description here" to each photo's parameters. See WP:ALT.
  • Small Caps in References: I've never seen Small Caps used before like that. I suppose anything goes in footnotes, but it does look odd: both the Author name and the Book name use the same font, so it is hard to tell where one starts and the other stops. Italics (for the book name only) may be more beneficial to readers.
  • Publishers: Also, refs are missing publisher (which also argues against small caps). ISBN should also be included.
  • Wording: "...commenced on January 15, 1857 and were adjourned until January 17" Simpler to say started Jan 15 and were completed on Jan 17?
  • Ext link broken: the Holland external link is broken. You can use the "External links" link at the top right of this page to check.
  • Overall, a very nice article. Leaning towards Support.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. I hope that you'll find that my recent edits have resolved most of your comments. As for notes vs. footnotes, the difference is that notes are content (i.e., clarification of things that may be unclear to some readers but which would break the flow of the article to include in the main text) and that footnotes are sources. I prefer to maintain this distinction. As for "the Litigants," this section is about the notable things that the parties involved and their lawyers went on to do. I do not wish to have a section on "tribal sovereignty" as I think it is a concept only tangentially relevant to this case (the tribe was not a party, the court was only adjudicating the property rights of individuals, etc.). The use of small caps is dictated by the Bluebook (you can see a very rough draft of my ideas for how to best adapt the Bluebook to Wikipedia here). While I hope to persuade by example that others writing about US legal topics should format their citations this way, I am a citation pluralist, and I think that each article should be allowed to use its own system, as long as the article is sufficiently internally consistent. I have included publishers only where the Bluebook requires them; to do otherwise would be misleading to those who understand the citation system (and is a detail that is fairly useless to nearly all readers). I have added ISBNs, but the Vose book does not have one. I have left "adjourned" as it is a term of art (it is rather uncommon, at least today, for Supreme Court oral arguments to be adjourned). I have removed the external link, as the site unfortunately appears to have been taken down. Please let me know if any of these responses are not to your satisfaction. Savidan 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have no strong objection to variety in footnoting styles: I was just giving you my opinion. Ditto for Footnotes vs Notes: your approach is very commonly used throughout WP. --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Savidan: I think a sentence may be corrupted: "... ejectment could not be obtained by against the holder ...". I'd fix it, but I'm not 100% sure what it should say. --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with it... Obviously, ejectment is a term of art. I'd bluelink it, but it is already linked in the previous sentence. Savidan 06:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments from MZMcBride

I don't do this FA stuff too often, so if this is wrong or whatever, just ignore me.

Infobox needs a bit of tweaking. The "Case opinions" section doesn't make it clear what the vote was. Joined by unanimous? It should be clearer.

WikiProject SCOTUS has been trying to get the headers of articles more standardized (and the leads). There's info about this at WP:SCOTUS. It'd be nice if this article conformed to those standards.

There used to be other featured U.S. Supreme Court articles (Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Marbury v. Madison), but I think they're all delisted now. Some still be might decent examples to look at for improvements, though.

Also not sure what the small caps in the References and "Further reading" sections. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added "joined unanimously" to the Infobox. I have encountered "joined by unanimous" before; strikes me as bizarrely agrammatical. I have standardized the == level headers. This article needs another == header for companion cases; others may not. The small caps a product of the Bluebook citation style, which this article employs. Savidan 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That was fast. :-)
I usually do/see "joined by unanimous". When it's italicized, it doesn't read that strangely to me, but I think your wording ("joined unanimously") is better. Does the Court itself use any particular language?
I'm not sure if the MoS Nazis will care about the small caps or not. Surely one will be along at some point if there's an issue. You just never know with those people... --MZMcBride (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The Court says "the opinion of the Court" whether there were 5 or 9 votes for it. The default is unanimity (for the lead opinion) unless otherwise noted (concurrence, dissent, recusal). I do not understand the MoS to implement a uniform citation system for all Wikipedia articles, across all subject matter; nor would it be wise to do so. Savidan 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A thought on the Small Caps - I see that MZMcBride is also a bit puzzled by the small caps in the References section. I understand that the small caps stem from the Bluebook, which is a great standard for citing styles to use within law-related topics. But I looked at two of the more famous supreme court cases: Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, and they both use the italics style for book names. I think we can agree that all the WP articles on Supreme Court cases should aspire to the same citing conventions. What if we initiate an RfC in the WP Supreme Court project and establish consensus on the desired citation format for use within Supreme Court case articles. Then, use that convention in this article. How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that all articles must use the same citation style, even all articles within a subject-matter. Consistency within an article is enough. I do not recall any similar RFC to decide between the MLA, AMA, APA, Chicago Manual of Style, etc.—even within disciplines like economics, history, or linguistics. I hope to persuade other authors to use the Bluebook on Wikipedia by example, not by compulsion. Any consensus that arises should arise organically from the experience of users writing those articles, not from !voting. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style: "A consistent style should be used within any given article, but it is not necessary to maintain consistency between articles." And Wikipedia:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods: "Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style. . . . If there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Savidan 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:WNY5.PNG claims as a basis "genesee river large.jpg"; no map by that title exists. There is File:Genesee_map_large.jpg, which seems to be the correct source, but that image lacks information on its own source(s)
  • File:Samuel_Nelson_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Ely_S._Parker.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
File:WNY5.PNG is based on File:Genesee map large.jpg. I have corrected the description. That latter makes clear that it was created by User:Pollinator, originally uploaded to Wikipedia, then moved to Commons. I have added a PD-US tag to File:Samuel_Nelson_-_Brady-Handy.jpg and File:Ely_S._Parker.jpg. Savidan 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but what source(s) did Pollinator use to create the map? It isn't a creative/original work, but is presumably based on some pre-existing map or data set. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I have left a note at Pollinator's talk page (and emailed). If Pollinator is unable to satisfy your concerns (or does not respond in a reasonable amount of time), I will remove the image. Savidan 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the map with one of the Phelps and Gorham purchase only. Savidan 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Prosperity theology

Nominator(s): ItsZippy (talk • contributions), Mark Arsten 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Two editors and I have been editing and improving this article since the summer. It achieved Good Article status on 21 December and was Peer Reviewed on 29 December; it has been under constant improvement throughout. It has now reached a stage where we believe the article covers everything relevant in appropriate depth. It has undergone a few copyedits for style, neutrality and the like (as well as regular ongoing improvements). The article is now comprehensive in coverage; written neutrally, with numerous reliable sources; and written to a good standard. We now believe that it is ready for Featured Article status. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


  • SupportComments Nicely written, and an interesting subject. I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them.
"three of the four largest churches". Is that church as in denomination or congregation?
There is a lot of criticism from other branches of Christianity, but not much rebuttal or other response. Surely some theologians have spoken for them? Also as this is now a multinational movement it would be interesting to get say a Buddhist response in Korea.
I was surprised that the Christian responses quoted have not focussed on Jesus clearing the money changers out of the temple or his teachings about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.
Regards ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, your edits look good to me. I am really bad with capitalization :( I made the first change you suggested, I'll look around for information about the other two. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. I have added a short section on the influence of prosperity theology in South Korea, though that is still from a Christian perspective; I shall look out for comments from other beliefs. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a bit of a theological rebuttal, I hope it works there. I didn't find much in the way for criticism from Korea or non-Christian criticisms. I e-mailed a Korean friend of mine about it though, so they might know of something. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those changes, especially the Korean bit. I'm still just a tad concerned about balance, though I appreciate that is very different in such a context. Any established reliable source on theology is likely to be dismissive of this sort of thing, and I'm consciously restraining myself from asking for success stories. But on the narrow part of the criteria that I check I think it is ready. BTW A lead image other than the default Christian one might be in order, and if MOS doesn't deprecate see also sections I'd be tempted by Plutus ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks a lot for your support and comments. I'll try to take another look at the things you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Re the above, there is also the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 6:19–21; "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust duth corrupt ... for where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also". I reviewed this article at peer review, and will post further comments here shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Good idea, one of the main sources we were using mentioned that verse, so I put it in. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Well thought out. I've made what I hope are a few stylistic improvements. Substantively I think it's a fine article.--John Foxe (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking a look, your edits look great to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Lindberg Carter or Carter Lindberg? van or Van Biema? Time or TIME or Time Magazine? Check for naming consistency
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN 36: are you missing a name here?
  • Check italicization in footnotes
  • FN 51: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated
  • What is OCMS? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I should have noticed those before. Ok, I think I have gotten most of them, we still have to hyphenate the ISBNs and add page numbers for #51. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Did those last two, hope I formatted the paper's references correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to support: A thought-provoking article which will be a credit to TFA in due course. I gave a detailed peer review, hence my present comments are mainly fairly minor prose quibbles:-

  • Each of the four lead paragraphs begins "Prosperity theology..." You need to find ways of varying this phrasing. OK for the first and fourth, say, but change the beginnings of the other two.
  • Recommend add the parenthetical words "(reconciliation with God)" after the first mention of "atonement"
  • Theology section, fourth line: replace possibly ambiguous "teaching that" with "and teaches that"
  • Same section, third paragraph: replace awkward "with other teachers portraying..." with "while other teachers portray..."
  • You have introduced Copeland and Dollar without saying who thy are. One can find this information via the links, but that means leaving the article. A very brief description, such as "televangelist" or "Word of Fath teacher" would suffice. The principle should be applied to other first mentions in the text, e.g. T.D. Jakes in the "Practices" subsection
  • Recent US history: "As of 2006" sounds strange when we are in 2012. Not sure how to reword this, but perhaps: "By 2006, three of the four largest congregations in the United States had taught prosperity theology", (or possibly "were teaching")?
  • Author of The prayer of Jabez?
  • Theological criticism: I am confused by this sentence: "In Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, R. Kent Hughes notes that some rabbis taught that material blessings were a sign of God's favor, citing Jesus' statement in Mark 10:25 that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (KJV) as evidence to oppose such thinking.[42] I can only make sense of this if a full stop follows "a sign of God's favor", then "He cites Jesus' statement in Mark..." etc
  • "criticizing John Avanzini's teaching → " and criticizies John Avanzini's teaching". Later in the sentence: "...a misrepresentation and noting" becomes "a misrepresentation, noting..."
  • "Jones criticizes the doctrine's view of faith as a spiritual force..." I find that a little confusing. The essence of prosperity theology is surely its belief that faith confers material advantages.
  • What is "negative confession"?
  • Socioeconomic analysis: I recommend you don't use the exclusively American term "exurb", when "commuter town" would be understood by all, not just American readers.
  • Yung Hwa introduced without explanation or link

I will be happy to support when these cleared up. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I have done everything except for clarifying negative confession, which I will do later this evening/tomorrow. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I given a basic clarification of negative confession. If you think further explanation or an example is needed, let me know and I can do so later. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the lead.

  • Trying to think of synonyms to avoid the jingle here: "part of the path". I can't.
  • "the removal of sickness and poverty"—is there a better word than "removal"?
  • "Some prosperity churches also teach about financial responsibility, though some journalists and academics have"—can the doubling up of "some" be avoided?
  • critics ... criticized. It's OK, but if there's a substitute for one, I'd use it.
  • Logic problem in the timing and the different treatment of the middle class and the poor: "Prosperity theology has drawn followers from the American middle class and has become popular among the poor." Both are in the "gradual" past tense, but one involves popularity, and one has drawn followers. Why are the two social classes treated with different wording? (We assume the poor are American, too.)

It's pretty well-written, although I'm sure I'd nit-pick in the rest. Tony (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the compliment! I took a stab at revising problematic parts of the lead, hope my edits helped. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

An interesting topic, although not an idea I really agree with. —Andrewstalk 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

    • Alright, I did the first two. I couldn't find evidence for the date of the third so I removed it. The website it was taken from claimed it was public domain, but didn't give any evidence. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on images —Andrewstalk 19:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

Nominator(s): CyberGhostface (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because other editors and I have put a lot of work getting it into shape over the last couple of years. It is in my mind very comprehensive, covers a variety of topics including the character's concept and creation as well as critical analysis and has proper citations. This has gone through noms in the past but I believe that the article has improved since then. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in whether location is included for book sources
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • FN 4: formatting
  • Some of the links to external sources are returning errors
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
  • FN 14: italicization
  • Compare formatting of FNs 17 and 18
  • "pp." is for multiple pages, "p." for single
  • FN 24: page?
  • FN 27: site appears to have either changed names or shut down
  • Are FNs 4 and 30 meant to be the same?
  • FN 34: ISBN?

For an article with so (relatively) few sources, there are quite a few issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed most of those issues, but are there any recommended places to go for help in things like this? I've put it up for Peer Review recently but haven't gotten many responses in that regard.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Faryl

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Sunday, I nominated Faryl Smith for featured status, and today, I bring you her debut album. An archetypal classical-crossover recording, it broke records for its high number of sales and was nominated for a top award, but had no great success outside of the UK. The classical community liked it, even though I'd imagine a lot of them didn't want to like it due to Smith's appearance on Britain's Got Talent. I feel that the article is well-written and referenced, and comprehensively covers all details of the album. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; made one fix. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments by Jim No serious problems, a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Repetition of "features" in para 1, can this be tweaked
  • Smith meeting with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — reads as if this was was organised as part of the promotion, which seems unlikely, although it obviously helped. Needs rephrasing
  • and the album sold 29,200 copies in the first week — avoid repetition, perhaps and 29,200 copies in the first full week
  • Though generally critical of move — Is there a word missing?
  • Though generally critical of the move. Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • because obviously, it's a big deal for me — The punctuation is clearly wrong. This may be how the source put it, but although you can't change the words of an oral statement, it seems reasonable to correct erroneous punctuation by the reporter or subeditor.
  • Fair. Added a comma. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • out of a possible 5 stars — should be possible to avoid repeating this
  • Rephrased slightly- I think it reads better, but there is still some repetition. What do you think? J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with one more comment I'm happy with most of the changes, but I made this edit to remove the newly introduced repetition of "promotion", and to fix my pet hate of unlinked-hyphen-bluelink. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No objection, thanks for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review The only image has an appropriate non-free use rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I appreciate the time you've taken. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Romney

Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not the man currently running for U.S. president, but his father. George Romney was in turn a displaced person, a college dropout, a finder of an accidental career, a wartime industrial leader, a famous corporate CEO, a family man and a local civic and religious leader, a successful governor, a front-running but then dreadful presidential candidate, a quixotic cabinet secretary, and more. Article is GA, was at FAC two years ago but failed due to lack of feedback. It's been largely stable since then in terms of content, and hopefully this time around will earn sufficient support. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief initial comments: Fascinating stuff, and very timely. I may or may not have time to read through the entire article, so just a few comments to speed along the process:

  • Consistency needed in "Bibliography": some sources do not include publication city, and Mollenhoff does not list publisher.
  • All images except this one checks out:
    • File:NixonAndRomneyInOffice.jpg: Source says "As stated in the book, this is an official White House photograph from the National Archives II, College Park, Maryland." What book? Also, what does this mean: . {{{title}}}.
  • This is very minor, but on my screen the image of the gravesite pushes the "Notes" off kilter. No big deal, but it grates on my anal-retentive sensibilities.

Good luck! María (yllosubmarine) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I have added locations to all the Bibliography entries. I have updated the Commons definition of that image with the full book source and fixed the formatting (I think it got messed up when it was auto-transferred to Commons from WP). And I have added a 'clear' template to make sure the Notes section starts correctly. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: All images check out. Thanks for clarifying the source! María (yllosubmarine) 03:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in whether locations are included for books
Done; all book cites now have locations.
  • Why is FN 181 linked and not FN 190?
Because the first footnote is to a free chapter on the publisher's website, and the second isn't. Is it preferable to remove the link anyway?
  • No citations to Angel, Plas, either Romney text
Yes, I deliberately included these full-length works about or by Romney for completeness. Is there a guideline against this?
Are they being used as references in the creation of the article, or simply to provide further information to the reader? If the latter, the creation of a "Further reading" section would be preferable, as it's generally frowned upon to include cited and uncited works in the same section. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I've created a "Writings" section for the two by Romney and a "Further reading" section for the other two. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What are the qualifications of the author of this source?
I know a couple of years ago, Wargs.com was not allowed as a source in FAC articles, only NEHGS. Is that still true? (Another editor put this in, I'm willing to take it out.)
Unless the author has some particular qualifications on this topic, my inclination would be to remove the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at other review comments such as Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Line of succession to the British Throne/archive2 and Wikipedia:Peer review/John McCain/archive1 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91, Wargs.com is considered a self-published site and is not usable as a source at the highest levels of review. I've therefore removed it and the statement it was supporting. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 7 and similar: page(s)?
This work is more a pamphlet than a book and I didn't think page numbers were necessary – it's shorter than some of the news articles that are cited.
Generally if a work is more than about 3-4 pages, page numbers are preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added the page number range used to that cite (now FN 6). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for newspapers/magazines
Done; no regular dated news or magazine articles now have visible retrieval dates, only undated websites.
  • FN 81, 145, 199: page?
Done; for 145, page numbers added, for the others, 'fee required' url added.
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
Done; the short-form book cites now use the same semi-colon-separated form the news cites do.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Done; replaced with better source (website of the State of Michigan Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs).
  • FN 206: URL?
Done, with 'fee required' added.
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Done.
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Done; all are now hyphenated.
  • Be consistent in how editions and editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Done; editors now have "(ed.)" or "(eds.)" after the end of the name, while editions now have written out numbers such as "(Second ed.)" From the context I'm sure it's clear to the reader which is which.
Thank you very much for your detailed look, changes and responses are underway. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I have finished my initial changes for this, and will change more depending upon a few of your responses here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, looks good now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
There is inconsistency/issues in the way some of the ref templates are being used. The issues I currently see are: (1) most references are using the "first"/"last" parameters, but some are using "author" instead; (2) there are instances where the "first"/"last" parameters are being used for editors, when the "editor-first"/"editor-last" parameters should be used for proper formatting; (2) the placement of "Jr." in people names in some references is not correct; (4) a link to http://web.archive.org/web/20070918090328/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680195540,00.html is being use when it should not be, since the article is available directly from the original source at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680195540/Mitt-Romney-the-beginning.html ; (5) there is a "page" parameter in use that is including both a page number and a URL, instead of putting the url in it's own parameter; (6) using the parameter "work" to a magazine improperly formats it, where "journal" correctly italicizes it (however since the ref done this way is actually a collection of covers, and not the magazine itself, a better formatting of that ref moght be{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19590406,00.html | contribution=George Romney – Apr. 6, 1959 | work=TIME Magazine Covers | journal=Time}} . Additionally, while not related to references: (1) there is a sentence with a simple list of three items that uses the word "and" twice, instead of using a comma in place of the first "and"; (2) the categories should be alphabetized. I have attempted to fix most of these issues (and was in the process of fixing the rest), but have been reverted, and that I needed to being the issue here. Being a wikignome, I would normally be happy to fix all of these minor issues, but I have apparently been forbidden to do so for some reason that is not clear to me, so I'll leave it up to others. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: I reverted some changes made by 208... and asked him to bring up reference issues here, because I was afraid of changing formats after Nikkimaria's check had been done. If 208's changes are fine, please revert my reversion of him. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I presume CZmarlin and 208.81.184.4 are one and the same? Why do you keep going back and forth between the two? I mass reverted your original edits because you made some drastic changes that I strongly felt were undesirable, such as unlinking every author and every publisher. That's a complete misread of WP:OVERLINK. You also had mysterious edits such as "missing space" that were impossible to understand from the diffs. And several of your changes undid things I had already done to respond to Nikkimaria's comments above. After the reversion I tried to restore things I thought were worthwhile, but I missed some due the maze of diffs. But to answer your specific points that you now raise:
1) I've never understood how "last=L | first=F" produces anything different from "author=L, F" from the reader's perspective, but I have no objection to it being changed, it's just that you always make those changes intertwined with other ones that I do object to
2) I've tried the "editor" parameters but they produce awful output in this case, "ed" with no period for a single editor and nothing at all with a double period for joint editors; look at your version here to see what I mean. So I went back to doing it by hand to satisfy one of Nikkimaria's comments.
3) Is there a WP MoS guideline for where "Jr." goes in last, first order? But I'm okay with your ordering. And I've now done the changes to make it so (since Chicago Manual of Style endorses it).
4) The Mitt Romney article relies heavily upon the Boston Globe 7-part series, and both BG and Deseret News move individual entries in that series behind the paywall and back out again on a repeating basis. Therefore the editors there built this redundant layer of url's so that some copy somewhere of it would always be available. I'm using the same layering here. And what's the harm?
5) The page with its own URL is because only part of that book is available for free, not the whole thing, and there's another reference to a page that isn't available.
6) Actually, the cover part needs only a minimal citation; I've reworked this to flow better in the footnote, see FN 17 and see what you think.
NR1) You misread that one, it's not a series of three but a one and a pair.
NR2) WP:CATEGORY actually says "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." That said, I have no objection if they are alphabetized, and I have restored that.
In sum, I realize you are putting a lot of effort into these gnomish edits, but in some cases there are reasons why things are the way they are, and in the FAC case it's better to talk and get agreement before mass editing. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments by Mark Arsten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Arsten (talk • contribs) 03:07, January 23, 2012
  • Alright, this looks like an interesting article. I'll be reviewing this for compliance with 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b.
Thanks very much for your comments, I have started making changes in response to them.
  • The lead looks fine, just a few small comments:
  • "There he turned around the struggling firm by focusing all efforts on the smaller Rambler car." I think this could be revised a bit for clarity (smaller than?).
Done, by replacing "smaller" with "compact".
  • "Romney was a strong supporter of the American Civil Rights Movement while governor." Did he support it before/after his term or was this a just a political thing?
Done, by removing "while governor" (not just a political thing).
Done.
Seems like a common English word to me (certainly the root is common), and if I link that, it would be odd not to link "public service" right after that, but there is no useful article for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Early life and background
  • "They practiced monogamy." Was this the norm in their area at that time or were there polygamists around?
I've added that polygamy went into general decline among Mormons after the 1890 Manifesto (they married in 1895).
  • "The farm was not well located and failed when potato prices fell." What does it mean that it was not well located?
Changed to "not on good land".
Shorter form means the city too, but maybe it didn't back then, so have added "City".
  • "with their debts taking a dozen years to pay off." Maybe rephrase to avoid the with noun -ing construction.
Changed to "and having to take a dozen years to pay off their debts".
Yes, now linked (thought it was already).
  • Missionary work
  • "Three decades later, Romney said that his missionary time had meant more to him in his work than any other experience" I don't understand what is meant by "in his work" here.
Changed to "in developing his career". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Early career
  • "He followed LaFount to Washington, D.C., in fall 1929, after her father had accepted an appointment" should probably be more specific per WP:SEASON.
  • "With one of his brothers, Romney opened a dairy bar in nearby Virginia during this time." Maybe be a bit more specific about time here.
I never found a source with a more precise time on either of these events.
  • "Romney did not attend for long, or nor graduate from, any college in which he was enrolled" Should probably tweak that a bit.
Now changed to "Romney did not attend for long, or graduate from, any of the colleges in which he was enrolled; ...".
  • "instead he has been described as an autodidact." Can we say "he became an autodidact"? (I love that word)
I'm using this in a personality sense, and I think this was just something in Romney's nature (and in some other people like him) – at a certain point they don't respond that well to formal education and instead are eager to go out in the world and do things and learn along the way.
  • "LaFount had the opportunity to sign a $50,000, three-year contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, but Romney convinced her to return to Washington where he worked for Alcoa and the Aluminum Wares Association as a lobbyist." In the last sentence you had him as a salesman in LA, maybe note the transition? Also, is there a good way to note what the value of $50k was back then?
I've reworded the sentence to convey his transition. As for the value of $50K, there's a template somewhere which adds "(such-and-such today)", but I'm reluctant to use it here because then I'd have to use it in about eight or nine other places in the article where money amounts are mentioned. And to give context I'd have to know how it compared to other studio offers at the time, which I don't.
  • "He was chosen by Pyke Johnson, a Denver newspaperman and automotive industry trade representative, whom he met at the Press Club, to join the newly-formed Trade Association Advisory Committee to the National Recovery Administration, whose work continued even after that agency was declared unconstitutional in 1935." This sentence seems a bit unclear to me.
I've reworded it and split it into two.
  • Pyke Johnson, worth a redlink?
Would be borderline as an article I think – NYT has several mentions of him but no obit, for example.
  • Automotive industry representative
  • "These included over 3 million motorized vehicles, 80 percent of all tanks and tank parts, 75 percent of all aircraft engines, half of all diesel engines, and a third of all machine guns." Maybe something a bit more specific than "These" here.
Changed "These" to "This", which makes it clear I think.
  • What is a "short complex contract-termination procedure"?
Changed "cut short" to "forgo".
  • "U.S. employer delegate" Should there be a hyphen here?
Reworded sentence to avoid issue.
  • American Motors Corporation CEO
  • I made a few copyedits here, as always, feel free to revert.
Only undid one ", and" to semi-colon.
  • "Though AMC was on the verge of being taken over by corporate raider Louis Wolfson, Romney was able to fend him off." When were they on the verge?
1957, added.
  • "However, when he felt his salary and bonus was excessively high for a year, he gave the excess back to the company." When did this happen?
Changed to "whenever", as this was a general practice.
  • Local church and civic leadership
  • "preached occasional sermons" Would "occasionally preached sermons" be better or am I imagining things?
So changed.
  • "In 1959, he received the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith's Americanism award." What was this award in recognition of?
I don't know ... I've looked at a half-dozen of these awards and none say what it is for. But I found a 1962 story that also thought it important, so I added that as an additional cite.
  • "it made nearly 200 recommendations for economy and efficiency and for the need for better teacher pay and new infrastructure funding." Maybe add some punctuation here.
Shortened and punctuated.
  • "Romney helped a $90 million education-related bond issue and tax increase win an upset victory in an April 1959 referendum." Was this a state vote or a city vote?
Clarified as statewide.
  • "After a period of pained indecision and a two-day prayer fast," I suggest "two days of prayer and fasting".
To me that loses meaning, since the indecision went on for a while and the prayer and fasting were connected. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I should have been more clear, I meant to suggest "After a period of pained indecision and two days of prayer and fasting," Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Governor of Michigan
  • "were more likely to vote Republican than the heavily Democratic residents of the city itself." I'm not sure about the use of "the city itself". Maybe something like "the city's urban areas"
Clarified to indicate suburbs of Detroit.
  • "He almost always eschewed political activities on Sundays, the Mormon Sabbath." Sundays or Sunday? I'm not sure.
Change to Sunday.
  • "Whites and Negroes, in my opinion, have got to learn to know each other." Emphasis original, I presume?
Yes.
  • "In 1965, Romney visited South Vietnam for 31 days and said that he was continuing his strong support for U.S. military involvement there." Not a big deal, but is there a good place earlier in the article to note he supported the war?
Not really; I thought this was a compact way of saying that.
  • "George Romney helped Mitt's fiancée Ann Davies convert to Mormonism." In Mitt Romney you write that he "guided" her conversion. Maybe try use the same language in each? (or maybe I'm reading too much into this).
Changed to "George Romney guided Mitt's fiancée Ann Davies in her conversion to Mormonism".
  • "His share of the black vote rose to over 30 percent, a virtually unprecedented accomplishment for a Republican." That is impressive, do you know if any other Republican candidates have gotten that much?
Interesting question – I can think of a few possibilities, but would require some research.
  • "but got the state to where it had a surplus." Maybe something like "left office with a surplus"?
So changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • 1968 presidential campaign
  • "Romney announced an exploratory phase in February 1967, beginning with a visit to Alaska and the Rocky Mountain states." Might want to clarify that it was a political exploratory phrase (is there an article on that?), so it doesn't sound like he was going exploring the wilderness of Alaska.
So clarified. But I think the Exploratory committee structure came in later years, so I didn't link it.
  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
  • "moving blacks out of inner city ghettos" Should this be inner-city?
Yes, so changed.
  • "Based on his automotive industry experience, Romney thought that the cost of housing could be significantly reduced if in-factory modular construction techniques were used." was modular housing construction a novel idea then? Maybe note that if it was.
I see Google News Archive stories on this going back to the late 1940s and 1950s, so I'm not confident enough to state this.
  • "Wife Lenore Romney ended up running instead, losing badly to incumbent Democrat Philip A. Hart." I'm not sure we have to mention here that she was his wife, since it's clear from earlier.
"Wife" removed.
  • "assisted housing for low and moderate income families" Should there be hyphens here?
I've seen both forms, but more with hyphen, so changed it.
  • "and a local citizen's representative." Citizen's or citizens'?
The latter, changed.
  • "but in the end was unable to bring about meaningful alterations in American segregation patterns, with no equivalent effort having happened since then or likely to in the foreseeable future." Could you clarify the timing here (when this was said)?
Added 2008 context of statements.
  • Final years
  • "The Governor George Romney Lifetime Achievement Award is given annually in Michigan, to recognize citizens who have demonstrated a commitment to community involvement and volunteer service throughout their lifetimes." Who gives the award? The State of Michigan?
Yes, the state, so clarified. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your useful comments! Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, thanks for doing all this work. At this point I am confident that every issue I could find is satisfied, so I am more than willing to Support promotion to Featured Article. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:GeroRomney2-Head.jpg gives as a source File:GeroRomney2.jpg, which gives as a source...File:GeroRomney2-Head.jpg
I've clarified the source descriptions on Commons; both of these are actually crops of File:Ford, Matthews, and Romney (1986).jpg.
  • File:George_and_Lenore_Romney_grave.JPG: what is the copyright status of the engraving on the grave? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The quote from Doctrine and Covenants is from Section 90, which dates back to the 1830s, so it shouldn't be an issue. What's written after that, "To many he was known ...", is specific to Romney and presumably was written by family members. What the copyright status of that is, I don't know. I looked around to see if such inscriptions are copyrightable, or if freedom of panorama is at play, but didn't find anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, should've been more specific - I meant the engraving of his profile (I'm assuming), not the words. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I get it now. You're right, freedom of panorama does not cover photos of works of the visual arts in the U.S., so this has to go. I've removed the image. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments Nice-looking article. I've got a few comments:

  • Last paragraph in "Early life and background": I'm not sure what "co-located" means.
Located at the same site as the high school of the same name.
  • I linked a few cities, it's a problem feel free to revert.
I unlinked London, which FAC reviewers are always taking out; we'll see about the others.
  • In "Early career," second paragraph: what is a dairy bar? Is it a tavern where one drinks milk?
I found a link for it and added it to the article.
  • Same section, last paragraph: I think "newly-formed" does not take a hyphen, but I may be wrong so I left it in.
You're right, per the MoS. I took it out.
  • In "Governor of Michigan", the last sentence: I don't think you have to say that Fine is "noted". That word always seems like a journalist's POV when I read it in a newspaper. He has a Wikipedia article, so he's clearly notable (yes, sarcasm intended).
I might agree in general, but in this case he really was quite prominent and accomplished, and it's important to convey that to readers who don't click through. If there's an alternate adjective that can be used, I'm willing to change it.
  • In "1968 presidential campaign", first paragraph: I've gotten dinged for using "re-elected" instead of "reelected." Apparently, the former is British and the latter is American, though you and I are, I think, both Americans and we both seem to prefer the hyphen. <shrug>
From what I gather, "re-elect" is the proper form due to awkward doubled vowels, and many sites say so. Except that the AP style guide makes an exception for very commonly seen words like this one and uses "reelect". I've seen slow-motion edit wars over this question on other political articles. I'll wait and see if there are additional opinions here before changing it.
  • That's it: I enjoyed the article, and I hope to see (and would be happy to help you with) his son's article nominated for FA before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the comments. I think I'm going to wait on Mitt until it's clear who's going to win the nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, works for me. Good luck with the nomination! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Items that were fixed, but because reverts now need attention (in my opinion)

  • The lack of consistency in reference template citation usage (first/last vs. author) as well as in the reference format for books that have editor(s).
Already addressed above in the response to your alter ego 208.81.184.4.
Note to Wasted Time R: I do NOT have an alter ego. Please note that the individual at User talk:208.81.184.4 appears to be "registered to Vangent Inc. and may be shared by multiple users." I have no clue as to that organization. CZmarlin (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
OK ... two of us made that assumption, understandable given that you showed up at the same time at the same article making a largely similar set of complaints about formatting issues ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Reverts that removed updated checks and now several online references have missing access dates.
This article never uses access dates unless it's a web only reference with no publication date. (I'm of the school that holds that access dates give no value to the reader and indeed add visual confusion to the publication date.) This was already established in response to Nikkimaria's comments.
  • Improper formatting for "Jr." in the author’s name used in a reference (it would be correct if the "first=" and "last=" fields were not reverted back to "author=").
Already discussed in earlier response.
  • Why is there a need to Wiki link ‘’The New York Times’’ a total of 35 times in the Notes section? This newspaper is already linked in the first instance (out of the two times in appears) in the body of the article.
  • This overlinking is also in the case of the nine Wiki links to ‘’Time’’ magazine in the Notes section.
Reminder per WP guidelines: “Generally, a link should appear only once in an article” … thus it seems that 35 of them in the Notes section is exactly 35 too many.
WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, ...", so the footnote usage here is a permitted exception. That said, I acknowledge that there are three approaches people take to linking publishers in cites: link every occurrence, link the first occurrence, link no occurrences. The first is most convenient for the readers, but upsets blue sea worriers. The second is very hard for editors to maintain on an ongoing basis, since the "first" reference can move, pop in, or pop out of an article. The last gives no help to the reader who wants to see what a given publication is about, so I don't like it at all. If link every occurrence is a deal breaker for you, I'll try and do the first reference one. But I'm not going to take all the publisher links out, and I'm not going to take author links out. Those are important for how the reader assesses the sources!
  • What is the purpose for red links to the ‘’Michigan Historical Review’’ and "Ashbrook Press" in the Notes section? They were removed, but these dead links are back again.
I'm a believer in WP:REDLINK ... someday somebody will be inspired to create an article or maybe a DYK about these publications.
  • Reminder per Wikipedia isbn guidelines: “Please use the 13-digit ISBN where possible”. Also, per reference guidelines the “Publisher (field) should not include corporate designation.”
I don't like 13-digit ISBN's for old topics like this; they seem anachronistic, since none of these books were published with them (many were published without any). Also, I made big effort to get all the ISBN's hyphenated per another of Nikkimaria's comments. I believe this is one of those live-and-let-live deals; if you see an article with nicely formatted 10-digit numbers, don't churn the article by changing them.
  • Specific footnote problems include:
29 - Why keep reverting to a dead link to the Boston Globe and to an archived version? This is a current url for the article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680195540/Mitt-Romney-the-beginning.html
Addressed above.
155 – Wrong author is listed for this article. Why was the correct author reverted?
Karen Tumulty wrote that article, I read it in the print magazine at the time. Jake Chessum is just the photographer credit for the top photo.
  • Lastly, the alt image description in the infobox does not show a “Tall, slim” man. Rather, it is just a face of the person and it is impossible to "see" from that picture that he is tall and slim. This was fixed, but why was this improper description put back?
Sorry, the top photo used to be the full standing image (that's present later in the article); I've fixed this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I presume that you are the 208... IP that posted above, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Your presumption is false. I have no clue who is that IP contributor. I log on with my account for all my edits in WP. CZmarlin (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

General MacArthur's relief in 1951 remains a controversial topic in the field of civil-military relations. Article has been through peer, good article and a-class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Minor comment. I saw this on my watchlist and the title made me chuckle. So I took a look at the talk page and the A-class review, and found much discussion about the title. While "relief" may be the correct military term, the way it is used in the title suggests not only a sculpture of the MacArthur, but also a sigh that "Thank God he's not sending me back to Korea again". In military terms, "relief" also suggests wartime reinforcements or rescue.
My tentative suggestion is that this article is as much about Truman as MacArthur, and so much of the ambiguity in the title could be resolved by mentioning both people, e.g., "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur" (with first names added if preferred). The "sigh of relief" garden path is thus avoided, while the "sculpture" and "wartime" interpretations become rather unlikely. Geometry guy 20:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This came up during peer review and A-class review but did not achieve any consensus. I thought maybe the wider audience here might be the place. "Relief" is indeed the correct military term, and some editors were dead against the use of more colloquial terms like "dismissal", especially when that word also had a precise military meaning. We wanted to avoid having the article say that it's own title was wrong. I suggested "The Truman-MacArthur controversy" but another editor felt that this "implies equivalence between the Commander in Chief and a subordinate [Commander in Chief]". The whole article is about this very subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I read it, and agree with some of those concerns. What do you think of a title along the lines I suggest: "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur"? Geometry guy 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It would also be acceptable to me. I would like to hear more opinions before making any change. though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
As a Brit, not particularly au fait with military stuff, I have to say I understand exactly what the title signifies – that MacArthur was relieved of his military command. The nominal ambiguity is one that I don't think many would puzzle over. If the consensus is to change, I'd say "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur" is a good alternative. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
As a Brit, though, how well do you think it explains the American political-military system to a British reader? How do you feel about the "Foreign Pressure" section? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm torn here; the real-life equivalent of my on-wiki role is "freelance copyeditor", which means I'm here to help, not to set rules. However, I'll repeat that this doesn't seem like a close call to me: given the target readership (most of the English-speaking world), the word "relief" in the title will be misinterpreted more often than it will be interpreted correctly (a majority of our readers aren't familiar with the history, sadly). Of course, when readers get into the article, everyone will get it pretty quickly ... but central to copyediting is the notion that phrases that may make your target readership stumble ... or worse, chuckle ... should be replaced by phrases that don't. "Relief of command of General Douglas MacArthur" or "President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur" would be fine. Hawkeye doesn't like "Firing of General Douglas MacArthur", but I can't see the harm, as long as you make it clear in the first two sentences that he was fired from some but not all of his positions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure that "relief" in the sense of sculpture is that well known. I would be happy with "President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur". MacArthur was indeed relieved of all of his three commands, but the article makes it clear that he was not actually fired and could not have been. He continued drawing his five-star salary until his death in 1964. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "Firing" and "Dismissal" are not appropriate here. I would also note that for me the main garden path was "relief" as in "sigh of relief" or "relief from pain"; I only noticed the "sculpture" interpretation on reading Hawkeye7's introductory comments at the A-Class review! Geometry guy 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur is fine with me, any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I forgot about this article; Recall of General Doublas MacArthur was a chapter name I had found in one of your sources and I mentioned in the first A review, however, I never pursued this very far because "relieved/relief" isn't wrong just confusing, its used in other sources and the supporters eventually supported that name. You probably could use synonyms in the article for "relief", but other than that its a good article. Kirk (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I supported this article's promotion to A class, and think that the FA criteria are also met. The current title makes sense to me, and is in line with what the various works which cover this topic call it. It would be fairly unusual to change the title of an article which has successfully passed through GA and A class reviews... Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not in this case; I sat out the peer review and A-class review over this issue, and more people hang out at FAC than at A-class and peer review who care about copyediting this kind of thing. And I've been involved in several title changes at FAC over the last few months (hyphen to dash, "photographer" to "photography", and ß to ss). - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Use a consistent date format
  • Fn 86, 135: publisher?
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • FNs 156-158: you're using three different names for the same publisher
  • Compare formatting of FNs 120 and 177
  • Use consistent wikilinking
  • FN 185: typo
  • New York Times or The New York Times? be consistent
  • be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in how you list multiple works by the same author
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals
  • James 1975 is volume 2 of what? Does that volume have a title? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Done
  2. Added
  3. Okay
  4. Corrected
  5. Done
  6. Okay
  7. Corrected
  8. Done
  9. Difficult! Fortunately, I have written a bot...
  10. Done. Not sure if you like the dash format
  11. Done.
  12. "The Years of MacArthur" Changed "work" to "series"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I also reviewed this article for A-class, and the comments I had were addressed there. I asked for some rewording and clarity in several places. The piece easily matches or exceeds the detail in scholarly works including the Truman Presidential Library and books I have on the Korean War. As far as content is concerned at least, it contains everything it should. —Ed!(talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • I expanded the last sentence in the 4th paragraph of Civilian Control of the Military section because I thought it was confusing since there's no such thing as an 'advanced school' in the US Military. Feel free to change it as needed.
  • I was surprised to find there was no article for professional military; its used in the above section and lead, its related to standing army and I think it deserves a link (and a short definition in the article). I'm not sure if a red link is better than a redirect to standing army. Kirk (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I would go with the red link. It would be an article like this one or Singapore Strategy, where I have to read through all the literature on the subject, and attempt to summarise it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • "Left to right" is preferable to "Left to Right"
  • Source link for File:Truman_and_MacArthur.JPG redirects here
  • Source link for File:Douglas_MacArthur_speaking_at_Soldier_Field_HD-SN-99-03036.JPEG returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Done
  2. Done
  3. I replaced this with the version that you see here from the Truman Library, but forgot to alter the description. Switched to reference from the Truman library.
  4. Link rot. Added NARA information.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. The sentence "MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination." needs some clarification. Up until that point in the article, I was under the impression that insubordination was precisely what MacArthur was relived for. For example, a few paragraphs before that, Truman is quoted as saying "I could no longer tolerate his insubordination." Maybe it should say something like "According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination." or "Technically, MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination, but for ???." Kaldari (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    Re-worded to make this clearer. It is one of a number of points in the article where Truman says or writes something he knew to be untrue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    That's much clearer. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Copyedited as usual, pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning anywhere. Aside from that, happy with prose now.
    • Level of detail seems fine, as does structure (not necessarily straightforward in an article like this), referencing, and supporting materials.
    • Spotchecks:
      • Checked sources against citations #29, #41, #47, #165, #177, #179, #182 and #190; tweaked a couple of things from an informational and page range point of view as a result but found no instances of copyvio or close paraphrasing -- no action required.
      • Couldn't find the documents referenced at citations #38 and #39 when I followed the links to the Truman Library site.
      • Don't think we can attibute "However, MacArthur did say things that would later come back to haunt him" to citation #65, as the source is simply a primary record of a conference. It's probably worth you checking each of the other instances you've used a primary source to make sure you haven't employed commentary that is not in fact part of the document (but which could well be cited to secondary sources). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. The structure of the article was difficult to determine, given the nature of the subject. This was the third attempt.
  2. The Truman library seems to have reorganised its documents, but fortunately the old ones are still available, at least for now; changed the links.
  3. Added a reference for the comment.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, re. 2, I can see the missing documents now, tks. Re. 3, that one's fine. Aside from this and the citations I've already listed above, can you just let me know you've double-checked other instances of primary sourcing to ensure we haven't attributed more to them than they actually contain, e.g. later analysis that should in fact be cited to a subsequent book, article, etc? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Older nominations

[edit] Mount Meager

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should be ready for FAC now. I have spent months of research on Mount Meager to recreate the article then I did some copyediting for clarification. I am aware there are terms in the article that make it a little technical to read like rock types (e.g. dacite, rhyodacite, andesite, rhyolite, breccia) and other volcanological terminology, but as far as I am aware of they are appropiate for FA volcano articles. Nevertheless, they are supported by helpful links. Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books
Done. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 37: last name?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 20: given that Trafford is a print-on-demand service, what are the qualifications of this author?
Just to get away from this I have replaced the book source with a better one. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 22: typo in title
The source that had the typo in title has been replaced with another source. Volcanoguy 04:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Check formatting of newspaper citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Switched to {{cite news}}. Volcanoguy 05:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support: Spot check looks good, but I'll made a full review sometime later. Nice to see you around Tusk ;) ResMar 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support comments - on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. reading through - queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a 1,094 km (680 mi) long fault zone running 80 km (50 mi) off the Pacific Northwest from Northern California to southwestern British Columbia. - should that be " Pacific Northwest coast"?
No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Para 2 of Regional setting - the word "trench" is repeated in 3 successive sentences. Any way this could be reworded to lose one (without sacrificing meaning) would improve prose.
I have changed the second "trench" to "this large depression". Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are fewer than expected --> " However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are less common/rarer than expected"? (sounds funny as is)
Done. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though very few eruptions in Canada have been witnessed by people, Canada is nonetheless an area of intense volcanic activity. - 2 canadas in the one sentence. could the second be "the region"?
Changed. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
These signs generally occur well in advance of a potential eruption, - how far in advance? weeks/months/years/days......
That depends. According to the Geological Survey of Canada, warnings can be weeks, months or years long, so I have added that to the sentence. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, its' the sort of thing laypeople are keen on knowing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Anything else people do there? popular summer hiking or winter skiiing?
No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise prose and comprehensiveness look pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
I have always had problems with this. Which captions should not have periods? To me a sentence is a statement with a period, so I have no idea what captions are you referring to. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Think I've got these either changed to sentences with periods, or frags w/o. The Interior (Talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hot spring caption needs editing for prose
Revised. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Graph is illegible at this size - can it be made larger?
Increased graph size. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Garibaldi_Volcanic_Belt-en.svg: second source link returns 404 error
Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Eruptive_history_of_the_Mount_Meager_Volcanic_Complex.png: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Page number added. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] George Andrew Davis, Jr.

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article.. —Ed!(talk) 01:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Inconsistent format used for web references
    • Fixed, I think. —Ed!(talk) 17:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support:

  • Please double cite the citation 16 and 17 in the third paragraph of the Command and Success section. The current citations only confirmed the Chinese side of the story during the November 30 engagement, but it did not mention Davis involvement in anyway.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If possible, please add the research from the book Красные Дьяволы на 38-ой Параллель (Red Devils on the 38th Parallel) on the circumstances of Davis' death in the Identity of Assailant section. Aside from an important book on the Russian involvement in the Korean War, Colonel Askold Germon, the author of the book, was personal involved in investigating Davis' death on the Russian side. Jim101 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This book may also suitable if a competent translator can be found. Jim101 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I can't seem to find a version of either book which is in a language I can read. —Ed!(talk) 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • File:MiG_Alley_Map.JPG: on what source(s) was this image based?
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • File:ZhangJihui.jpg: is this image also PD in the US?
    • Just edged in there; the image entered PD in 2000. —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png: summary needs fixing
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Several of the service medals are listed as PD or CC by their creators, but shouldn't most of them be PD-USGov-Military-Award?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • File:United_Nations_Service_Medal_for_Korea_Ribbon.svg: what's the copyright status of the medal design? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is very good—just needs some fit and finish and possible attention to one section.

  • MoS problems spotted:
    • Image captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods. I see you say that is fixed above, but it's not.
    • "By this point, Davis had 12 victories and the next best pilots claimed only six." WP:ORDINAL. Comparative quantities should both be written out, or both written as numbers.
  • I'm rather disappointed by the Controversy section. Is the current content really all that can be said here? Can you expand on the three controversies? What do you mean by saying that his presence in Korea was disputed? The section raises more questions than it answers.
  • "This was followed by another 74 hours during Basic Flight Training in Waco, Texas and a final stint of training aboard the T-6 Texan at Aloe Field in Victoria, Texas." Avoid beginning sentences with the vague "This". This what?
  • "He closed to 75 yards (69 m) of the pair" Either "closed to within" or "closed to 75 yards (69 m) from the pair"?
  • "This changed on November 30, Davis' 22nd combat mission in Korea." Same comment as above.
  • "scored a direct hit on Davis' fuselage, causing it to spin out of control" Just the fuselage spun out of control?
  • I do not have access to any of the sources used; therefore, I did not perform a source spot-check.
  • "killing the Chinese flight leader leading" Can we find a way to rephrase this to avoid the "leader leading"?

--Laser brain (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC) and Cla68

This is the third article on Japanese aircraft carriers that I've written with Cla68. This ship was originally designed as a battlecruiser, but was converted into an aircraft carrier during the mid-1920s after the Washington Naval Treaty limited new capital ship construction in 1922. The ship participated in several iterations of Japan's war with China during the 1930s and was very active in the first part of the Pacific War. She was one of the carriers that conducted the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and supported many of the Japanese attacks on Allied forces and territories through June 1942 when she was sunk during the Battle of Midway. The article received a very thorough MilHist A-class review last October and we're hopeful that not much work remains to pass this FAC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Good to see you back at FAC, Cla68.
  • I'm confused by the second paragraph of Propulsion.
  • Otherwise, so far so good down to where I stopped in the A-class review, Reconstruction. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Gardiner and Grey or Gray?
  • Why not include both authors for Hata citations?
  • FN 37: which Prange?
  • FN 41: punctuation
  • Be consistent how citations with multiple non-consecutive pages or ranges are handled, and whether ranges are abbreviated or not
  • FN 44: missing a dash
  • Izawa Yasuho or Yasuho Izawa?
  • Are "Naval Institute Press" and "United States Naval Institute" the same thing?
    • Yes, but the name changed over the decades. They are correct as given in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose/detail/structure at this stage

  • No DAB links or EL probs according to the toolbox checkers.
  • Having reviewed and copyedited this at its MilHist ACR, I've gone right through the article and CE'd again as a fair few edits have been made since.
  • No image checks as yet and, although refs look reliable, no spotchecks either -- will do so as/when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Went through each image and licensing looks reasonable to me, however I wouldn't mind an expert double-checking one or two that are scanned from American books but assert Japanese PD without author details, e.g. File:Akagi AA gun position.jpg and File:Akagi Pearl Harbor Second Wave Prep.jpg.
    • Checking over the online sources, there's not much to spotcheck in any case. Knowing the nominators as I do, I'm prepared to AGF on the info presented. However I'm a bit dubious about the Tully website. I can see it's purported to be by someone who's published at least one book, but that doesn't necessarily tell me that the site itself is wholly reliable... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that I understand what your qualms are, Ian, but Tully's written or co-written two books on battles of the Pacific War and he wrote the record of movement that we cite here. It meets all the requirements of a highly reliable source as far as I see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Read it for clarity and any obvious RW technical issues. Nice article. Two notes, matters of opinion rather than issues, no need to change on my account. In the lead and the last paragraph, is "scuttle" the right word to use for sinking by other ships? The use of "IJN" extensively throughout the article to refer to the Japanese navy for me kept stopping the flow of the reading. Nice article. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The most common use of scuttle is for a ship to sink itself, but it is also appropriate when another ship of the same nationality/side sinks it to prevent capture, etc. I'll look again at the usage of IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fairly common in military literature to spell-out the formal title of an organization (Imperial Japanese Navy), then use an acronym (IJN) to refer to it for the rest of the article, book, or essay. I understand that in most other literature, however, using acronyms that way is not necessarily pleasing to the eye. I'm fine with trying to use other words, such as "the Japanese navy", or something like that if you feel it would read better. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, and I don't have much to add. It is very well-written and very interesting. I appreciate the opportunity to read it. I made a few minor changes as I read. My only real beef would be the application of WP:ORDINAL, especially in the World War II section. In the places in the narrative where you are writing "x of these aircraft, x of these other aircraft" and so on, I recommend you always express the numbers as numerals. WP:ORDINAL refers to comparative quantities, but I think it applies here since you are comparing numbers of different kinds of planes.

  • Image review: all images used are in the public domain.

--Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking the time to read the article, make some improvements, give a recommendation, and provide some suggestions for improvement. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Based on general quality of the article; not review of all FA criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II

Nominator(s): Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is almost perfectly written and is just about at the level of other British monarch FA's. It could use a couple of revisions, like in the header, but I think it'd be really cool to work out all the kinks by February 6 to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Comments always help! Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Hi Rockhead, welcome to FAC. Have you contacted any of this article's editors? Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dank, he posted at the article's talk page, and the most significant editor agreed that he could nominate it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in how shortened citations are combined (ex FN 1 vs FN 10)
  • Check wikilinking in footnotes
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books or not
  • Cassell & Co or Cassell and Co? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the source review.
  • FN 10 corrected
  • Most wikilinks removed
  • The quotation marks used match the original source in all cases
  • Hyphens removed
  • I'm really not keen on adding a location for OUP, because of the duplication "Oxford Oxford" (so good, they named it twice)
  • I've used ampersands because I like the pretty curls. DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd keep the ampersand. I looked up Cassell & Co, and that's how it's listed everywhere.
  • I don't think adding the OUP location would look all that bad. The colon kinda separates it out. When I see "Oxford: Oxford University Press", I think "Oxford University Press in Oxford". Unless Nikkimaria agrees with you, I'd change it for the sake of consistency. Rockhead126 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, have done as it turns out one of the books is published from the New York office! DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. I gave the article a good article review a few months ago, where my concerns were dealt with. I am happy with the minimal changes since then, and so, after a chat with DrKiernan, I am happy that this article is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - while I've not had the chance to fully review the article, I have read the whole article and enjoyed it very much. It is very readable. If in a week or so you need further review (which I'd need to do before entering a formal support) please let me know (am unlikely to have time before then). Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Media review

—Andrewstalk 09:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I am tempted to nominate those images that are not free in the US for deletion at Commons; maybe in the process someone more knowledgeable about the matter will have a solution. —Andrewstalk 11:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't removed it from the article, because it has been nominated for deletion before and kept [2]. But I don't mind if someone wants to remove/replace it or re-start the deletion discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on this file restarted by Adabow here. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: While the general quality of the article (which I read during the blackout via the cache) is good, there are a few concerns that need addressing:-

  • The lead is somewhat muddled, in particular in trying to define what Elizabeth is queen of. The terms "Commmonwealth realms", "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth countries" are all used; do they all mean the same? Is there a distinction between "monarch" and "queen regnant"? In terms of numbers, the arithmetic seems wrong. First you say she is monarch of "the 16 commonwealth realms". When she became queen in 1952 she was queen regnant of seven Commonwealth countries and during her reign she became queen of 25 more countries. 7 + 25 = 32; where does 16 come from? (I know the answer lies in the decolonoisation of Britain's former Empire, but younger and non-British readers won't Know this).
  • She is also queen of a number of "Overseas Territories" which are not Commonwealth realms. The best-known of these are probably Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and the Falklands; there are about a dozen others. These territories are not mentioned anywhere, and should be.
  • The list of 16 countries in the first sentence of the article makes a dull introduction. Consider transferring this, and perhaps other lists (of territories etc) to tables at the end of the article.
  • You should reconsider the wording of: "During her reign of over 59 years, the second-longest for a British monarch..." The grammar is dodgy; the sntence will quickly become outdated (60 years in less than three weeks away). "Second-longest" will be superseded if she lasts another 3½ years.
  • under way" is two words, not one.
  • Beyond the lead I made just a few scattered notes:-
    • The implication from the article is that The Little Princesses was published while Elizabeth and Margaret were still children. Perhaps clarify that by "later" you mean "1950".
    • There is explanation later in the article about the meaning of "Heiress presumptive", but it would be better to have this explantion brought forward into the section bearing this name.
    • In the first line of the Second World War section the words "her younger sister" are redundant; by now we know who who Margaret is.
    • Marriage section: The pronoun in "She still required ration coupons..." is unsuitable, as there is too much text since the previous mention of Elizabth by name.
    • In the "Reign" section, "President of the United States Harry S. Truman" is cumbersome. Just "President Truman" with a link will do.
    • "Succession" - shouldn't this be "Accession"? The content of the subsection leads me to think, anyway, the title should be extended to "Accession and coronation"
    • "In 1960, after the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of Churchill..." makes it seem that these events happened in 1960., rather than seven and five years earlier, respectively.
    • The third paragraph seems to have strayed in from elsewhere, being unrelated to accession or coraonation. If the material is to remain, you should clarify that Armstrong-Jones was elevated to his earldom as a consequence of his marriage.
    • In the "Issue" table it might be worth adding a note that the children of the queen's sons at present have precedence over those of Anne in the line of succession.

I read the article in somewhat restricted circumstances; if I can find the time I may add further comments, but in general this looks a thoughtful and well-constructed article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.

Well, I'm disappointed with the first three of those responses. The lead as it stands does not in my view meet Featured Article standards, and adamantine statements like "that's not going to happen" make me think it never will. It is essential that lead statements are clear, since the lead is likely the most read part of any article. I simply don't accept that it is impossible to write a lead that does not contain a confusion of terms that require background knowledge to interpret. For instance, the sentence "During her reign of 59 years, the second-longest for a British monarch, she became queen of 25 other Commonwealth countries as they gained independence" implies that she was not queen of these countries before—which of course she was. And how can a decision to ignore the Overseas Territories altogether in the article, not just in the lead, possibly be justified? I urgently ask you and other interested editors to reconsider how the lead should be presented. I don't want to oppose this article's promotion, but if the answer really is "it's not going to happen", then I feel I will have no choice. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Brianboulton, I also think the lead should be improved. Can we rephrase it a little? Do we really need the following: In 1992, which Elizabeth termed her annus horribilis ("horrible year"), Charles and Andrew separated from their wives, Anne divorced, and a severe fire destroyed part of Windsor Castle. Revelations continued on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and they divorced in 1996. The following year, Diana died in a Paris car crash, and the media criticised the royal family for remaining in seclusion in the days before her funeral. I think that this article has the potential to be a Featured Article. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the article. It won't be an adequate summary if annus horribilis, her children's marital problems, and Diana's death are excluded from it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, maybe you are correct. I liked this change, it is better now. I am reading the article again, so far, no problems have surfaced. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, I think we should use the modern version: File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg What do you think? Regards Paulista01 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The modern version is copyrighted, whereas the older version's copyright has expired. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I've read this article several times over the few years and I find it to be well-written, referenced, impartial and complimented with lovely images --Hadseys (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the article does get promoted perhaps an ideal time to have it on the Main Page would be on Coronation Day, which would be June 2? Just a suggestion --Hadseys (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know if we can make it, but I think February 6 would be better. It's the 60th Anniversary of Elizabeth's ascension to the throne, her Diamond Jubilee. Queen Victoria was the only British monarch who lived long enough to have her Diamond Jubilee, so it's a huge milestone. Rockhead126 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Satin

Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this biography (touching on Vietnam War-era draft dodging, New Age politics, and radical centrism) for featured article status because it has been carefully developed over time. This is its third FAC review. I first nominated it five months ago (August 11). In October I put it through a productive peer review. In November I re-nominated it here, but withdrew it (to save Wikipedia editors time and trouble) after I realized that all the editors were saying essentially the same thing: I needed to make sure the article was written in what one called the Wikipedia "house style." I have now done that - simplified words, shortened sentences, etc.

After the two brief notes below, I reprint 31 comments (from four editors) that I received during my second FAC review. Instead of responding to them there, I wrote a brief note saying I'd review my entire article with the spirit of those comments in mind. Now that I've done that, I have inserted responses after each of the comments below, to give you a better sense of how I've changed the article. (I responded to Nikkimaria's comments during my second FAC review.)

Correction!: Apparently, placing my responses to the 31 comments here would violate FAC norms (see Dank's note below). So I have placed them at the beginning of my talk page, under the heading "Responses to comments on 'Mark Satin' article." - Babel41 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in a 2005 revision (my original 2004 stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers.

Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention.

I would appreciate your reactions to the article, and I will respond to them here. - Babel41 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Welcome back, Babel. I see you've made a lot of new responses to questions from previous FACs ... we generally like to start out with a blank page at FAC, so I've moved those to this FAC's talk page, if that's all right. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dank. The last thing I want to do is violate FAC norms, so whatever you say, goes. Noleander, Brian, and Jim put a tremendous amount of thought into their questions, though; and I spent much time crafting appropriate answers (and changing my article accordingly); so I did think it would be useful for that material to be here. When you move it, could you create a conspicuous link to it, so FAC editors can readily find it? Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've put it in bold above, I don't think they'll miss it :) - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts, but I don't see it on the article's talk page. So I've entered it myself, on my own talk page, where I could post it at the very top, and eliminated your bold message above. I hope that works for you and everyone. - Babel41 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
They're on this FAC's talk page; you'll see them if you click on the "Discussion" tab above. I left messages on the 3 users' talk pages pointing them to your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, foolish me. I'd like to keep them in both places for now, so any Web neophyte can find them. And thanks for writing N., B., and J., that was on my agenda for tomorrow. - Babel41 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Foolish software for naming the talk page the "discussion" page ... the community has asked for the change, we're waiting on the developers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

  • The article is looking very good.
Thanks ... didn't happen overnight. - Babel41 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wording confusion: "Other observers see Satin as a wounded figure. ... Annie Gottlieb, who attributes Satin's wounds to his struggle against the Vietnam War, .." - Not clear if these are emotional wounds, or physical. Did he pull a hamstring?
Done: He should have been so lucky. I've changed wounded to "emotionally wounded." That's not too strong a phrase, I think, given Berton's and Gottlieb's remarks. (And both of them like Satin's work!) - Babel41 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • His original Ten Key Values - I would love to see his original Ten Key Values for the Green Party. I see the link in the Ext links section ("Green Party of California. Green politics with the original Spretnak-Satin "Ten Key Values" statement largely intact..") but that looks like it has been modified somewhat. Can the original be linked to from Ext Links?
Done: I do reference two complete original Ten Key Values (TKV) statements, after listing the values themselves (in the sentence you describe in your last comment below). Both are in books, though, one by Gaard, the other by Spretnak-Capra. Unfortunately, the only 100% unadulterated original TKV statement I can find on an Internet site is the one on Satin's own site. And I am hesitant to link to Satin's TKV page in the "External links" section because Wikipedia warns (correctly, I think) against giving even the appearance of puffing one's biographical subjects. The TKV statement was not created by Satin alone (not that Satin states or implies that on his site - quite the contrary). If the TKV statement is linked to in the "External links" section, though, I think it should properly be on a Green site.
Given these considerations, I have done two things:
(1) I have retained your link to the California Greens' TKV page. You are right, their TKV statement is not greatly modified, and it retains the all-important open-ended questions. But I extended your link to encompass the two words "largely intact." That will clarify to viewers that the CA Greens' statement has been slightly modified.
(2) I had linked to Satin's online TKV page elsewhere in the article; and now I link to it a third time, alongside the Gaard and Spretnak-Capra books, following the listing of the TKVs that you discuss in your last suggestion below. (I realize that that violates Ealdgyth's advice to avoid citing three or more references in a row. But I hope I can be excused here, since all I'm doing is offering viewers an opportunity to look up the same material in different sources.) - Babel41 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Peculiar wording: "The radical middle idea does go back in time with him." - I think I know what the sentence is trying to say, but it is hard to parse, so maybe you should simplify the wording so readers can grasp it more readily.
Done: I replaced it with a more conventional construction: "Some observers had always seen him as a radical centrist." (Then I follow with the same two examples. They still work, I think.) - Babel41 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The following sentence has a lot of quotation marks. Although perhaps they are grammatically correct, good usage suggests that there are exceptions to every rule (the capitalization should suffice to indicate that they are verbatim section titles): The values in the original [Ten Key Values] statement are: "Ecological Wisdom", "Grassroots Democracy", "Personal and Social Responsibility", "Nonviolence", "Decentralization", "Community-based Economics", "Postpatriarchal Values", "Respect for Diversity", "Global Responsibility", and "Future Focus".
Done: I can be too careful sometimes, and I definitely was here. All the quotes are gone now, and the titles do still read as if they are being directly quoted, as you anticipated. - Babel41 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose, provided Noleander's points are addressed, per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the changes since the last FAC, and read over the reviewer comments and answers on this FAC's talk page, and I'm satisfied with the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your subtle edits from January 7; both passages read more smoothly now. - Babel41 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support and a couple of minor comments This is so much better, good use of notes to help your readers without losing direction in the text

Thank you! - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In "Later life", I'd be tempted to say stopped producing Radical... but no big deal.
Done: I like that, makes it more precise. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on left-aligned images immediately under a subheading, personally I'd either right align or put them lower in the section. Just my foible, doubt if it's a breach of MoS, happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:Manual of Style/Images#Location agrees with you, Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Done: Have moved all my left-aligned images so each begins one paragraph under the subheads, for consistency's sake. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: I was impressed by this article at its previous FAC, though I thought it needed more work. My comments at that process have been addressed, and the article is now a truly impressive and informative account.

It is now a truly collective work as well, owing much to you, Jim, Nikkimaria, Dank, Noleander, Ed, Ealdgyth, others. And thanks for your excellent stealth edit to my "Carl Rogers" caption. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a few issues arising from my latest reading, mainly minor nitpicks:-

  • In the lead, you refer to "a period of political disillusion, spent mainly in law school and practicing business law". I see almost no reference to this period in the article, beyond a vague statement of disillusionment. As this period evidently lasted for seven years, a significant chunk of his life, I would have expected a little more detail in the body of the article, especially as the episode is highlighted in the lead. Like, when did he finish law school, when was he called to the bar, where did he practise, etc?
Done: Satin's law career always struck me as peripheral to his achievements as a political theorist and activist (i.e., the reason his biography belongs on Wikipedia), and there is little in print about it. But in response to your comment, I managed to find enough relevant material to add a brief paragraph about it; see paragraph #2 under the "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Just before leaving for Canada, Satin's father told him he was trying to destroy himself." This wording reads as though Satin's father, rather than Satin, went to Canada. ("Just before Satin left for Canada, his father told him..." etc)
Done: Right you are; I simply borrowed your wording. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "When Mark Satin was hired as director of the Programme in April 1967, he attempted to change the Programme's culture". The second "Programme" should be a pronoun.
Done: Changed it to "its." - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Soon after the appearance of the second edition of the Manual, which had a print run of 20,000,[45] Satin was fired..." This reads as though it was a second firing. I would re organise: "Satin was fired from the Programme soon after the appearance of the second edition of the Manual, which had a print run of 20,000,[45] and..."
Done: Again, simply used your good wording. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You should not use "arguably" as a loose adverb. Who has suggested that the Manual stands as an icon of its era?
Done: Have given Joseph Jones his due. Went on to eliminate another "arguably" from the last para. of the "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "[Satin's memoir encountered] a more fundamental obstacle than unenthusiastic reviews" carries the whiff of editorial opinion
Done: You're good! It now reads, "In addition, Satin's publisher began having reservations about him. Many years later, ..." - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "And philosopher Douglas Groothuis says..." In a few circumstances, beginning a statement with "And..." is acceptable, but is rarely encyclopedic and in this case is, I think, unjustified. (There are other instances, too)
Done: This is a tic left over from my long-lost youth. Overall, I found nine sentences beginning with "And" (NAP last para. (two instances), NWA paras. #3 and 4, NOPT last para., TKV para. #3, RMN para. #4 (two instances), and RMB para. #6). And I found one sentence beginning with - ugh - "So" (NAP para. 1). So I changed the beginnings of each of them. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You say Satin quit the Greens in 1990, but unless I missed something, you don't say when he joined.
Done: I thought it would be understood from his taking on a defining assignment at the founding meeting. I have now added a clarifying phrase. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Similarly, it would be useful to have a year for the foundation of Radical Middle, rather than a vague "Seven years later".
Done: I have put that in as well ("Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, end of para. #2). - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "To some extent, these objections were inevitable". Editorial observation, I fear.
Done: I felt it was just this side of objective, but I appreciate your sterner standard. I simply eliminated that transitional sentence and slightly re-worded the rest of that paragraph. It still works, I think. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Radical Middle provoked, and continues to provoke, essentially three kinds of responses". I found it hard to identify three separate responses from the following text. Could these be indicated a little for clarly?
Done: I gave neutral labels to each of the responses ("skeptical," "pragmatic," and "visuionary") and gave each a separate paragraph. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Legacy" is what you leave when you're dead or completely retired. Maybe "Appraisal" or "Assessment" would be a more appropriate section title?
Done: "Assessment" does feel sunnier, I've taken it. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to changing to full support, when these points, and sourcing and image issues, have been cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All my significant points answered; images & sources seem OK so I have switched to full support, registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully helpful note on access to sources: A large number of passages from the books I cite (more than half, I believe) are now or were recently searchable at Google Books. Also, I recently discovered that the Toronto Star has made all its back issues from 1894 through 2008 available via Pages of the Past. You can search them there for $3.95 / hour, and one hour is long enough to peruse or download all the Satin-related articles I cite. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources review: In general the sources look very solid. A few format isues:

Please allow me to explain and defend my choices here. Before turning this article into a fully-developed one, I put some time into thinking about format issues, and I think you might like what I've done when I explain it to you. I'll be as brief as I can ... really. - Babel41 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It is standard practice in reference listing to place authors' surnames first, i.e. "Slaton, Christa Daryl" not "Christa Daryl Slaton"
Addressed: When I started revising and expanding this biography one year ago, I read in Wikipedia:Citing sources that we could devise whatever reference listings we preferred, so long as they were (a) internaly consistent and (b) contained all necessary information. As you will see from the third paragraph in my inroduction to this FAC nomination, I chose to continue the hybrid style I devised as the first major contributor to this article in 2005. It is partially based on the Bluebook, which does place first names first.
After reading your comment, I looked at the current version of "Wikipedia:Citing sources" to see if that rule has changed. So far as I can tell, it has not. Section 7, "Variation in citation methods," states that different Wikipedia articles can and do use different citation "systems, styles and methods." Similarly, Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style reports that there is "no consensus on a preferred citation style or system." The example it uses is itself a hybrid style. Finally, I looked at some recently chosen Featured Article bios to see if Wikipedia's policy had changed in practice. I saw that the Brad Pitt bio, Wikipedia's FA for January 10 of this year, employs its own hybrid reference style that puts first names first.
I prefer putting authors' first names first. I think that makes it easier for readers to absorb the names and quickly move on. I hope you will let me keep them that way. - Babel41 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • A number of the book/article sources have several citations to them, including Satin: Confessions, Sale: SDS, Schreiber: "Canada's Haven" and several others. These should be listed in a "Bibliography" subsection; otherwise a reader, for example, who wanted to follow up on ref 106, wouldn't know where to look to get details of this book.
Addressed: My understanding of Wikipedia:Citing sources was, and is, that authors of fully developed articles are free to choose between two basic citation reference formats. The first consists of a list of '"full citations" (often listed under the label '"References"). The second consists of a list of "short citations" (often designated as "Citations") followed by a separate list of "general references" (often designated as "Bibliography"). In the current version of the "Wikipedia:Citing sources" page, section 1, "Types of citation," appears to express no preference between these two basic types, and section 6, "Citation style," explicitly leaves the "ordering of the information" up to the individual author.
I consciously chose the first reference format (which, btw, is a lot harder to type in). The second format makes sense to me when you're dealing with many more internal citations than texts cited to - for example, the Samual Adams FA-rated bio has almost 10 times as many internal cites as it does texts in its bibliograpphy. Even the recently FA-awarded Elvis Presley biography, with 372 internal cites to about 145 texts, works tolerably well under the second format. But my Satin biography has 216 internal cites to 154 texts. And 20 of those 216 cites are second and third references to Satin's own books, which are already separately listed in the "Publications" section.
It makes no sense to me to have 216 (effectively, 196) short citations in one section linking to 154 general references in a second section. Consider what that might do to a reader who wanted to read my entire text along with all the references. Under the first forrmt (which I use), the reader is able to read 154 full references on first click, and has to scroll up the reference list to find the remaining 42 full references. True, it is not a perfect format. But under the second format, which you want me to use, the reader would not be able to read any references on first click. They would have to click twice to get at each full reference. And then, in order to get back to their place in my 7,500-word text, they would have to scroll up the screen, manually, 196 times, and try to remember where they were. I suspect readers would quickly forego looking at my full references.
That is why I prefer the first format to the second one with regard to my Satin bio (though not the Samuel Adams bio). I hope you and the other Wikipedia editors will let me retain my reference section as it stands. Perhaps one compromise could be for me to bundle some of my second and third references to certain texts in with my first references to them. For example, there is no altogether necessary reason for me to retain more than one reference listing for Schreiber's brief article, or to retain five (!) references listings for four pages in Churchill's article. I suspect I can, without significantly complicating life for researchers, reduce my 42 second and third references to non-Satin texts by nearly half. - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do refs 26 and 27 have no page numbers? (See also 65. I notice other cases of chapter numbers rather than page ranges)
Addressed: Those refs are to chapter numbers rather than page numbers. I hate to keep throwing Wikipedia:Citing sources back at you, but section 5 there, "What information to include," sub-section 5.1, "Books," states that Wikipedia authors can give page numbers, page ranges, or chapter numbers "if appropriate." Whenever I cite chapter numbers it is because an entire chapter or series of chapters is relevant to the issue being discussed in my text. Thus, for example, in ref #26 I cite to a chapter that speaks directly and specifically to the issue being discussed (Satin's rebelliousness after leaving for university). - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Endnote: Please don't take my comments about format issues above as any sort of resistance to your counsel. In the end, I am willing to do whatever I am expected to do to bring my article up to FA status. I do want you to see that I strongly believe I am abiding by the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's current format rules, including those that allow for thoughtful choice on the part of its authors. - Babel41 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Images seem to be in order, with the caveat that I don't have OTRS access (many of the files claim OTRS permission). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Spotcheck on sources for accurate representation and close paraphrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Spotchecks haven't been done in the previous two FACs or in the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully helpful note on images (from nominator of article): Again, sorry I'm so slow. Here's something I wrote on images earlier today that might help:

To (possibly) save Wikipedia editors time and duplication of effort, I thought it might be useful to point out that image issues for this article (a topic raised by Brianboulton, above) have been taken up by two Wikipedians over the last few months.

(1) Nikkimaria asked the following question during my first FAC review, and I provided her with this answer at her talk page on 17 November 2011:

  • Phillips contributed the photo [of the Anti-Draft Programme door] to the public domain, but who holds copyright on the image on the door? Is the artist known, is the image PD...?
Done: Your question eventually caused me to familiarize myself with Wikimedia and its requirements. All five of the pictures in the article that come from Satin's collection (the first, [second, third, fourth, and sixth]) now have their yellow OTRS permission slips from Wikimedia. In other words, I had the photographers send documents to Wikimedia verifying that they were turning their photos over to the public domain. In the case of the "door" photo, I also had the artist - Satin - submit a letter to Wikimedia verifying that he is the artist and that the image belongs to the PD. - Babel41 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(2) On 5 December 2011, according to the "Revision history of Mark Satin" page, a Wikipedian named Kitfoxxe apparently looked over my images and removed two that I had simply found on Wikimedia (i.e., not any of those dealt with in the prior paragraph). I have not attempted to restore either of them.

In the "Early years" section, Kitfoxxe removed an image of the SNCC pin on the grounds that it is "only related to a small time in the subject's life." That is true. In the "Assessment" section, Kitfoxxe removed the image of a pre-Reagan era Greyhound bus-and-terminal on the grounds that it has only an "indirect connection to subject." That may be a closer call. Satin does not appear in the picture. But as the "New World Alliance" sub-section (first para.) and Note #11 make clear, Satin was a "networker" for two years in the 1970s, and the Greyhound bus system was his medium.

After writing the defense of my reference format choices above, the last thing I want or intend to do is question another Wikipedia editor's work on something he or she knows far more about than I. But if any of you would care to look at the Greyhound image (with caption) and re-assess, you can find it atop this article's FAC talk page. - Babel41 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. on image: I have nominated Laura Jones's photo of Satin counseling draft dodgers in Toronto (the third image down in the article) for Featured Picture status. Apparently, you'll be able to see it for the next week or so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates under the title "Counseling Vietnam War resisters in Toronto 1967." - Babel41 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note on "External links" from principal author of article: Just wanted to inform you that, over the last 36 hours, I have added three new links to my "External links" section (Declaration, Vasconcellos, and Pocock, respectively) and have divided the now 10 links into three sub-sections paralleling the three major divisions of the article (radical centrism, New Age politics, neopacifism). I think these additions are non-controversial and helpful, and I will not make any more changes to the article except for those you suggest to me here. - Babel41 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks of 7 sources found the following issues:

Thanks for your work here. - Babel41 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 15 covers pages 74–76, but the second occurrence of that footnote cites material that appears on pages 77–78
Done: I remembered citing those pages precisely, and when I went back to my edit page I discovered, to much dismay, that my cite to pp. 77–78 was preceded by a < ref name=Hagan tag, which may be what brought pp. 74–76 up instead – after I removed that tag, the correct page numbers reappeared. How embarrassing! I spent part of this afternoon trying to find similar glitches among the cites on my edit page, but could not. - Babel41 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Compare "Satin says they are just updates of the values that animated the American Revolution: liberty (maximize choices), equality (a fair start), pursuit-of-happiness (human potential), and fraternity (help the developing world)." in the article to "Satin sees these key goals as updated aspects of the eighteenth-century values that animated the American Revolution: liberty (maximize choices), equality (a fair start), happiness (human potential) and fraternity (help the developing world)." in this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Done: This paraphrase is too close. The new values (the phrases in parentheses) had been cited in the previous sentence in my article, so I substituted for the sentence you quote from a new one, as follows: "Instead of finding those values in the writings of contemporary theorists, Satin says they are just new versions of the values that inspired 18th century American revolutionaries - liberty, equality, pursuit-of-happiness, and fraternity, respectively." - Babel41 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have spent parts of each of the last two days trolling for other instances of too-close paraphrasing. I will do so again today and tomorrow (Thursday PST). - Babel41 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Source checks by nominator of article: After responding to Nikkimaria's spotchecks above, I took responsibility for reviewing all the references where I felt I might have possibly misrepresented or inadequately paraphrased material. I developed a list of 70 references to check out. I have now checked each of them, and msde the following changes:

A. Incomplete citations

1.) "Early years" section, para. 2 - the source describing Satin's expulsion from Midwestern State University (the Radical Middle book) refers only to "a small Texas state university." So I did some digging and came up with a new Note, as follows (now entered as Note #2): "Satin mentions this incident in his Radical Middle book, but omits the name of the university.[FN.] An article from September 1967 also mentions the incident without naming the university, but adds that Satin's father taught there at the time.[FN.] An article from May 1967 tells where the father taught.[FN.]"

2.) "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section, last para., fn. 201 - although pp. 80-81 is not incorrect, a better sense of the emerging "ideology about ideologies" can be gleaned from pp. 77-81, so I changed it to that

B. Faux paraphrasing corrected by quoting or rewording the material

3.) "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, end of para. 3 - Pierre Berton's remark about Satin's stature has been reworded

4.) "Manual fo Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada" sub-section, end of para. 1 - journalist's phrase about the Manual-as-bestseller is now quoted (too precise to mess with)

C. Paraphrasing made looser by changing a key word or phrase (I was bending over backward to be correct here)

5.) "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, para. 3 - "cash grants" is now "cash"

6.) "Manual fo Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada" sub-section, para. 4 - "federal audit" is now "government audit"

7.) Same sub-section, last para. - "era" is now "age"

8.) "New World Alliance" sub-section, para. 2 - "held" is now "convened"

9.) "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, para. 2 - "thinking" is now "views"

10.) "Ten Key Values" sub-section, last para. - "acknowledged" is now "recognized"

D. Useful additions (as distinct from corrections}

- "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, para. 3 - added a world-class futurist (Robert Theobald) to the list of representative figures on Satin's New Options Newsletter advisory board

- "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, para. 3 - added an important person in the socially responsible investment community (Shelley Alpern) to the list of representative figures on Satin's Radical Middle Newsletter advisory board

- Same para., fn. 176 - I mentioned and linked to the online masthead after citing the hard-copy masthead

I think you can be confident that the article's sources are being used accurately and without inappropriate paraphrasing. - Babel41 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Great news - Wikipedia Featured Picture award: I thought everyone who's been helping me with the Mark Satin article over the last six months would like to know that one of the pictures used there - the one of Satin counseling draft dodgers in Toronto in 1967 - has just been voted a Featured Picture by the Wikipedia community! (It is now on exhibit at Wikipedia:Featured pictures and will apparently remain permanently at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War.) I asked the photographer - now in her 60s - to turn the photo over to the PD last year, principally so I could use it in the Satin article. Six "support" voters mentioned or referred to other voters' mention of the photo's strong EV (encyclopedic value). - Babel41 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] South American dreadnought race

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This article tells the curious story of a dreadnought arms race between Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In 1907, Brazil changed a previous naval order to include three dreadnoughts – a new design of warships that was much more powerful than any earlier naval vessel. The Argentine government, Brazil's chief rival, had a major problem with that, so they responded by ordering two larger dreadnoughts. Chile, Argentina's rival and major naval competitor in the 1890s, didn't like this new development, so they ordered two super-dreadnoughts. The costs for these ships were staggeringly astronomical. The Argentine ships' original cost was a fifth – that's 20%, folks – of the entire Argentine budget. Making everything worse, later in-service costs would easily add up to more than half the original cost over the first five years. The whole ride came to a crashing halt when WWI hit, which was probably a good thing for the countries involved, but the dreadnoughts received by the countries were used through the Second World War.

I hope you find this topic as interesting as I have. This article, the last in a series on South American dreadnoughts, has been about seven months in the making, and I have received help from many people in crafting it. Lecen bought and provided translations of the chief Portuguese-language book in this area, and I've received copyediting assistance from Dank, John, and Drmies. Fifelfoo validated most of the sources and did a thorough close-plagiarize check, which eventually ended up as a Bugle op-ed. The article went through a Milhist A-class review in June 2011. I'd love to hear any feedback you all have. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I love it, well done for your hard work. I would still like to tinker with some of the language; I don't think "pan out" or "stymied" strike quite the right tone. --John (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; I have made some very minor adjustments to the prose and image formatting, and I think I now support. --John (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support No qualms here. Buggie111 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I changed a few bits of clunky prose and I'm looking at more. I will relay my further concerns in a bit. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The article title first made me think that the ships were raced, you know, a speed trial with a winner declared. This is actually an arms race, so perhaps the article should be moved to South American dreadnought arms race, South American dreadnought purchasing clash, South American dreadnought rivalry or similar. That last one is succinct. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, the article is about an arms race, so it has to be at this title or your first suggestion. I don't see the current title as a major issue, but I'm open to changing the title if other non-milhisters see this the same. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Too easily read wrong: "by passing a large" throws the reader who may at first see "bypassing". Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I removed this part of the sentence, as it simplifies the introduction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • 1906 twice in the same sentence! The second appearance should be "later the same year" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I've copyedited this bit and must thank you for catching an embarrassing typo (I meant 1905). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You cannot have a "naval-limiting pact". What is probably intended is "naval-power-limitation pact". Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Is there a clear difference between the two? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
        • "Naval limiting" is not used in books to discuss naval treaties while "naval limitation" is used. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Clear from context: "repeated major alterations" does not need "major" because we already know the keel was ripped up. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The lead section should tell the reader whether any of the South American battleships were in violent action, firing their guns in anger. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That's really out of scope for the lead, I think, as it would mess with the chronological order and make the paragraphs harder to read. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The information should be in the article body at least. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I have a sentence or two on the Revolt of the Lash, though the little gunfire in that is left unstated. The only other extremely violent action was in the 20s when Sao Paulo fired on a rebelling fort. That may be out of scope too, as the race was only from 1904 to 1914, and anything after than is really just an epilogue that rightfully limits itself to potential rekindlings of the naval race. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, out of scope. The only relevant gunfire would be one dreadnought in action against another. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nearly there I made a couple of tweaks, am curious as to how given the contemporary lack of reliable earthquake prediction technology an earthquake in 1908 would cause a 1907 recession, especially if the 1906 Valparaíso earthquake was not worthy of mention.:) Also there is an aside in the footnotes about an Argentinian policy of being able to fight both Chile and Brazil. Such a policy would probably be worth an earlier mention, especially if they were trying to follow it. It might also be worth mentioning somewhere the size of other Latin American navies. Peru has not always had good relations with Chile and Brazil borders all of them bar Ecuador and Chile. ϢereSpielChequers 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • He actually says "Chile's entrance into the South American naval race had been deferred because of adverse economic conditions. The collapse of the nitrate market in 1907, and a disastrous earthquake in 1908 had brought on a severe financial depression." but I wonder if we can assume he meant the 1906 quake? It seems obvious what he meant, at least to me. I don't see the footnote you are talking about, only a list of tonnages, and Argentina certainly never had such a policy or they would have gone bankrupt :-) They certainly had to be among the naval powers to compete with the Chilean Navy or the Brazilian Navy, but not both. Other Latin American navies at the time were tiny compared to the three main powers. Peru bought a ridiculously obsolete armored cruiser, Dupuy de Lôme, in 1912, but never took possession of it, so they were left with two new scout cruisers that had been completed in 1906 and 07. By 1914, they had a grand total of two cruisers, one destroyer, two submarines (mostly useless for want of spare parts), and other assorted ancient warships including an 1850-built wooden(!) frigate that was a training ship. Also, Peru is the only other South American navy worthy of being listed by Conway's in the continent's section. A few others are listed at the back of the book, but that's the realm of such powerful countries like Morocco, San Salvador, and Zanzibar. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't be so sure that the recession was in 1907, on my reading of that source it may have been, or it could have been a year or so later. Better to leave it undated; Something along the lines of "Due to a recession caused by x in 06 and y in 07 Chile postponed her naval plan till 10."
Re "an honest and respectable Government {{sic}}" Whose sic is this and why?
I can't find the sentence I thought I saw about Argentina, so I'm striking that as a senior moment.
I think you'll find that it might be worth mentioning Peru and specifically the Naval Campaign of the War of the Pacific as part of the background. Your story does start in the 1870s, it even mentions that war, and even if Peru never competed in the naval race afterwards she certainly had a fleet in that war. As for the rest, if they never had significant fleets during this era then it would in my view make sense to say something like: In the decades after the defeat of the Peruvian navy in the war of the Pacific, only three South American countries, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, maintained significant navies.
ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Done.
It was for the capitalization of "Government". Too minor to include, or can I make it lowercase as an acceptable typographical change? (based on WP:MOSQUOTE I think it is, but I can revert if necessary)
I'll use Scheina and add this in the next few days! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Added. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Images
  • Everything else checks out ok. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think I'll have to remove the first and third images. For the second, Argentina's copyright law is rather open, but I'll need to find a place where the image has been published. Thanks Parsec! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I hope you don't mind if I comment this one: this is a photo of the Baron of Rio Branco taken around 1898 during his trip to Europe as the head of a Brazilian diplomatic mission. The identity of the photographer has not survived. However, since he was a professional photographer, I find hardly possible that he may have survived past 1941. The Baron of Rio Branco himself died in 1912, and other members of his generation survived at amost until the 1920s. --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Hmm, we still have to prove that it's PD in the US though, which means a publishing date (ugh). What do you think of me uploading the image here, which is almost certainly an official portrait and covered under commons:Template:PD-Brazil-Gov? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
          • That's a possibility. Unfortunately, I don't have a book with photos of him during this period, only earlier. There is a great photo of him at Commons with Brazilian President Campo Sales and Argentine President Julio Roca. But I believe it wouldn't be useful, since the photographer is also unknown. --Lecen (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Have all the image issues been resolved? Ucucha (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • On an unrelated note to the above, why do you use parenthetical references for the block quotes?
    • Also, wouldn't the Argentine ships Libertad and Independencia be better referred to as coastal defense ships rather than battleships? That's how Conway's 1860-1905 classifies them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Chicago 13.68 says "The source of a block quotation is given in parentheses at the end of the quotation and in the same type size."
      • I think they were popularly classified and thought of as battleships at the time, but they were really more like the coast-defense ships of the Nordic countries. I'm fine with them being called either one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - not enough to oppose over or anything, but I can't help but feel that the current section headings are a bit melodramatic at the expense of encyclopedic-ness. Have you considered alternatives, perhaps "[Start of dreadnought race and ]Brazilian orders", "Argentina and Chile's[/Argentinian and Chilean] dreadnought orders", "Third Brazilian dreadnought" (for the three they correspond to, no suggested changes to the others)? What do you think?
Also, I'm no opponent of non-repeating references in general, but I think the paragraph "At the beginning of the Second World War, ..."'s references get a bit lost because of the blockquote. Might it be a good idea to repeat the references next to note "N" so the reader realises which reference(s) cover that bit? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to show that there were three distinct phases in the race. I have no objection to changing them, though. As for your second point, I think I forgot to add references when I first wrote the section. Whoops. Thanks for pointing this out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I was caught by surprise here. I wasn't aware that Ed was going to nominate this article so soon. Still, it's one wonderful piece of work and I can guarantee that all information here provided is correct. --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Lecen! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Not sure the formatting used for the blockquote in Response is the best
    • How so? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It doesn't match that used elsewhere, and it's not clear what the square brackets represent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What source was used for the Ships involved table?
    • I originally included footnotes, but they looked ugly and distracted from the main purpose in preview. Most of them are from Conway's. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps add a note to that effect above or below the table? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I've added a note below the table, though w/o page numbers. If anyone really wanted to verify it, they're from the massive lists of statistics in Topliss, Scheina's Naval History appendix, and Scheina's ship statistic tables in Conway's. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Might want to link "New London", as it's a place few will be familiar with
    • It's only there to distinguish from other Day papers, so I feel that it'd be overlinking. Not a very strong feeling though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Spaced ellipses (. . .) are considered deprecated in favour of unspaced (...)
  • FN 1: date?
    • As in, a specific date for the orthography change? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • No, I was attempting to refer to an endnote and didn't correct for the titling you used. It's fixed anyways, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in the titling used for shortened citations - ex. Garrett, Scheina and FN1 vs 83
    • The differences are because Garrett is a journal article by a named author, Scheina is a book by a named author, and En83 is a journal article without a specific author (annoyingly common in the early 1900s). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I understand why these would be different from each other, but my concern is that they're different from themselves - for example, endnotes 3 and 11 refer to the same source, but one is titled "Beagle Channel," while the other is "Beagle Channel Dispute." Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Missing bibliographic info for English
  • No citations to "The Brazilian Dreadnoughts." International Marine Engineering
    • Nice catch, I have stuff I can add from the article but apparently never did. Am adding it in now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Check alphabetization of references list
  • Navy or The Navy? Also, if (Washington) isn't part of the title, why is it included in shortened citations?
    • "The" is generally omitted, so that's fixed. I suppose I don't need the disambiguator in short cites, though... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
  • Chicago does not require noting foreign-language sources if the title is in the original language. --Eisfbnore talk 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 142, 149: formatting
    • Fixed.
  • be consistent in how page ranges are notated
    • How so?
      • For example, "240–253" but "249–63". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Almeida or de Almeida?
  • What is FGV? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that's the literal name of the publisher, although I forgot that the full name is "FGV Editoria". Thanks Nikki, your eagle eyes are always appreciated on my end. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A few initial observations

  • Every one of your online sources that I have checked (about half), and every book that I possess that touches on the topic, capitalises "Dreadnought" as a class of battleship (in the way that, say, "Spitfire" is a class of fighter aircraft). Why have you adopted the lower case form?
  • Sources in foreign languages, such as Acorazado Almirante Latorre's Unidades Navales, should be identified as such.
  • See my response to Nikkimaria's comment above. --Eisfbnore talk 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Direct links to external sources should not be in the text (see end of "Catalyst" section).
  • There is a tendency to use citation strings (three, four, five in a row), sometimes to support fairly straightforward factual statements. Examples: "Even the departure of Moreno was marked by mishaps, as the ship sank a barge and ran aground twice.[95][96][97]"; "she was formally purchased on 9 September after the British Cabinet recommended it four days earlier.[76][101][102][103]". This leads to some unnecessary clutter in the texts; I am sure that not all of these citations are necessary.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

    • On your first question, "dreadnought" as a type of battleship (as opposed to pre-dreadnoughts) is frequently lower-case, as it's no more a proper noun than "van" or "truck" are. You may be seeing either references to Dreadnought, or simply people who don't know how proper and common nouns work. Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That is a very unsatisfactory answer; please don't try to insult my intelligence. "Dreadnought" is not a general category noun similar to "truck" or "van"; it was an invented name, a nickname, to designate a specific type of warship with enhanced armaments. I have mentioned the parallel with "Spitfire"; another might be the name "Big Bertha" which depicts a type of First World War howitzer. As I have said, "Dreadnought" is capitalised in mainstreamm history books, and in all or nearly all of the online sources you are using. The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary gives "Dreadnought" as the usual form. Are you seriously saying that all these are "simply people who don't know how proper and common nouns work"? There may be a case for using the lower-case form, but I suggest you give a little more thought and reason to your reply; I also await your responses to two other points. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
ngram from books.google.com, definition from Oxford dictionaries, M-W. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Brian, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. Like I said, "dreadnought" is a common noun, like "truck" and "car". The Supermarine Spitfire is a proper noun, because it refers to a specific type of airplane, and is not analogous to "dreadnought", which refers to a general type of warship, the same as "armored cruiser", "destroyer escort", and the like. A more accurate relationship would be "Spitfire is to fighter as HMS Bellerophon is to "dreadnought". As to the other two points, I'll leave those to Ed, whose FAC this is. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Further hijacking this comment, please review MilHist style guide; perhaps Ed should consider a redirect from South American battleship race? Kirk (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a tough one, as there was an earlier battleship race between Argentina and Chile in the 1890s (see the background to this article). Perhaps a dab page? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Per Parceboy, above: "Like I said, dreadnought" is a common noun" is merely your opinion; it does not become fact by reiteration and is disputable. I have referred to several authorities which favour capital D - let me give you another. The Shorter OED gives three definitions for "dreadnought": a heavy overcoat; a fearless person; a class of battleship. It gives the first two with lower case and the third with "D". I won't bother to cite more evidence, though I could. What I want is an answer to my original question: "Why have you adopted the lower case form", especially when sources that you quote capitalise it? Can you, or someone else, please answer this? Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think three people answered you already so I will summarize: dreadnought as a common noun is used in multiple sources cited in this article, its the form used in multiple dictionaries linked by Dank, and its consistent with the project's style guide. Yes, capitalization of military terms is not consistent across all sources but I believe Ed has met the requirements of our project's style guide. Kirk (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
For example: dreadnought describing the Rio de Janeiro, in Conway's All the World's Ships
Also, I randomly checked 8 books in our library for the term - 3 used 'dreadnought', 4 used 'Dreadnought' and one didn't have the term. Two were books by John Keegan, and each one used a different capitalization so even some authors/editors can't stay consistent! Kirk (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you that the printed Shorter OED does not say what the online version, linked above, says. But let that pass; your answer seems to be that both the lower case and capitalised versions are widely used, and you have come down in favour of the former. That's OK; you could have just said this when I initially asked. There are two other questions (see above) still unanswered (citation strings and in-text external link). I am also doing a prose review, and will post here soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of my printed sources use the lowercase 'd'. Most of the online sources in this article are from 1905 to 1914ish, which was possibly before the term came into widespread use as a common noun. The citation strings tend to support different parts of the sentence. To use your first example, the sunken barge, running around once, and running aground twice are all different sources. The in-text external link is there because I don't have newspapers in the bibliography, meaning that readers would have to search for a link in the 150-odd list of citations (for why it's in-text, see my above reply to Parsecboy). Thanks for the review, Brian, and I look forward to your comments on the prose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand that citation strings arise when the facts in a sentence require different citations. The problem can be reduced by bunching; for example, refs 41 to 44 could be bunched into a single citation, which would help to unclutter the text. I will do this for you experimentally; if you don't like it please revert, but you may feel it helps the reader. On the in-text external link, in what way is this different from the several other NYT citations you have? Why is this treated differently? As to my prose comments I will post these to the talkpage, otherwise this page will become unduly congested. Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The only issue I have is with consistency (bunching some together but not all). I could bunch all of them but there's be a bunch of repeated citations. The in-text link arise because Chicago 13.68 says "The source of a block quotation is given in parentheses at the end of the quotation and in the same type size." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't covered referencing issues and don't know for sure, but there's some inconsistency in your referencing at the end of your block quotes, Ed. Also, I'm perfectly happy to cite Chicago's Chapter 5 on grammar and usage; I can't argue one way or the other for how we treat the other chapters, I haven't kept track. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I used a short cite for the last block quote because the book was used in an earlier block quote. Should I expand it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Brian, what's your preference? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've expanded them for the moment, at least. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. My position is that there should be one consistent referencing style for the article. I fail to see why the citation at the end of the blockquote in the "Catalyst" section is in the form of an external link, when elsewhere there are many standard citations to the New York Times and to other newspapers. Nor do I see a justification for the citations at the ends of the other blockquotes being in non-standard form. These should all be in short citation form, for consistency in accordance with MOS. This is an issue I believe must be addressed before the article is promoted. If you disagree, I suggest you ask Nikkimaria to adjudicate—she is wise on sourcing issues. I must apologise again for not having got very far with my prose review, details posted to the article talkpage. The points I raised there have been properly addressed; I doubt I'll have time to do much more in the course of this review, but would not wish to delay the promotion on that account. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I've had plenty of delays too. I've been following Chicago almost to the letter (only a couple exceptions e.g. ISBNs, JSTOR #'s, etc. aren't in Chicago, but I feel that they are necessary to fulfill Wikipedia's mission), and the blockquotes follow the style given by that style guide in Chapter 13. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I scanned the delta between the A-review and I can't think of anything new. I'm pleased with the summary table! Kirk (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So far so good down to where I stopped, Brazil's fade and reemergence. I copyedited this for A-class, but I see there have been over 250 edits since then. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Dank. Since the ACR I've added a bunch of citations to newspapers and journal articles from the time. Most of the prose should be the same, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Actually, Eagle wasn't flush-decked at all as she had a prominent island. But she was the fastest large hull available to the Brits at that time that didn't require an expensive full-scale reconstruction to convert to an aircraft carrier.
  • What's a shipwright?
  • Why is there a hyphen here: New-York Tribune?
  • What about Argentine post-war naval expansion plans? I know that they received a number of G-class destroyers from the Brits in the late 1930s.
  • Combine cells rather than use ibid. Every cell other than ship and country needs cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed, nice catch.
    • A ship designer.
      • Not quite. Designers were practically management. Explain or link the term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Found the issue – the source said "Shipwrights" (note the capital letter), so I believe he meant the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
          • That could well be; all I know is that shipwrights were one of the types of workers building the ships, although I don't know off-hand their specific functions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
        • This still needs to be dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's the name of the paper, see New-York Tribune
      • Wow, I've never seen that spelling before despite a large number of references.
    • They're included, look for "twelve destroyers (the Spanish-built Churruca class and the British-built Mendoza/Buenos Aires classes)" (the latter class is what you are referring to, I believe). The naval program took a long time to complete.
      • Yep, I'd missed the brief Argentine section.
    • I'm not quite sure how to get the row/col spans to work with that... I've included a general citation underneath the table, per Nikki and you. Having notes in the table was really distracting on preview when I first added it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It's easy enough. Add |rowspan=2 in front the cell which will cover both and delete the one that is now redundant. See the history for exactly what I did for this table. I agree that I'm not thrilled with spattering blue numbers over tables to cite everything, but see any of my or Parsecboy's FLCs for commentary why it's necessary. The main issue as you've done it here is that there are no page numbers; nobody wants to thumb through whole books looking to verify individual facts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I didn't delete the redundant lines, hence why my attempt failed (never got past preview!) Thanks Sturm. I'll add page numbers later today or after the blackout. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of items listed that are unclear as to whether they've been addressed. Attempting to sort it out, I checked the article and still see spaced ellipses-- not recommended by WP:MOS. Could you please clarify above what is done and not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe everything has been addressed now. Spaced ellipses were answered above; Chicago recommends them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a settled issue on WP, Ed, at FAC and elsewhere. I've changed them to three dots per WP:ELLIPSES. I have no objection if you like Chicago formatting, but you can also add the formatting you like, then self-revert, so that you'll have a version that conforms to Chicago that you can point people to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead says: "Argentina's two dreadnoughts were handed over in 1915, as the United States remained neutral in the opening years of the war." That doesn't make sense without context. Also, the first paragraph of "Historiography" is uncited. Ucucha (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I missed this on my watchlist. I've resolved the ambiguity you mention – thanks! I can cite that paragraph if you'd like to challenge the information, but it's really a summation of many of the sources listed in the bibliography, so I'd essentially be citing the entire page range of each source. The sentence I can't cite from the article's references, "General maritime histories on the period (c. 1904–14) avoid the area and focus on the traditional powers, especially the Anglo-German arms race.", is pretty obvious to anyone who has read any popular maritime history book on the 20th century, so I don't think it needs a source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Giraffe

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it gives well-written, well-sourced and fairly complete information on the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Question The "Relationship with humans" section does not touch upon attempts by humans to ride the animal. Has there been any? Successful? 109.214.164.25 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No information is available. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It makes no sense for humans to attempt to ride giraffes. The long neck would obscure forward vision. There are better animals around for riding. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Necking", paragraph 2: "It appears that males that are successful in necking have greater reproductive success." I don't think that the first part "It appears that..." is necessary. Why not say "Males that are successful in necking have greater reproductive success"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Mortality", paragraph 3: "Some parasites also feed on giraffes." This sentence doesn't really follow smoothly from the preceding paragraph about lions and crocodiles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. How about changing the subsection title to "Mortality and disease"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    Or maybe mortality and health? LittleJerry (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Cultural significance", paragraph 2: "With the fall of the Roman Empire, the people of Europe were no longer able to keep and display giraffes." "No longer able"? Or just that they didn't? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The source says that when the Empire fell, so did the ability to keep and house giraffes. I suppose it was referring to Rome's infrastructure. I changed it anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", the first paragraph is only tangentially related to "conservation status". The article "Galápagos tortoise" has separate subsections for "Historical exploitation" and "Modern conservation". However "Giraffe" does not really have enough text to justify such a split. Perhaps re-name the subsection title "Exploitation and conservation status"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", paragraph 1: "Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above their heads." Who feeds above whose heads? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    "Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above the latter's heads." This still isn't quite right. The giraffes are not in the trees. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", the photo ("Giraffe killed by tribesmen") looks quite old. From the Wikimedia Commons info, it was taken between 1906 and 1918. Perhaps change the caption to "Giraffe killed by tribesmen in the early 20th century"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is still semi-protected. I'm not sure when this was done or why. Was it subjected to repeated IP vandalism? Would it be reasonable to unprotect it now? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • You'll have to talk to the person who protected this. This issue doesn't have anything to do with whether the article should be FA. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Many broad articles on animals like lions, giraffes, elephants, whales etc.which are familiar to schoolchildren are often subject to waves of vandalism, and as such, many have been semiprotected for long periods. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. From the previous FAC, I still have a concern about the way that the subspecies populations are estimated. Also, I am slightly uncomfortable with the phylogenetic tree image in "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies". However both LittleJerry and Stfg are happy with the image, and there are no dissenting voices. The pictures are all free images from Wikimedia Commons. I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Ranges should use endashes consistently
  • Compare formatting on FNs 4 and 5
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • "p." should be used for single pages and "pp." for ranges - check usage
  • Don't include both {{citation}} and the {{cite}} family of templates, as this causes formatting inconsistencies
  • FN 61: formatting
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
All clear. LittleJerry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have some difficulty accepting the abandonment of the use of {{MSW3}} and {{IUCN2008}} templates, though. They can put things in categories, if wanted, which the straight {{cite}} templates cannot. Template MSW3 creates hyphenated ISBN, but I don't think that outweighs the value of using it (and the new cite is much less complete). I don't see what was gained by abandoning template IUCN2008 at all. --Stfg (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind it either, but apparently I can't use both types of citing. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, is this really true? That we can't use templates MSW3 and IUCN2008 (and the other IUCN... templates) and {{cite}} in the same article? --Stfg (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to adjust these templates so that the formatting is consistent with {{cite}}? Actually, I don't believe that any of the problems I noted involved IUCN refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought you included {{IUCN2008}} as a {{citation}}. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No, there was an actual {{citation}} there last I checked. IUCN is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I found it and fixed it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, I'm not sure what we can do with {{MSW3}}, as it's very widely used. For example, probably some articles using it will hyphenate ISBNs and others not. But I'm willing to ask Ucucha's view if you like. I've put the original MSW3 citation and the current Cite-book citation side by side in User:Stfg/Sandbox1 for comparison. Please could you let me know which aspects of MSW3 (the top one) you would like changed? --Stfg (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
In addition to a non-hyphenated ISBN, it also should'nt list the publisher's locations. LittleJerry (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I was really asking Nikkimaria which aspects are of concern, not merely what the differences are. I see you've restored the use of IUCN2008 (thanks) and made the MSW3 citation pretty much as good as the output from the template, but there's a wider issue here. I've asked Ucucha for his view. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
... and he has replied that he doesn't use Template:MSW3 as there are some problems with it. So what you've done looks good to me now. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd been meaning to return here - article looking more polished than when I last looked, and a couple of things had been added that pushed it further into "safe" ground comprehensiveness-wise. So I am happy with prose and comprehensiveness now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: MOS issues needing attention, on a quick scan, I see a collapsed scroll box in text, I see text sandwiched between images, I see an image gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the image gallery fits recommended WP:IG use. I provided details elsewhere before I realised the removal originated here. If people prefer they can add comments about it here. –RN1970 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia's reasoning on the talkpage means sense. Plus, the diagram already gives shapshots of the coat patterns for six subspecies, which are pretty much the only thing that distinguish them externally. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It does indeed make sense, and I too think the diagram and the commons are sufficient. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There are nine subspecies (ten if you believe the recent split of angolensis is correct; MSW3 follows a review from 1971 and the three they don't recognise have all been proven valid by detailed studies after the publication of MSW3). That means 1/3 are not shown by the diagram! The latest comment on SandyGeorgia talk page includes a few incorrect comparisons: Most people are unlikely to know there are several distinctly different subspecies and people that work in biology (like myself) are often forgetful about their differences. If this had been a collection of random photos it would have been "don't we all know what giraffes look like", but it isn't. To fit it should be modified to "don't we all know what the giraffe subspecies look like" and I doubt that statement is right. The comparison to the lion article is also incorrect because the typical argument by people who added more photos to it could be summed down to "I think it is a nice image". Are there any places where the giraffe subspecies gallery does not match recommendation in the WP:IG policy, the very basis for gallery use? To my eyes the main difference compared to the WP:IG textbook example of good gallery use, 1750–1795 in fashion, is that the giraffe gallery was not directly linked to each text section describing the subspecies. That can easily be done by adding numbers and switching the subspecies text order to match the subspecies photo order. RN1970 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: In two (camelopardalis, thornicrofti) of the three subspecies where some have argued the text description is sufficient, the text description of their appearance is not supported by any citation. They're right but still unsupported. RN1970 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay then, all fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, it's hard to tell the difference between the coat patterns in the gallery as many of the giraffes are not close enough to the camera and some have bad lighting. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose on a few counts, the prose is tedious and makes it hard to read pages and page ranges are missing from one of the major sources. When there are 30+ refs tagged to one source the page ranges would be nice.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
First off the article has gone through a billion fine tunings for prose, it is no harder to read then any of the current FAs. Second, there are no missing pages/page number for "many" of the sources. I presume you're talking about the Giraffe book by Edgar Williams. There are no pages ranges given because I'm citing the entire book not just a section. The books by Estes and Kingdon have specific sections dedicated to the giraffe, so I give the pages ranges. The entire Williams book is dedicated to the giraffe, so it is silly to give ranges, especially since I'm using different sections of the book. An inline page citation for each fact is all that is needed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I've been kicked in the nuts over having too broad a range on pages, so I find no page ranges unacceptable for FAC. As for the prose, I know how that happens, but try reading it again, sometimes those tweaks make it as boring as a dog's ass.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
When page ranges are too broad or if you're using the entire book, you give inline page citations for the cites, which is what I have done and maybe you didn't. So your objection is invalid. I've read through and fixed the article hundreds of times and I'm not doing it again for some vague claim of it being "boring". LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not boring, actually the body of the article reads well, it is the lede that comes across as tedious. As far as the page ranges, we will have to disagree on that. Like I said, I took your attitude about that once and got nutpunched later. I'm just trying to save you from headaches down the road.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'll fix the lede and what if I give the page number for the entire book? LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I did some fixes in the lede and gave the page range for the entire book. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Leads can be tricky, but they are important to get as attractive as possible. It looks better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Much better, sometimes it is only a word or two in the right place...after 5 years I still think i suck at it, but this is looking good now!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note:

  • 29.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Williams, E. (2011). Giraffe. Reaktion Books. pp. 1-174.

We shouldn't be expected to look through 174 pages to find about 30 different citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Give narrowed down page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This still doesn't allow readers to easily locate and verify information (over 30 citations to broad ranges of pages, totaling to around 100 pages):
  • 29.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Williams, E. (2011). Giraffe. Reaktion Books. pp. 21-44, 45-71, 116-50. ISBN 1861897642.
Also, pls see WP:DASH, WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN and check article throughout for correct endashes on page ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I fixed one of these myself-- please check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Whats wrong with the inline citations? LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your question; the problem is missing page numbers. We need to give readers enough that they can find and verify information-- these page ranges are too broad to be able to locate something. Each item should be inline cited to a tighter page range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Sample
  • Williams (2011), p. 34.
  • Williams (2011), pp. 45–50.
  • Williams (2011), pp. 120–21.
or something similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, when pages ranges are broad, inline pages cite are given. You know, the {{Rp}} template. Why are you guys making this more difficult then it should be. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ha ... now I see what you mean. Yes, those page numbers attached to the citation in the text are acceptable (even if they are obnoxious and ugly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Captions punctuation review needed (full sentences in image captions should have final puncuation, sentence fragments should not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review and spotcheck for accuracy in representation of sources and close paraphrasing pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Endahes all clear. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Made a few changes, sourcing all clear. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any more hypens in page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Source spotcheck

1. http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=6

Source: The distinctive coat of the Nubian giraffe has large, normally 4 sided, chestnut brown spots set against a slightly off-white background. It has no markings on the inside of its legs or at all below the hocks (knees).
Article: Its coat pattern has large, four-sided spots of chestnut brown on an off-white background, with no spots on the inner sides of the legs or below the hocks.
Source: Sometimes also called the Netted giraffe, it is plain to see why with the browny-orange coat patches clearly defined by a network of thick and often extremely white lines.
Article: G. c. reticulata,[16] known as the Reticulated[16] or Somali giraffe, has a coat pattern of well-defined patches that are usually bright orange-brown.[17] These patches have sharp edges and are separated by bold, bright white lines.
Source: The Angolan giraffe is relatively light in colour (hence the name 'Smokey') with large uneven, notched, spots covering the entire leg.
Article: G. c. angolensis, the Angolan or Smoky giraffe, is relatively light in color and has large spots with some notches around the edges, extending down the entire lower leg.
Source: It is estimated that fewer than 20,000 remain in the wild. ISIS (the International Species Information System, based on zoological data information) records indicate that only about 20 individuals are kept in zoos. (note, not sourced to this article, data comes from another primary source, but text is close to this article).
Article: It is estimated that no more than 20,000 remain in the wild;[18] based on ISIS records approximately 20 are kept in zoos.[21]
Stopped there.

2. http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/giraffe

Source: The giraffe is a selective feeder and although it feeds 16 to 20 hours a day, it may consume only about 65 pounds of foliage during that time. It can maintain itself on as little as 15 pounds of foliage per day.
Article: A giraffe can eat 65 lb (29 kg) of leaves and twigs daily, but can survive on just 15 lb (6.8 kg).
Source: Although they drink water when it's available, they can survive where it is scarce.
Article: The giraffe can survive without water for extended periods. (what is "extended periods"? Not in the source.)
Source: Giraffe tails are highly prized by many African cultures. The desire for good-luck bracelets, fly whisks and thread for sewing or stringing beads have led people to kill the giraffe for its tail alone.
Article: The tails were used as good luck charms, for thread and as flyswatters.

Stopped there: I'll let others decide if paraphrasing is up to snuff, and one concern about accuracy ("Extended periods"). I'm not sure this is an extensive enough look, but hope others will do a few more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit complicated. Some of the very recent changes to the wikipedia article (e.g. coat descriptions) may require changes but some other parts (e.g. information based on ISIS data) were on wikipedia first. Giraffeconservation.org copied wikipedia. Not vice versa. RN1970 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting-- that's a big problem. If giraffeconservatin.org copied Wikipedia, is it really a reliable source? Doesn't seem likely; in fact, I can't find anything on their website that indicates why we are using an advocacy organization over journal publication sources for a potential featured article, which requires high-quality sourcing. At any rate, a deeper source check might be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that some of the information they provide, notably approximate wild population counts of each subspecies, is very hard to find elsewhere. There are currently two giraffeconservation.org pages used as citations for wikipedia:
"Giraffe - The Facts: Giraffe subspecies" is a relatively new page that became a wikipedia citation less than two weeks ago. It appears to incorporate information from wikipedia or at least some of the information was on wikipedia before the same information appeared on their page. Based on the wayback machine, the first proven appearance of the Giraffe subspecies page is July 2011 (Giraffe subspecies in left bar, absent in earlier archived versions). Anything that was in the wikipedia article about that time and also appears in a near identical form on their page may be WP:CIRCULAR.
"Giraffe – The Facts: Current giraffe status?" is an older page that has not changed significantly, at least since April 2010 (Wayback machine). When information from this page first entered the wikipedia article in December 2010 it included the citation (total wild population and wild population of each subspecies all originates there). This proves it was on their page first and not CIRCULAR. RN1970 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know how to use Wayback. Again, that they are copying text from Wikipedia does not speak well for them being a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The ICUN cites it as a source. So it is a RS. LittleJerry (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not how reliability of sources is determined, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
They are the main conservation organisation working with giraffe in their native range. They are a high quality source for data on the wild populations and their conservation. It would be hard to find any source speaking poorly about them and their reliability in this field. A large percentage of the peer-reviewed publications about conservation of giraffe in the wild are in some way connected to them, directly or indirectly. Their reliability in other data but especially captive data (where they have little involvement) is far lower. It is perhaps unsurprising they looked elsewhere to fill in their own gaps in that field. Wikipedia isn't using them as a source for captive data anyway but our use of their "Giraffe subspecies" page for differences in the appearance of the subspecies may require a check. Cf. my last comment. RN1970 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed subspecies reference. LittleJerry (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Giraffe_Mikumi_National_Park.jpg: image description indicates that caption attribution is requested. Same with File:Giraffe_feeding,_Tanzania.jpg and File:Giraffe_Ithala_KZN_South_Africa_Luca_Galuzzi_2004.JPG
  • File:Samotherium_skull.jpg: if author is unknown, how do we know he/she died more than 70 years ago? Also, need US PD tag
  • File:GiraffaRecurrEn.svg is partially sourced to a deleted image
  • File:Yongle-Giraffe1.jpg: licensing indicated in image description and actual licensing tag are contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
All fixed, expect for the first one. The photographer himself added the pictures. [4] [5] LittleJerry (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Two comments on lead:

  • Capitalization inconsistency in classifications: "Least Concern" but "endagered"?
  • "Nevertheless, giraffes are still found in numerous game reserves." – To me, the "still" here seems kind of redundant to "Nevertheless" Auree ★ 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed, but I think this has had enough nitpicks. This needs a source spotcheck. LittleJerry (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I'll add in my support. I read through it and think it's very well written and informative. Good luck with the rest of the nomination--hope it can get its spotcheck done soon... Auree ★ 05:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Highway 401

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after over two years of work improving it from an unsourced mess, I think that it is time for Wikipedia to have a featured article on what is possibly the busiest road on the planet. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: transcluding this for the nominator. --Rschen7754 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: article is well structured, peer-reviewed and is now ranked A-Class. The time to have it featured has finally come. (I have contributed to the article and have assisted the nominator on various occasions.) Haljackey (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: a few notes:

  • please remove imprecise words, such as 'recently' that occurs in the intro, and replace them with precise words (in this case, a date)
  • avoid using extraneous words, such as 'currently' or 'in combination' that I removed in a recent edit (I think there are other such instances)
  • although the Windsor-Detroit border is mentioned, there's no explicit mention of the fact that this is the Canada-US border
  • the topography section (Southwestern Ontario) has superfluous detail that should be removed, or incorporated more cleanly into the text to demonstrate its relevance.
  • clarify that The Basketweave and Allen Road interchanges are not the same

There are other issues I'll note once I've more fully reviewed the article. Mindmatrix 21:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do... though I note that there are many "currently"s in the article that are necessary. These are major multi-year construction projects that have no announced completion date; the article will need to be updated to remain comprehensive in any instance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I believe I've cleared things up (except a couple uses of "currently"). The southwestern topography was meant to explain the surrounding, but I definitely see what you mean. I believe I've incorporated it better. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Those fixes are fine. Mindmatrix 22:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I have reviewed this article twice and feels that it meets all the criteria and is a good read about one of Canada's most important highways. Dough4872 03:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's not as scary as the M1 motorway on a Friday evening! I've been through the article twice too. To my mind, too many of the alternative names are bolded in the lead, but I don't know Ontario's roads well enough to fix myself, please review. Assuming the minor issues identified by Mind are fixed, I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    The first few are synonyms, but I've wondered with the Highway of Heroes and Windsor-Essex Parkway myself... I was under the impression that when a term redirects to an article, it should be boldfaced in the lead. I've removed it from the two, will see if anybody thinks otherwise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    The Macdonald-Cartier Freeway and Highway of Heroes are official names, but the Windsor-Essex Parkway seems to just be a name given to the under construction extension of the Highway in Windsor. Renders show signage for Highway 401 but not the Windsor-Essex Parkway. Perhaps it's just the name of the project. Haljackey (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments by Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box)
  • Citations need work:
  1. Citation 177 is an error.
  2. Citation 8 is dead on my screen, plus why is 6 & 8 the same source, effectively?
  3. Citations 129 and 130 give the newspaper but no publisher, yet there are other news sources with publishers, such as Citation 133. We should be consistent in my opinion.
  4. Citations 11 & 29 are maps, but not in the map section below, why?
  • The overbearing amount of red links in the junction (and the ones in the RD) bothers me a slight, might want to cut down on those.
  • Not urgent, but the infobox, why does ON 404 have a to destination rather than an In location?
  • What is going on after Citation 33 in the Greater Toronto Area section?
  • The last two photos in the article, the first one (lower traffic volumes) should have a new caption personally. The second I'd probably remove unceremoniously in favor some different wording.

Just a bunch of thoughts from me. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, cites are fixed... I'm just waiting on an edit to {{sfn}} to make it more compatible with {{cite map}}, which will allow me to convert the short map refs to be more consistent and to link to the bibliography. However, besides one ref, all the maps are now taken care of. I can fix the redlinks, but only by redirecting county roads to their list articles. However, the provincial highways should remain as redlinks so that editors know they are needed articles. All the other issues you've brought up should be taken care of now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe this article is of high quality and property sourced. 96.46.194.150 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see an image review and a source spotcheck here. Ucucha (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point this out in advance of anyone doing that: All of the images that are tagged as PD-Canada are not subject to the issues with the URAA as they are government photos that are explicitly released into the public domain 50 year after publication. Anything taken prior to December 31, 1961 is good to go, so long as its author is a municipal, provincial, or federal government. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've reviewed the article, except for references. Here are the remaining issues that come to mind at this time:

  • there's little or no mention of traffic volume for the highway except for the highly travelled portion between Weston and 404 (ie - what traffic volume is there near the Quebec border or approaching the US border? what about passing near Kingston or London?); this data has likely been collected by the government; history of traffic volumes would be a useful addition too, though I don't know about data availability for this
  • there's no mention of the economic effects of the 401, including the volume of business-related trucking, and negative effects to the economy as a result of traffic snarls etc.; I know such data exists for GTA-wide economic effects - not sure about 401-specific data though
  • in Services, it's stated that MTO operates the centres. Is this correct? It later states that the land is leased to HMSHost, which operates the centres (and leases building space to other tenants, or operates franchises of those businesses?)
  • various future construction projects to review for potential inclusion (I don't think all of these should appear in the text, I'm just listing them for completion; some may already be in the text):

Overall, the article is in good shape. There are still a few phrasing issues - I'll fix the ones I notice. Mindmatrix 22:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the economic data that you mentioned in all of my research, although the article currently quotes a professor that calls it the single most important factor in the explosion of Ontario's economy. If you can find some I'd be happy to add it. I could add a table of AADT values like Don Valley Parkway currently has, selecting the highest value near some major cities (Windsor, London, Woodstock, Cambridge, Mississauga, Weston Road (Toronto), Oshawa, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, Cornwall, for example). I can source 1988 and 1969 values as well. I'll take a look at the services section and fix up that, but they were originally financed by the MTO but the new centres will be owned by a private corporation. As far as I know, all of the major projects are mentioned, including recent widening in Windsor, London and between Woodstock and Cambridge, the current work in Mississauga and Kingston (latter supposedly just finished, will see if I can find a ref), and the future work on the WE Parkway and in Durham. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't find info specific to the 401, but I did find these with respect to traffic congestion affecting the economy of the GTA (and Canada):
There's also a Toronto Board of Trade document titled Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity – 2010 that mentions traffic congestion, though it cites the OECD report in one section, and makes unsubstantiated claims in another. I can't find data about trucking volumes and values of shipments. Mindmatrix 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate section for traffic volume data would be useful; it needn't be too long. The data you mention could be incorporated into a table with four columns (location, current AADT, 1988 AADT, 1969 AADT). Mindmatrix 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good source for traffic volumes [6]. They go from 1998 to 2008 and cover every interchange of the 401. These volumes could be integrated in the exit list if there isn't a good place for a dedicated list. For the actual figures, I think it would be good to use the 2008 figures the major junctions identified in the infobox. The highest number is 442,900 between Weston Road and Highway 400 in 2008. That's pretty insane! Haljackey (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
For future projects, isn't the 401 going to get widened in Durham Region as well? I think it's part of the 407 East project to get the 401 to accommodate the volumes the two new Durham Connector highways to the 407 extension will bring. If I recall correctly, the 401 will be 10 lanes from Brock Road to the Durham West Connector and 8 lanes to the Durham East Connector. There's also an additional plan to extend the 401's Collector-Express System from Brock Road to Brock Street. However I'm not sure if there's any creditable sources for these stats as of yet. Haljackey (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That's sort of what I was thinking, but more along the lines of a subsection at the bottom of the Route description. A quick prose description of how volumes increase towards Toronto and decrease moving away from it could accompany the table. I'm not sure about adding general Toronto congestion data to this article (there is a Transportation in Toronto article), simply because that could be focusing largely on city streets as well. That last source is what provides the mileage for all Ontario highway articles and their exit list; I was going to use 1988 and 2008 (2009 comes this summer apparently), as well as the 1969 values from a book I can get at the Toronto Reference Library that shows the 1969 values. I wouldn't add any of this to the exit list just because that would go against MOS:RJL.
As for within Durham, there have been some informal announcements (one is sourced for the Brock to Brock collector express system from the Durham local newspaper). The 407 East technical plans don't include the expansion to Highway 401 unfortunately. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've implemented this table. I don't have the 1969 data on-hand, but it will be entered as soon as I get a chance to visit the library. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The table's good, though I'd prefer to invert the columns and rows. Right now, about one third of the table scrolls off the right side of the page for me. (I don't maximize my browser windows). Mindmatrix 21:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist. While the article does appear to be signifantly improved, it still seems to need significant work. I started checking a couple of references, and both didn't seem right. One listed a completely different date than the reference (137) and the second (126) doesn't necessarily support the claim (that the entire highway will have high walls and be widened - an odd claim for some eastern sections). Also about half the article seems to be a list of interchanges and service centres; this needs massively reformatting - is it really encyclopaedic that exit 599 goes to Yarker, Amherstview, Odessa and Loyalist (though ignoring Kingston, where those living on the western edge also use this interchange). Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • As per the second part of your comment, see WP:RJL. --Rschen7754 20:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You are only checking online references, which will not get you far with this article (or any). As much as it is a strange thought that the eastern section would ever need expansion, we follow WP:verification, and I am only restating what the source says. In this case, you don't have access to reference 126 as you have stated at Talk:Ontario Highway 401#widen entire 401?, and it was the one that up until recently was available online and stated this verbatim. The Toronto Star reference was my attempt to add something there that was available online, even though it doesn't cover every element of the claim. In the exit list, I have generally avoided wherever possible the names of major destinations that are already linked in the 'Location' column, as these are nearby communities that are accessible from that exit. I have not driven the entire highway from end to end nor do I know the travel characteristics. Do you have a reference that Exit 599 is more used by Kingston residents? As for reference 137, clearly you didn't check reference 138, which has the date (from a more reliable source). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what WP:RJL has to do with the poor presentation of the interchanges. There are good examples of articles that present similiar quanties of information without looking so poor. I'm very familiar with the highway (having driven much of it far too many times in the last 40 years), and even if the National Post did say that they were going to widen the entire thing, it's likely wrong, or simply poorly written. And why would anyone build a tall wall when there is 50+ metres between the lanes in places? It's non-sensical. I don't see what reference 138 has to do with reference 137. The date in reference 137 is wrong - period. 138 has nothing to do with this. And as far as Exit 599 ... if you lived in Kingston at Collins Bay Road and Taylor Kidd ... would you really add almost 10 minutes to your travel time by driving back east to 611? Heck, if you live at Gardiners Road and Highway 2, it's no longer to drive to 599 ... and this was just one example. There are numerous examples like this ... I'm not going to start listing them all. The article needs significant work. I only spot checked a half-dozen things, and many failed. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Also of note, two references are used to say that tall walls will be built, but an examination of the two references has no mention about walls, except for one segment west of London, and a throw-away comment about the complexity of median barriers that doesn't indicate that they will be used everywhere or not. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another (and I'm still only looking at 599 and 611. The table indicates that 401 passes through Frontenac County. It doesn't! The southern border of Frontenac county is about 8 kilometres north of 401. The article is good - but it's not featured article good. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
MOS:RJL is the format used for junction lists. If you dislike it, take it to the talk page of that policy. The city of Kingston is part of Frontenac County, and I'm not going to address your original research any further. What date is incorrect in ref 137? It says the parkway work is to begin in August (from January). Ref 138 is a government source stating it began August 18 (from after August). State which refs don't mention that tall walls will be built, since you've just used the ambiguous "two references". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
MOS:RJL isn't the issue. It's the horrible way it's been implemented. Other articles don't waste so much real estate. Kingston hasn't been in Frontenac County since sometime late last century, when it was almagamated with Kingston Township and Pittsburgh Township, and made a higher-order municipality with the same powers as a county. I don't know what you mean by original research - is that some kind of personal attack because you are unaware that Kingston is no longer part of Frontenac County? Ref 137 clearly says that the article date is August 12, 2011, but when you open the reference it clearly says Published: Saturday, May 07, 2011 - why do I keep having to point out that the date in the reference is wrong? No reference states that tall walls will be built from end to end - and why would they ... there's cliffs, forest, and large wetlands between the lanes in sections - perhaps you should point which one does. The intransigence of the proponent to deal with a small sample of the deficiencies in the article suggests that he is more interested in his own ego than in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia, and demonstrates that this article shouldn't be considered as a featured article until it is improved. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW, here is map of Frontenac county from their website [7] As you can see, Kingston is south of Frontenac county - with the township of Frontenac Island being south of Kingston. And the 401 never enters Frontenac county. See also the description of the County on the County's website [8]. Ironically, the county's office is actually in Kingston (in Glenburnie) - but that doesn't mean Kingston is in the county. Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that you were referring to the publication date and not the date the reference is supporting. I probably added this ref on August 12 and saw the date in the upper left. As for Frontenac, that is finally a source! I CAN use that contradict my MapArt reference that says Kingston is the county seat of Frontenac County. If the "and add a tall wall" line is the issue, I will remove it as cannot find a source that states it verbatim. All three of these changes will be made. Now, what are your suggestions for the exit list? This is a 800 km highway with about 150 exits; it's going to take up a lot of room. It wouldn't be comprehensive to not include all the information available. There really is not better way of displaying it, and this is the accepted method for highway articles that several dozen featured articles make use of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments (not an expert at all, just an interested passer-by, some technical spotchecks!)

  • Clarification from above, MOS:RJL is a style guideline, not a policy.
  • While we're referring to the MOS, it's a shame that the large table fails WP:ACCESS (no row or col scopes for screenreaders (MOS:DTT), use of colour-only to distinguish road types - perhaps a failing of RJL?). A similar comment applies to the colourful timeline graphic of sections of the road being opened, this is not accessible to colour-blind (e.g. me) readers.
  • Infobox image caption should not have a period, it's a sentence fragment.
  • Meanwhile, the Highway 401 caption should. Worth checking all the other captions.
  • "stretching 816.6 kilometres (507.4 mi)" vs " its entire 816 km (507 mi) length" both in the lead, would expect some consistency in d.p.
  • The Odessa service station "Open during 2010-11 reconstruction " needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 15 and ref 17 look like they need en-dash.
  • I was slightly confused by the "City of London" being a publisher, as in not the British one... worth disambiguating it?
  • I'm no expert in ISBNs, but wouldn't you expect to see all ten-digit ISBNs presented in the same way (as you do for the 13-digit ones)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll adress the rest of this later today, but on the ISBN note, I copy them exactly as they appear in the book - I'm not sure which presentation is the proper method (assuming its 1-5-3-1, which is the usual presentation) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on the content.. too many issues that the previous reviewers haven't noted...

  • "the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway and colloquially as the four-oh-one" in the first case, "the" isn't in bold, in the second case "the" is in bold. I don't see a good reason why this inconsistency should exist.
  • "a 400-Series Highway" why not just "a 400-series highway"?
  • "along which over half of Canada's population resides" is that referenced anywhere?
  • " in 1964. In 1965" bit repetitive, perhaps "The following year" or something to break it up.
  • "as the road is travelled by a funeral convoy" reads odd, do you mean it's commonly used by convoys for this purpose or that it has been used once only for this? The "is travelled by a ..." confuses me a shade, maybe "is travelled by funeral convoys" or "was travelled by a funeral convoy" depending on the scenario.
  • I don't know what a "collector lane" is, maybe this is common in North America, not so in the UK.
  • You have [2][a] in the infobox and [a][11] in the prose, would suggest a consistent approach to this ordering.
  • You have "Don Valley Parkway/Highway 404 " unspaced slash in the lead, and "Don Valley Parkway / Highway 404" spaced slash in the infobox, would suggest consistency here once again. Multiple examples exist throughout.
  • London is over linked in the Southewestern Ontario section.
  • You talk about COMPASS in the Greater Toronto Area section, but then link it the first time and explain it in later sections. Suggest you do it the other way around.
  • File:Freeway Overload.jpg has no alt text.
  • "enables the Ontario Ministry of Transportation Traffic Operations Centre" why not just "enables the MTO's Traffic Operations Centre"?
  • Maybe just a personal style preference but there are several very short paragraphs in the latter part of the GTA section.
  • "It was quickly announced in the days thereafter" don't think you need "quickly" as "in the days thereafter" probably takes care of that.
  • "2S, for Scenic," -> "2S (S for scenic)"
  • "accidents that occurred throughout its history" -> "that have occurred..."?
  • "but Carnage Alley became " most places you refer to it in italics, not here, why?
  • A lot of text squashed between images in later sections looks pretty poor.
  • "The Ontario Ministry of Transportation is also " why stop using the abbreviation?
  • "features 19 service centres " I count 14 "open" per your colouring in the table.
  • Is Woodstock open or closed?
  • Ref 169 shouldn't have a space before it.
  • Mallorytown ("due to open late 2011") - well, it's early 2012 now, what's the deal?
  • "Reopened Early 2011[168]" no need for Early to be capitalised.
  • Is "Service Road" really a "Service road"?
  • "Highway 3 - Huron Church Road – Ambassador Bridge to U.S." en-dash needed there.
  • Why not have a conversion into miles in this table? You convert to miles throughout the prose, so it would make sense to do the same in the table.
  • Can you explain how ref 2 should be used to reference the distances from exit to exit? It's on highway 2, in 2008 for me with a bunch of blank fields.....
  • Some odd format going on in the Essex, Tecumseh entry, the line under Tecumseh doesn't align with 20.4 in the km col.
  • "Doon-Blair Road" should that be an en-dash?
  • "401-427 interchange" should presumably be a spaced slash or an en-dash.
  • "Exit 350 " why is this capitalised? The other "exit"s aren't. There are other examples of this.
  • Be consistent with the use of full stops in the Notes column. For instance, why is "Ramps removed, access to Jane Street via Black Creek Drive." full stopped but this: "401-427 interchange. Exit 348 (eastbound exit and westbound entrance), Exit 350 (eastbound exit and westbound entrance), Exit 351 (westbound exit and eastbound entrance) and Exit 352 (westbound exit and eastbound entrance)" not?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed/am fixing most of these issues, but there are a few that I cannot so easily. In the intro, 'the' is bolded for the colloquial use because it always proceeds 'four-oh-one'; not so with Macdonald-Cartier Freeway. The Alphabet Soup article should be sourcing the population figure in the Route description at some point, but correct me if I'm wrong (two years of research leads to some fumbled notes here and there). The wording of that funeral convoy sentence has come up at every step of the review process for this article, and nobody seems to be happy with any wording. A convoy travels the highway, bringing dead soldiers' bodies from the base in Trenton to the coroners office in Toronto. Collector-express is linked and otherwise they are essentially labels given to the lanes on the highway. I've moved the COMPASS stuff up. While only 14 centres are currently open to the public, there are 19 centres along the highway. There is no reliable source to the opening of the Mallorytown centre, so I can only report that it was sceduled to open in late 2011. Service Road is just a road named Service Road, though I'm sure that there is some etymology there (another topic, another day). I'm guessing you aren't using one of the major browsers or have javascript disabled, but ref 2 also provides a pdf download for those cases. For most, those drop downs allow you to select a highway number and then section along that highway. The length of that section is displayed. The exit list and the length are simply summing those values for Highway 401. The Exit 350 is the correct way and I've remedied other cases. They are proper nouns when referring to a specific exit by number; Exit ###. Doon-Blair is a hyphen as far as I know, but I'm not able to verify it based on maps or signs.
As for displaying miles, we (as in Wikiproject Highways and Wikiproject Ontario Roads) are planning to convert all junction lists over to a template based form that will serve the two-fold purpose of ensuring consistency between entries and allowing us to easily convert the tables to include both metric and imperial measurements. This is a rather huge undertaking, so in the interim a conversion factor is supplied in the footer of the table (as well as a legend for the colours used). Finally, the image which colour codes the dates: I'm not sure what I can do here, but I'm not willing to deprive readers of such a unique and explanatory diagram. Would writing out the dates by section in the alt text or the file description suffice? I may have missed a few of the issues you brought up, so just let me know what I've forgotten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where you've got with these but I still see captions incorrectly punctuated, en-dash/hyphen issues and maybe I can't count properly, but I'm sure I see 20 service stations, of which 5 are closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Still got about 4 points from your second list and most of your first list to go through. I'll have more time in the next couple hours, after my weekend begins, to finish everything up. I'll double check my count, but there was originally 20, one was closed and demolished in 2006 (Mississauga; no longer a need for it since the city has sprawled out since the 60s). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Update:Almost done, just have to check through the captions and notes for periods. Are you satisfied with what I mentioned about collector lanes and isbns? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Collector lane stuff is fine, I would always use 13 character ISBNs correctly formatted where possible, and I would also look at WP:ACCESS to see how far from acceptable a lot of this article is. My oppose stands, perhaps your project needs to work on its oft-quoted "style guide" (MOS:RJL) since it's something often quoted as gospel. The "style guide" and its examples are something that we should not be using to guide others; in short, it's a crock. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It's in use on over three dozen featured articles; this is not the place to attempt to argue the merits of it; that is the guideline junctions follow. You're going to need to point out how it fails WP:ACCESS; the colours are acceptable as there is both a legend and they are merely supplemental to the notes. Colspans are in place and rowspans will be added when this article is converted to a templated junction list (as well as centre justifying the km/exit columns). The colour coded image cannot be represented in any better way and I refuse to deny such a useful piece of information solely at the concern of colour-blind readers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I believe I have addressed all your other issues at this point, but please correct me where/if I'm wrong. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
At a quick glance, image captions still need work on punctuation and there are still too many images cluttering up the article and squashing text. I'll do a more thorough run through later. From the sounds of it, until the "templated junction list" comes along, I will find it difficult to support this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The absence of either single "centre" coordinates (using {{Coord}} or a series of coordinates for junctions or other features, on this simple linear highway mean that it is not possible for users to locate it, via GeoTemplate, on their preferred map, or for machine parsers to determine its location. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
As there is currently an ongoing RfC on the use of coordinates in highway articles, in which you are participating, to determine whether there is consensus for their use, this concern is inactionable at this time. I feel it is wholly original research for me to pick one point on this 817 kilometre highway as representative, and I cannot be responsible for the inability of geotemplate or the various mapping services to adequately portray linear features. This concern can be brought up once the RfC has closed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The ongoing RFC notwithstanding, there is already consensus - as you know - for the use of coordinates in junction lists, as evidenced by their inclusion in MOS:RJL. Your OR concerns are invalid, per recent discussion elsewhere and the near three-quarters of a million instances of {{Coord}} already on Wikipedia. Your comment about GeoTemplate and mapping services is a red herring. Coordinates lists are already in use with no drama, on other Wikipedia articles about linear features, including major higwhays. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There are no such drama-free inclusions on highway articles. I will leave it to the closing delegate to determine. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course there are. M1 motorway, as mentioned above, for instance, you have so far been unable to explain what harm is supposedly done by the coordinates on that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I have, you just ignore them:
  1. At 160 junctions, using a coordinate template on every junction will exceed the template limit for a single article
  2. A centre coordinate would be placed in the narrow countryside greenbelt between Ajax and Whitby; this area isn't indicative of the entire highway in any way and gives undue weight to that point.
  3. A limited number of coordinates is cherry picking
  4. The external link to google maps is far more informative than 160 coordinate pairs could ever dream of being to our readers
  5. There is an ongoing dispute involving coordinates which is the subject of an RfC. This is forum shopping. It is a malignant cancer spreading. I refuse to provide ammunition for further drama and so until the RfC has closed, coordinates will not be placed on this article. Full stop. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Who has called for 160 coordinate pairs to be included on this article? If you are unable to select suitable coordinates, I'm sure others would be willing to do so. An external link to a singe mappings service does not serve users who wish to use other services, and is not machine readable to our parsers and reusers. This s not forum shopping, but perhaps we should not feature any highway articles until the dispute is resolved? The decision is not yours to make; please try to understand how Wikipedia works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andy. The RfC is a red herring. Wikipedia:Five pillars (remember those fundamental principles of wikipedia?) helpfully defines wikipedia as, in part, as a gazetteer. WP:FACR states that FAs should be "exemplify our very best work". I cannot imagine how you can describe an article describing a geolocatable subject yet failing to provide means by which users can link to any part of that subject on any of the many internet map sites as our best work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    As Floydian states, there is an ongoing RfC designed to determine a solution, but until/unless it comes up with one, there is no consensus at this moment on the best way, or if we need to, include specific geospacial data. External links such as you describe are not required by the FA Criteria as they exist at this time. Wikipedia fulfills its gazateer role simply by including articles such as this, whether or not coordinate data is included. You're welcome to disagree, but this nomination isn't the forum to continue that ongoing discussion; please confine your additional comments to the RfC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    As noted above, there is already consensus - as you know - for the use of coordinates in junction lists, as evidenced by their inclusion in MOS:RJL. This is the forum to suggest ways in which articles should be improved, to meet best practice, before they are featured. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    Quoting MOS:RJL#M5 motorway: "Note: A few junctions in this example have been geotagged; however, there is no consensus on how to implement geotagging on roads articles." Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    While there may be no consensus on how to do it; there is clearly consensus that it may be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    "May" meaning that it is optional. --Rschen7754 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    Quoting MOS:RJL is all very well but it's a project style guide, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    It is indeed optional for Wikipedia as a whole; but omitting coordinates for a subject such as this means an article is not representative of our best, and so not suitable for being featured. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    Umm.... what? Care to elaborate? There have been other highway articles featured that didn't include this. Haljackey (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    See, for example, coordinates on M1 motorway or M5 motorway. The fact that such articles have been featured previously is not reason to do so again, now that this deficiency has been identified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    See, for example, no coordinates on M-185 (Michigan highway) or U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, which are featured articles while M1 motorway and M5 motorway are not. Also note that M-185 and US 2 were promoted as FAs in December 2011. Imzadi 1979 → 15:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • Does File:End of 401.png really add anything? It just looks like an undistinguished piece of road to me.
  • File:Highway 400 at 401.png lacks author, date info, etc. I strongly advise that you fill out {{Information}}.
  • The caption "Heavy traffic traverses Highway 401 within Toronto 24 hours a day" is a full sentence, so it needs a full stop.
  • I note your comment above regarding PD works in Canada, but can I ask: how are Canadian government works exempt from the URAA? File:401 pre-widening at Keele, March 21, 1958.jpg was still copyrighted in Canada on the URAA date.
  • Squishing the text between two images at the same place in 'Since 2008' and 'Central Ontario' is very nasty.

—Andrewstalk 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Crown Copyright Act (I believe it's in section 12) states that images subject to Crown (government) Copyright are copyright for a period of 50 years, then become public domain (and not simply that they are copyright for 50 years). This is the copyright holder setting explicit terms for the copyright, which apply worldwide and not just in Canada.
As for the images, I agree with you about the end of 401; I merely added it since it shows the end. The text squishing was also raised by another reviewer so I hope to fix that up in the coming days (as well as adding traffic volumes as requested above) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Moving or removing File:401 Oshawa.jpg might fix the problem. The photo shows an old bridge, which isn't very important to the article, but it does show the original artery in Oshawa. It will allow some wiggle room for other images around it. I'll leave the call up to you. Haljackey (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
All done, let me know how it looks on your various monitors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I have struck my concerns, however I am a bit dubious about those images' PD status in the US, especially as {{PD-Canada}} explicitly states that relevant files must be PD prior to URAA date, and there is nothing mentioned about Crown works in that template. —Andrewstalk 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I know; this is an issue I've raised at the talk page for that template, at commons, and at the Media and Copyright forum and nobody seems to have offered any opposition to the concept. This is an email I received from the Senior Copyright Advisor (the head copyright hauncho) for Ontario, Carolyn Grey:
"Under section 12 of the Copyright Act, the term of Crown copyright is "the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year". Once the term of copyright has expired, materials are in the public domain and may be reproduced without seeking permission."
Which is pretty clear: the law that determines the copyright status also indicated that said status expires after 50 years. The URAA can't copyright an image that the copyrighter has explicitly released the rights to. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

General comment a lot of reference to MOS:RJL here, has anyone advocating this considered that this is simply a guideline and is actually pretty poorly constructed (for example, it completely contravenes WP:ACCESS)? Any reference here that says "this is how we do it because of RJL" could use a re-think. MOS:RJL needs to be reviewed to ensure it actually is useful and that it complies with the rest of the MOS; essentially claiming "RJL" has no substance if reviewers can show that the article fails the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How is WP:ACCESS contravened by it? The community has accepted its use in over 40 featured articles thus far. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well perhaps the community need to look a bit closer. Some issues exist at a quick glance. For instance, the exclusive use of colour to convey a particular element of information contravening WP:ACCESS (see the table footers, also with an inexplicable over-capitalisation of Former...). For instance, the example which incorrectly uses spaced hyphens contravening WP:DASH. I would be interested to know if the {{MIint}} and {{ONint}} templates implement row and col scopes as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Color does not exclusively convey information, as you claim. The information is duplicated in the alt text, in the table footer, and in the notes column in the row that is colored. Furthermore, some projects choose to forgo colors entirely; see WP:NYSR which bans most of them from all its articles; this proves that they're not essential to the understanding of the junction list. --Rschen7754 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, how does "Westbound exit and eastbound entrance; interchange under construction" with a pink background convey "partial access" as opposed to say "unopened"? If colour is going to be used then I would advise the exact text should be duplicated, i.e. start the note with "partial access" and then explain why... I shouldn't have to "interpret" the notes to understand how the background colour relates to it. And yes, I agree, getting rid of colour would be fine, better for people who find it difficult to distinguish between them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
We don't put "partial access" because that's redundant. "Westbound exit and eastbound entrance" means there's partial access; full access would be "Westbound entrance and exit and eastbound entrance and exit" but that's the default, so we don't put that. Adding "partial access" will clutter a table. This just seems like personal preference to me. Also, as far as dashes go, RJL doesn't mandate any particular style of dashes. (Also, can you be more specific as to which particular dashes are offending? They're used in so many columns that it's hard to tell what you mean). --Rschen7754 08:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that "westbound exit and eastbound entrance" equates to "partial access" I'm afraid. It's a question of making it clear to all readers, I think it should be explicit. Oh, and the last table of RJL (Tomei expressway?) uses spaced hyphens and not en-dashes. Also not sure about the M5 motorway table which calls it the M5 Motorway and has spaces between text and footnotes... but this isn't the forum for that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Partial access is far less explicit than specifically providing the directions that one can travel; the colour summarizes that, and if I were to take away the colours, nothing in the notes would be changed. Some of the examples on RJL may have been copied directly from their articles; the intent I believe was more to provide an example from different parts of the world, and less to say "here is a perfect, grammatically correct junction list" (though I agree it should do both). I believe I've fixed the use of dashes (in this article), but point out the hyphens that remain because I can barely see them. Ditto the images; I have a widescreen monitor and for the most part there is no squishing after I removed some pictures. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying say "Partial access" and then explain it. (For what it's worth, I certainly have absolutley no idea what a concurrency terminus is, that's "explained" in the RJL in light green, but how would I correlate that to "Exit not numbered for southbound traffic; I-275 joins I-96 and uses its exit numbers; cloverstack interchange with three loops"? Am I supposed to know that a "cloverstack interchange" is a "concurrency terminus"? It's not a problem here, but it's symptomatic of what I'm trying to say...) And as for text-squashing images, I thought we tried to take account of those readers using lower resolution, probably un-widescreen monitors. Are you saying that you have no squashed text at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I do have images in places on both sides (the biggest example being the Highway of Heroes section, but the image on the right is very narrow), but that may not be the case for a narrow monitor when the text has less room to spread out. For me it looks visually appealing, but that's at 1280x760. I am converting the exit list to templates now, so please point out any errors that you happen see crop up over the next few hours (it is an intensive process for 150+ junctions). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, table is now converted to templates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, still issues with captions and periods, and also can you confirm that the Highway 416 and COMPASS images don't squash text? Would also still recommend that "Unopened" is added to both the "Under construction" and "Planned" entries so we don't have to work out that they both mean "Unopened". Also need consistency on the punctuation in all the notes. Where is all the "Woodstock" information (in the table after Norwich)? And is there a reason why some exits are blank, e.g. "Highway 3 west – Ambassador Bridge to U.S." (which appears to be under construction, so why not in salmon colour like those other "under construction" above?) Finally, for now, you relink destinations in the destinations column, but you don't relink names of former highways in the notes column (for instance). Surely you should be consistently with over linking? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If exits are blank, it means that there is no number (such as for an exit under construction where the number isn't assigned yet.) --Rschen7754 21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, one whole row is blank. And some exits under construction have numbers, so perhaps you need an en-dash and a note to say "no exit number assigned"... And check ref formats, e.g. compare ref 114 with 116 regarding author name format, check others. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Woodstock row was an error. Exit 238 is on the boundary of Woodstock and Norwich. It was a very large conversion so there are bound to be a few artifacts that need to be tidied. As Rschen pointed out, numbers aren't included where sources don't provide those numbers yet. A few exits are unnumbered or not in the highway logs (ref 2). Highway 3 is the current end of the highway, but will be an interchange in a few years; the exit list reflects its current role as the terminus rather then portraying it as a future connection. The salmon colour is only for unbuilt interchanges (ie you can't access the road listed in the destinations column from the freeway yet), and is cosmetic and not meant to convey additional information; ergo no need to add more to the notes. The prose already explains everything in great deal, and the exit list shouldn't attempt to cram that same amount of information into a table format, unless I'm mistaken? I have no problem adding repetitive links in the notes column (it would be a pain in the ass to manage a balance in the destination column between the consistency between entries granted by using a template, the ease of a new editor recreating the link for some reason if its a template parameter, and the overlinking issue), but I'm not sure how other editors feel about that. I've fixed up the author consistency issue; a few refs were using author instead of first/last. I've checked and rechecked them a hundred times in the past year, so honestly I can't spot these type of errors amongst the blur and I really appreciate them being pointed out by a fresh set of eyes (even just the ref number and I'll check it thoroughly). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
So, avoid blank cells because it looks like there's something missing, add an en-dash or something with a key that says "no number exists" or similar. Text squash: just don't do it. Overlinking, do it always or never. More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the recent image restructuring, I am seeing a lot of white space at 1920 pixels (width). See here for a screenshot: [9] Haljackey (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me know how it looks now. I've inserted centred dashes into any blank km or exit cells. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
Looks good now on my end. Nice work! Haljackey (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Just some quick fresh comments, there still exists squashed text and incorrect punctuation in captions and in the table notes, among other things, but in addition
  • Traffic volumes table - 1969 row is all blank so what's the point of it?
  • Based on alignments of data in other tables on this page, shouldn't these volumes be right-justified?
  • "Average Annual Daily Traffic counts of select sections" do you mean "Average annual daily traffic counts of selected sections"?
  • And no period needed there.
  • That large table, you now repeat Highway 2 linking to be consistent, but you don't relink concurrency...
  • Is it "Controlled Access", "Controlled-access" or "controlled access" or "Controlled-Access"? Would pick one and be consistent throughout.
  • Still seeing the odd single-sentence paragraph which is undesirable.
  • Need consistency in the slash spacing (I currently see a " 401/400 interchange").
  • Pure paper ref like ref 115 need a page number.
  • "Closed for reconstruction;[174]" no need for that semi-colon.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I've mentioned above (but you may have missed), I've read this article a thousand times in the past two years, and so I cannot spot problems anymore. My eyes aren't fresh. I've gone through the notes and captions and as far as I can tell the punctuation is there where the sentences are complete and not when they're fragments. Let me know which images are squishing and I'll meddle around some more (again, squishing is relative to screen resolution). The 1969 row will be filled in shortly (need to go to the library to get the source). The controlled access depends on the context: Controlled Access is a direct quotation, Controlled-access and controlled-access are non-proper nouns (either at the start of a phrase or mid-sentence, affecting the "C"), Controlled-Access Highway 401 is a proper noun. It should have the hyphen but the one quotation does not. All the other issues I'm fixing now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, sorry to report I'm off to bed shortly, but here goes with stuff. I'm sorry that you can't spot problems, hopefully you can fix the ones I'll point out here and subsequently...
  • "Highway 401 (in red) within Southern Ontario." no need for a period.
  • "Highway 401: the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway widens to six lanes at Highway 402 in London" period needed.
  • "Throughout the Greater Toronto Area, Highway 401 uses a collector-express roadway configuration, ranging from 12 to 18 lanes wide to manage its high traffic volumes" needs a period.
  • "East of Highway 416, Highway 401 is a low-volume rural freeway with a grass median" needs a period.
  • "Traffic cameras are mounted at every exit within Toronto and form one part of the COMPASS system" needs a period.
  • Those two images squash text.
  • "The former Highway 2A near Highland Creek, aside from a resurfaced pavement, has not been altered since it opened in 1947" needs a period. It is also squashing text with the colour map.
  • "Heavy traffic traverses Highway 401 within Toronto 24 hours a day" needs a period.
  • "A plaque near Brockville commemorates the official completion of the highway" needs a period.
  • "Within years after opening, the four-lane Toronto Bypass was congested, prompting the Department of Highways to widen this section to 12 lanes beginning in 1963" needs a period.
  • "Canadians line overpasses along the Highway of Heroes to pay their respects to the fallen soldiers who pass" doesn't describe the image, it's a single overpass here, I know what you're saying.... in any case, it needs a period.
  • "Highway 401 was closed during a series of propane explosions in Toronto in 2008, allowing for this rare photo of the 14-lane highway occupied by a single vehicle" needs a period.
  • "Work is underway to widen Highway 401 from six to fourteen lanes between Highway 410 and Hurontario Street" needs a period.
  • One other thing, I'm told by some "sourcing experts" that Google Books links don't need to use "access dates", so your first "Map" link amongst others don't need it. Just a warning really, I think it's fine to include it, but apparently it's "not the done thing". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, all the fixes made except the change to the Highway of Heroes caption. Alt text describes a specific picture, the caption doesn't necessarily need to. In this case it is showing one of the overpasses that they line. Also just for consistency I'm going to leave the accessdate for the Google Books link. Thank you for pointing out the pictures that needed a switch. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Franco-Mongol alliance

Nominator(s): Elonka 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This article has a long and complex history, having been the subject of two arbitration cases and various related amendments and other various motions, but it has been stable for over a year now, so I'd like to see about getting it promoted to FA status. It had one premature FA nom shortly after it was created in 2007, but has since gone through extensive peer review and editing, including being promoted to GA status in March 2010, a MILHIST peer review in April 2010, and a MILHIST A-class promotion in June 2010. It is my opinion that the article meets FA criteria, is extremely well-sourced, has many high quality free images, and should be promoted because it covers an interesting aspect of history, the 13th century intersection between the events of the waning Crusades, and the expansion of the Mongol Empire. Thanks for your attention, --Elonka 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Quick driveby comment (I probably won't reply) - I noticed at least one citation uses p where it should say pp. Also, at least one page range appears to use a longer dash than others. Parrot of Doom 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good eye! Fixed, thanks. --Elonka 03:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • many if not most of the images face off the page. At least in the lower part of the article they would be better all switched round as far as left/right placing goes.
  • The complicated background needs more introduction. I know there's a history to the title, but if retained it needs more explaining and qualifying. The use of "Europeans" is also confusing - at times apparently meaning people in Europe & at times those of European origins in the Crusader kingdoms. The use of the contemporary term Outremer is found useful by several historians.
  • Did "historian Steven Runciman" really say the Georgians "were particularly fiercest in their destruction" in 1258? An implausible lapse in grammar from such a grandee, and his editors. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ideally many of the multiple citations would be combined, but I suppose this can't be done with the templates used. Another demonstration of the disadvantages of these.

More later Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments. I have moved some of the images as you recommended (that's a subtlety I'd never noticed before, thanks!). In double-checking the Runciman quote, the actual wording is "were particular fierce in their destruction" rather than "fiercest". Not sure how that got in, but fixed. As for the language about the Europeans in the article, it's generally meant to encompass both groups, both those still in Europe, including the Popes and royals, and the transplanted Europeans in the Crusader states (the Outremer). We could potentially change the wording to say something like, "the Europeans both on the mainland and in the Outremer", if you think there might be some genuine confusion, but that would seem a bit bulky to me. As for the background, we have this covered somewhat in the "Early contacts" section, or do you feel that more is needed? Perhaps we could just change that header to "Background"? --Elonka 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nearing support, sorry for the long delay since my last. I have gone through making small rephrasings & links, and have taken the liberty of adding a one-para section on "Cultural contacts" with a quick summary of Mongol elements in Western medieval art, which I hope people are happy with. I don't do "cite book" I'm afraid, so the Mack book in refs needs converting
  • I don't think the article says outright that "Franco-Mongol" means "Frank-Mongol" not the usual "French-Mongol" readers might expect it to. I think this should be spelled out, & somewhere in the lead seems the obvious place.
  • Re: "The complicated background needs more introduction" I really meant a brief new section that goes through the various power/ethnic/religious blocs in the Levant at the time, as this is unfamiliar country for the great majority of readers, who will think that Turks come from Turkey for example. I wouldn't insist on this, but I do think some more is needed on this.

Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I fixed the ref, and reworked the "Early contacts" section to a slightly more explanatory "Background" section. --Elonka 03:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, meets the criteria. Nice to see it has emerged stronger from the battles. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. I commend the effort put into this article, but at this point I don't feel it meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • WP:LEAD: lead is quite long and contains multiple citations
  • WP:OVERLINK: don't link the same terms multiple times, don't repeat hatnoted links within section text, etc
  • File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif: three of the source links return error messages. Also, on what source or data set is File:Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png (the basis of this map) based?
  • On what source or data set is /File:Principality_of_Antioch_locator.svg based?
  • Photographs of 3D works need separate licensing info for the 3D work and the photo, especially given that France does not have freedom of panorama
  • Source link for File:Bagdad1258.jpg returns error
  • PD-old tag also requires a US PD tag (though it should be fairly obvious in most cases)
  • Avoid repetitive and redundant phrasings, for example the repetition of "event" in "an event often considered as the single most catastrophic event". Try to be concise and straightforward in the language used.
  • At the same time, avoid very short and choppy paragraphs
  • Generally speaking, in-text attribution avoids using work titles
  • Make sure citation format is consistent - compare for example current FNs 6, 78 and 79
  • Reference formatting is also inconsistent - check multi-author listings, wikilinking, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the review and comments. My responses are as follows:
      • WP:LEAD. The current condition of the lead is a result of the many disputes that the article has been through. The lead section was a major point of contention, and has been through many discussions and patient consensus-building, of which the citations were an important element to reduce controversy. WP:LEAD doesn't say that citations are prohibited, so if possible, I'd rather leave the lead alone unless there is some major issue that is blocking the FA process?
      • Linking: Good point, I have thinned out the links considerably, at least looking at things manually. Is there a tool or script that would help me find any other problems?
        • I believe there is (I think by Ucucha? not sure). On a quick look I'm still seeing a few - James I of Aragon twice in one section, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
          • You've got a good eye! Fixed, and I got several others as well. --Elonka 06:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, there is User:Ucucha/duplinks. It highlighted only one link when I just ran it, though, and I removed that one. Ucucha (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Images: I have swapped out the 3D images, added the US PD tag, and removed the dead link (good catch!)
      • Phrasings: I fixed the "event" sentence, but were there other places that you were concerned about?
        • Yes, I'm still seeing a few instances of repetition/redundancy. Another example is "Logistics also became more difficult...This both made it more difficult for the Crusaders to plan military operations" - saying the same thing twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Fixed. I didn't see any others, but if you're spotting them where I am not, please let me know. --Elonka 06:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Paragraphs: I looked for places where some of the shorter paragraphs could be combined, though in some cases they are covering such different concepts, it wouldn't make sense to just string them together. I did some copyediting/rearranging, so please let me know if you see any other problem spots?
        • I think some of the remaining choppiness is related to misuse of commas - for example, "There was confusion within Europe, as to the differences" should not have a comma. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Fixed, though if there are other places, please point them out? --Elonka 06:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
      • In-text attribution: Sorry, I didn't understand this comment, could you please elaborate?
      • Citation format: Good point. I reworked all the citations and references to something more consistent.
        • Better, though there are still quite a few inconsistencies. For example, "New York" or "New York, New York, USA"? Page for FN 7? Using hyphen where dash should appear in Richard reference entry, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Good points. I did a bunch more ref cleanup, though as far as the Richard entry, I looked at all of them, and couldn't find a problem. Which ref were you referring to?--Elonka 06:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
            • The bibliographic entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Fixed! --Elonka 16:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Let me know about the attribution part, and I'll see what I can do to fix? Thanks, --Elonka 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The length of the lead seems fine to me too, although WP:LEAD says "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule—the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs". I think this is often ignored but the 2 line 5th para could be merged to the shortish 4th maybe. But I agree many paras are very short, for example: "Following Ain Jalut, the remainder of the Mongol army retreated to Cilician Armenia under the commander Ilka, where the Mongols were received and re-equipped by Hethum I" is a one-sentence para (deprecated) taking up less than a full line. I think I will have some language points later. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The claim about in-line attribution may be somebody with a strong preference for short titles in footnotes. For my part, the citation of Jaroslav Folda's book (cited once), with full title - and no listing in the bibliography- seems perfectly reasonable. I know of no guidance against it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Quick response on the in-text attribution: by that I'm referring to "Person X in his book Title" constructions - generally simply "Person X" is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Quite often it is not sufficient; Wikipedia cannot guarantee that somebody will not add another paper by Grousset, say - especially on a subject like this, where there is a limited pool of authors; there are already three works by Peter Jackson. Personally, I prefer a short title in such cases to "Grousset (1936)" - which work is that again? Others differ, and so there is no guidance. (And if you include short title only when absolutely unavoidable, somebody will complain that your style is inconsistent.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
            • @Nikkimaria: Thanks. I have reworked several of the citations to not include titles, though as Septentrionalis mentioned, sometimes they are necessary when one author has multiple possible works. --Elonka 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Um. I don't think I'm making myself quite clear here. I was referring not to the text in footnotes/citations (inline attribution), but that actually included in the article text - for example, "Peter Jackson, in his 2005 book The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410, discussed..." in the Reasons for failure section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Ah, okay. Sentence removed, section reworked. --Elonka 04:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Nikkimaria, I spent some time searching for sources for those maps, and couldn't find anything, so I have gone ahead and removed them, as I don't think that they were particularly necessary to the article. To my knowledge this addresses all of your concerns, or did you have any other objections? --Elonka 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • I think a map, even without boundaries, would help a reader of the article place all the events described. I'd suggest File:Mongol raids into Syria and Palestine ca 1300.svg, minus the arrows and battles (easily removed from an SVG file). Kanguole 12:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • Good find, thanks! I have added it to the section on Ghazan and the Ruad expedition, where it fits in well. --Elonka 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
As an update: I've struck my oppose. Further copy-editing will likely address the prose issues (Dank is an excellent copy-editor), but I'm still seeing inconsistencies in reference format (further examples: FN 33 vs 116, 96 vs 104, 94 vs 103, etc), so am unwilling to support at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Very good catch on the references. I fixed those, and some others which were inconsistent with their "the's". As for prose, could you please point out a few places where you have concerns? I'm a bit uncomfortable with a requirement that "one particular other editor has to rewrite things", as it's not really something that I can take action on? --Elonka 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean that it had to be a particular editor, I had just noticed his comment here. Some further examples of prose issues: "A few marital alliances between the Mongols and Christian rulers continued between the Christians and the Mongols of the Golden Horde" - phrasing is redundant; "who were making attacks on Eastern Europe" - awkward, why not just "who were attacking"?; "when they needed them more at home" -> "when they were more needed at home"; still have some ellipses in parentheses; paragraph about Mongol court historians uses "seen" thrice in two sentences; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
All fixed, thanks. --Elonka 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in general; this meets my standards for FA: it would not be regrettable to see it on the front page as it stands. Some comments:
    • Do begin the passage on Constantine and Helena with a source that uses Helena, and an explanation (his mother would probably do) of who she is. Most of our readers will think of Helen of Troy, and relying on a link to undeceive them has an Easter Egg feel.
    • Which Mongol representatives reached, and negotiated in, Europe? (For example, bar Sauma's visit to the King of England). By this time, Elonka, you know the material so well it is no longer clear to you what the article does not say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review. I have reworked the section on Constantine and Helena. As for Mongol representatives though, to my knowledge they are all mentioned? Bar Sauma is mentioned several times (I'm a big fan), though if you'd like, I could definitely go into more detail. --Elonka 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "westward" and "northward", but "southwards": be consistent with the adverbial form. (For those who have Garner's, see "Directional words".) If there are any directional adjectives ending in ward, don't add s to those.
  • Since this article has seen a lot of dispute resolution, including Arbcom, I have less freedom here than usual. I'll go through it quickly, and probably wind up neither opposing nor supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The communications initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian–Mongol communications: the Europeans would ask for the Mongols to convert to Christianity, but the Mongols would simply respond with demands for submission.": Christians were asking the Mongols to convert, which would have put them under the authority of the popes, and the Mongols in turn asked for submission. I changed the "but" to "and" because the two parts of this sentence aren't in opposition; there's nothing surprising about either side's demands, or their responses. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments, it's always interesting to learn about these subtle points of grammar! I've changed "southwards" to simply "south", and reviewed all the other "thward" parts of the article but they appear consistent. I've also reviewed your other changes, and have no objections. Thanks for your time! --Elonka 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • My pleasure. I'm really enjoying the variety of history articles we're getting at FAC these days. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Incidents ... a few incidents occurred, one of them leading to an incident ...": Too many incidents. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good catch! Fixed. --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Hethum I, King of Armenia": All the relevant style guides say that this needs a comma afterward if there's no other punctuation there, although it's becoming more and more common to omit the second comma. See WP:Checklist#second commas. Since I'm skimming this article, I may not catch all of these. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Interesting, thanks! I've gone ahead and fixed these. --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm stopping early; I hope the copyediting helps. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Very much so, thanks! --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll be happy to continue copyediting after progress has been made on turning the one oppose and the two "comments" into supports. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Dank. To my knowledge, all of the concerns have been addressed, and there are no open requests on the page. Regarding the one oppose from Nikkimaria, I've followed up at her talkpage a couple times[10][11] to see if she has any other concerns, but she has not replied since the 11th, probably because she is too busy. So if you'd have time to continue copyediting, it would be much appreciated. :) --Elonka 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, I'd like to help here, but I feel too constrained, because the article has so much history in dispute processes; I don't want to be named in a future Arbcom case just because I copyedited an article. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Dank, sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, I don't think there's a risk of any other ArbCom case in the near future. The article has been stable for over a year, and the key editor involved has been gone from Wikipedia for several months. And even if there were an arbitration case, I can't see as any reviewer would get dragged in... It would normally only be those editors actively involved with disputes on the article talkpage. Just making comments and suggestions here shouldn't be a problem. It's up to you though! --Elonka 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments Nice read, interesting subject. I've made a few tweaks hope you like them, if not it's a wiki....

  • Links. I fixed two that went to the wrong article, and I'm afraid I may not have time to check every link. Have now checked more as I think have others.
  • Europeans/Franks I changed one occurrence to West Europeans, this is one of those subjects where Europeans shouldn't all be lumped together as this is really about one part of Europe and indeed one part of the Mongol Empire. In that sense statements such as "Contact between the Europeans and Mongols began around 1220" really needs more context about the contemporary events in Eastern and later central Europe. Similarly dating the "The first official communications between Europe and the Mongol Empire" to 1245 puts it after the the Battle of Legnica and indeed the surrender or refusal to surrender of various east European states. Either that or clarify that this omits the Battle of the Kalka River and subsequent events because this article is really about the relationships between the Frankish crusaders in the Levant and the Ilkhanate, and not between Europe and the Mongols.
  • Maps are difficult because borders shift and records may not always be exact, but your first omits the Mongols altogether and your second only shows the movement of their armies. If possible it would be great to have a map which shows the bigger picture, including the boundaries of western and eastern Christendom as well as Islam and the various Mongol states.
  • "an increasingly bleak situation for the Crusaders in Egypt" I would have thought The Levant was more accurate. Ta.
  • "There, no strong state could have stood in their way until Morocco." This links to the modern Morocco and is more than a little misleading as both the Marinids and before them the Almohads ruled what is now the inhabited part of Algeria as well as Morocco, as well at some points areas of what are now Tunisia and Libya. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for your detailed review, and copyedits. I could tell by my watchlist that you were doing a very thorough check of the article, which is appreciated. I've done my best to address all of your comments, except for the map. I agree with you; however, map-making is not one of my skills. Would it be best to simply remove the maps are there, to avoid confusion? --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't remove the maps as they are useful, just not as good as they could be. For the purposes of FA we should use the best we have available, but it wouldn't hurt to ask one of our mapmakers if they couldn't do something specific for this article. Changing Europeans to Franks in several places works for me, but it increases the importance of the way they are described at the start of the article. I think that "Europeans on the mainland" is not as good as "West Europeans", that may just be my perspective as a Londoner. But my understanding is that in that context English crusaders in the holy land probably would be counted as "Franks" whereas Europeans from the areas ruled by the Golden Horde wouldn't. As for Morocco, the new link is better because it mentions that Morocco then ruled NorthWest Africa, but I'd prefer North West Africa over Morocco, not least because many who know their current world map won't click to see that we are talking about a much larger state that the Mongols would have reached much sooner. ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I've switched to "Western Europeans" in the lead, and the Morocco sentence to "Morocco and the Islamic caliphates in the Maghreb of northwest Africa," does that work better? --Elonka 02:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks, that largely works for me. I think its time for me to count as a support. I'm still not quite comfortable at the balance between this and the contemporary Mongol invasion of Europe. But I'm not sure how to do it better so that would not be good grounds for an oppose:) ϢereSpielChequers 15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. (Disclaimer: I made some comments on the talk page in 2010.) As a lay reader, I was puzzled by several things in the "Incidents" section:

  • Isn't this an instance of the hostility of the non-Antioch Franks described in the following section, rather that some sort of border friction?
  • The cited source (Richard) describes a simpler encounter than the first paragraph (no expedition for redress or ambush), and doesn't seem to have the deprecation of Julian. Is there an additional source?
  • On the other hand Richard says the raid on Sidon involved sacking the lower town, which seems a significant detail.
  • The second paragraph seems to suggest that Baibars was angered by Crusaders and Mongols attacking each other, and goes on to describe attacks that don't seem to fit with the truce discussed in the following section. The source (p416) says that Baibars claimed the treaty of 1240 was void because the Crusaders had "allied with the sultan of Damascus against Egypt" (the article says because they had helped the Mongols to attack Damascus). It turns out these attacks occurred in 1263, i.e. after the events described in the next two sections, and don't seem connected to the Mongols. Kanguole 00:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Kanguole. Good point, that "Incidents" section was confusing. I have added some refs, and overhauled that section. --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The re-distribution of the material makes sense, but the source (Richard, p416) does not seem to support the underlined causal factors in the following sentence: "In 1262, the Mamluk leader Baibars threatened Antioch for its association with the Mongols, and declared that the treaty that had been signed between the Crusaders and the Mamluks in 1240 had been invalidated when Christian forces assisted the Mongols to capture Damascus." Regarding the first, Richard says Baibars had "an anti-Christian fanaticism intensified by his hatred of the Mongols". For the second, Richard gives the quite different reason that the Crusaders had "allied with the sultan of Damascus against Egypt", presumably referring to events back in 1240 described on p323. And wasn't the year of his siege 1263? Kanguole 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, after spending a few hours going through multiple sources, I've got it figured out (thanks for spotting this!). The 1240 treaty didn't have anything to do with the Mongols or the Mamluks, but was related to a time when Crusader Theobald I of Navarre had brokered separate agreements with two warring factions of the Ayyubid dynasty, the Ayyubid sultan in Egypt, and the Ayyubid sultan in Damascus. In 1260, Baibars appears to have been claiming that the 1240 treaty was invalid because the Crusaders had also allied with Damascus in 1240. In any case, most of this isn't Mongol-related, so I just removed that part of the section, and expanded several other related articles where it's more appropriate. Please let me know if you think it reads better now? --Elonka 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I haven't read the other sources, but, yes, that was my reading of what Richard was saying, and I agree with trimming it. One minor nit: I think Richard says the seige of Antioch by Baibars was in 1263 rather than 1262. Kanguole 15:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Well, he may be implying 1263, or maybe 1262, it's not entirely clear. I've checked several other sources, but they're kind of vague as well, with the general consensus being, "Baibars attacked a bunch of places after 1260, and Antioch fell in 1268." So how about I change the line in the article to "Around 1262 or 1263"? Or if that doesn't work, I can just quote Richard directly? --Elonka 03:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
              • OK, I see the vagueness – "1262 or 1263" is fine, but the sentence still contains "for its association with the Mongols", when the source seems to indicate he hated them because they were Christians, and being Mongol vassals was just the icing on the cake. I also see that the preceding paragraph has two unsourced sentences (restoration of patriarch, Antiochene territories) – the cited source only covers the last sentence. Kanguole 12:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Dispute about the existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance", it's not clear that there is an actual scholarly dispute on that question:

  • The clauses "There is dispute among historians as to the existence or extent of an alliance" and "though a few historians have argued there was an actual alliance" aren't supported by the citations, which deal with other parts of the sentences about different questions.
  • Demurger's post-1300 alliance presumably refers just to the Ruad expedition, since the principalities had been lost by then. Is that contentious, or just a matter of labelling? The section of the article on the Ruad expedition speaks of the Mongols being delayed, which presupposes at least some attempt at coordination, but this is not described.
  • That leaves Richard as the only cited dissenter, but the extent of the alliance he's claiming is not described. If his is a significant minority view, it would be useful to clarify the points of contention. Kanguole 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Kanguole, thank you for the comments. Replies below:
      • For the "Dispute" question, did you see Reference #8? The source is a book entitled History in Dispute, which goes into great detail about the debate as to whether or not an alliance would have been a wise idea.
      • I'm not entirely understanding what you're asking about Demurger. Yes, he was referring specifically to the Ruad expedition. This is covered in more detail in the Fall of Ruad article. There is a also a mention of his views in the "Saint Louis and the Mongols" section.
      • Regarding Richard, I personally don't regard him as a "significant minority view", since his opinions were expressed only by him, and were not shared by other historians. However, since he is a major historian, it seemed reasonable to include his views, as well as those of Demurger. There is also a bit more detail about Richard's views up in the "Papal communications" section.
      • Please let me know if you have any other questions? --Elonka 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The broad issue is whether there really is a "Dispute about the existence" among scholars, as suggested by the section header:
          • Yes, #8 discusses the wisdom of a hypothetical alliance, but not the questions of existence or extent.
          • Similarly, #2, #138, #139 and #140 talk about failure, but not anyone arguing for an alliance.
          • My point about Demurger was that saying there was an attempt at cooperation limited to the Ruad expedition doesn't seem particularly contentious, i.e. more a matter of how to describe an agreed event than an example of a dispute over the existence of some over-arching alliance. (The "Saint Louis and the Mongols" section discusses Demurger's views on events in 1270 rather than after 1300.) That leaves Richard as the sole dissenter.
        • Most of this could be addressed by giving that section a more modest title (e.g. with "existence" or "alliance") and deleting (or citing) the two unsupported clauses I mentioned.
        • I'd also repeat my remark about the "Ruad expedition" section: it says the Mongols were delayed, but without explaining why the Crusaders were expecting them. Kanguole 13:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now. How about changing "dispute" to "disagreement", would that work better? I also moved sources around to get them closer to where they should be. There was an earlier reviewer who didn't like sources in the middle of a sentence, so I moved the sources to the end of the sentence, but I agree, it doesn't make as much sense. It's so difficult to please everyone!
          • Regarding Demurger, we had an extensive dispute about this in the talkpage discussions, and to bring peace, we opted to include Demurger's stance, even though I agree with you that it didn't make a strong case for there being an alliance. --Elonka 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Fall of Ruad. Aha, good catch! The info about the Mongol request for assistance got deleted somewhere along the line. I'll re-add it. --Elonka 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I mistyped above: I meant to say 'without "existence" or "alliance".' Regarding the scope of the citations, I would prefer to see that addressed by removing the unsupported text. The broader point is that this section suggests a controversy about the existence of an alliance (not least in its title) but then has little evidence for it. I'm sure you're right that such things are left-overs from past editorial disputes, but I'd expect that not to show in a featured article. Kanguole 01:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I guess we're not communicating... To my knowledge, all text is supported by citations, though in some cases the citations might not be right next to the text, and are instead at the end of a sentence or paragraph. If there's something in particular that you think isn't cited properly, please list it either here, or mark the locations in the article with {{cn}}, and I'll see about getting the citations updated. --Elonka 02:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
                • OK, I've added tags to the article on the passages I mentioned above. Kanguole 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Fixed! I re-worked one sentence, and added citations to the other locations. --Elonka 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support On the basis of the article as it stands, but could be polished further.

  • Check "never actually left to go do battle" - klunky.
  • I prefer "The idea of "ally" was foreign to the Mongols" to "Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects or enemies, not allies". I think this is both more accurate and succinct. It was indeed not a concept they understood at all.
  • In "There is dispute among historians as to the existence, extent, or even wisdom of an alliance." Existence, extent or (on a non-factual topic) wisdom of an alliance. Not a big issue, but could perhaps be rephrased more elegantly and/or easily referenced.
  • My advice, with humour and great respect - release The Dank! Doug (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Doug. :) I've reworked a couple of those sentences, but am not sure on the last one, what might be better. It's possibly because I've read and re-read the section so many times, my brain just can't fathom wording that might work better. Do you have suggestions? --Elonka 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps "There is dispute among historians as to the existence or extent of an alliance.[8] The wisdom of such an alliance for the Franks and indeed the relevance of Cristians to the Persian-Mongol conflict have also been called into question[142][143]."
      • Apologies if I'm moving off-topic, but it seemed to fit. Doug (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that's the nudge I needed. I've re-worked the section, please take another look? --Elonka 07:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Reads really well now. Congratulations on a fine job on a broad and contentious topic. Doug (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the help! --Elonka 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments - I admit I was turned off this whole subject when the article was first created, and all the drama that went on back then, but I see it has greatly improved since I last looked at it. I found a few nitpicky things to mention:

  • In the "Papal overtures" section, should the Battle of La Forbie be mentioned? That was much more immediately disastrous than the fall of Jerusalem a few months earlier. Jerusalem was symbolically important, of course, but it didn't mean much whether the Franks controlled it or not.
  • "Christian Vassals" - this section has a lot of images already, but there is one of the letter from Sempad, if that's useful.
  • "Antioch" - perhaps it would be better to say the Principality of Antioch was founded "during" the First Crusade, since that wasn't the intended result of the crusade, and the crusade went on for at least another year afterwards.
  • "Invasion of Syria 1260" - one of an-Nasir's Arabic titles is in fact "king" but the Ayyubids are not usually described that way; an-Nasir is usually called an emir. Maybe someone refers to him as a king though, I don't know.
  • "Council of Lyon" - here the Muslims are called "Sarazins", and it doesn't seem to be part of a quote. Elsewhere "Saracens" is used, and in the "Arghun" section this is actually defined as "Muslims". I would stick with "Saracens" but define it when it first appears (in "Saint Louis and the Mongols"), or just use "Muslims" throughout.
  • "Arghun" - did Tekuder convert to Islam, or from Islam to something else? Presumably to Islam, but "a converted Muslim" is ambiguous.
  • "Genoese shipmakers" - Acre fell in May 1291, so "on March 1291" has the wrong month, and is missing the day, or it should be "in" rather than "on".
  • "Ghazan" and "Ruad expedition" - Amalric of Tyre is linked in both sections (but with different links each time, once as Prince, once as Lord). Also, although in context it is obviously Amalric of Tyre, "Amalric of Lusignan" usually refers to the Amalric of 100 years earlier (Amalric I of Cyprus/II of Jerusalem).

Otherwise I don't see any problems. I am impressed with how this article has turned out! If I have a moment I will try to go over it in more detail. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent points, thanks. It's great to work with someone who really know the material! I have addressed all issues, including adding a mention of the Battle of La Forbie, and the Sempad letter. For an-Nasir, I re-checked Morgan, who refers to him as "Caliph", so I updated the article accordingly. If you have any other comments or suggestions, please let me know. --Elonka 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, he does? I can't check that at home right now, but an-Nasir certainly wasn't the caliph...the Abbasid caliph of Baghdad was sort of like the Muslim Pope, a religious leader. He was killed by the Mongols in 1258. an-Nasir was a relatively minor Ayyubid emir, a political leader. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, actually I can see that on Google Books. Morgan is talking about the caliph in Baghdad, and then an-Nasir, separately, although he doesn't give an-Nasir a title. Normally I would say an-Nasir was just an emir, based on his age/previous possessions/general inexperience, but since he ruled in Damascus he could just as well be called a sultan, which is what Grousset calls him (in "Empire of the Steppes"). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
While we're at it, should An-Nasir redirect to Al-Nasir? There were more Caliphs than usual at this point, surely, but I'd defer to AB & his sources. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, I guess it doesn't help that there is also a caliph with the same name. I think that's a problem with with people named "al-Mansur" too, and there are a couple of Ayyubids named "al-Adil". Too bad they are always known by these names, which are actually titles, rather than their actual given names. In any case, Runciman also refers to an-Nasir Yusuf as "sultan". (Maybe he's not as minor as I thought, I must be thinking of some earlier Ayyubids.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so there's Sultan An-Nasir, and Caliph An-Nasir, and it didn't help that Morgan referred to the Caliph in one sentence and the Sultan in the next. Okay, thanks, I agree with the change.[12] --Elonka 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to change my comment to a support :) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Query: I'm not seeing it on this page, although it is likely covered somewhere in talk archives or one of the arb cases (if so, please link?). I'm wondering how the article name "Franco-Mongol alliance" was chosen considering ... there wasn't one. A Google books, Google scholar search doesn't lead me to anything conclusive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The current talk page has a failed move proposal from 2010, made by Elonka, opposed by Adam Bishop ("Oppose, since this a phrase used by scholars, even if it is to say that there wasn't one") and others. It has links to previous rounds. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Johnbod-- your link is red, but I found it here; noting for the record that the requested move was closed as "no consensus" and the subject was not reviewed on this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion of "European-Mongol diplomacy" was made after the RM, and would also solve the question of defining Franco as more than France; "Western European" might be even better. The title should not say Franks; too many readers will think of the Merovingians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the title doesn't accurately describe the topic. It's a relic of the troubled history of the article, and the dissonance will be confusing to readers. Kanguole 14:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not opposed to another discussion about re-naming the article, but for now, I think it's probably best to leave the title as it is. If nothing else, the title has been stable for over a year, and I'd rather not stir up the naming hornets' nest right now, which might risk de-railing the FA process. Could we possibly table this discussion for the moment, with assurances that we will re-visit it after the article is promoted? We can then (re)review the terms that historians use, and look into crafting a new consensus if necessary. --Elonka 02:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a spotcheck of the sources, and another look at the prose wouldn't hurt. Ucucha (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Ucucha, thanks for your review. I'm a bit confused though as to how to take action on this. What exactly would you like done? --Elonka 21:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd like to have someone look over the sources and check that the article accurately represents them and does not paraphrase them too closely. Ucucha (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • My impression from the reviewer comments so far, is that several of the sources have already been spot-checked. --Elonka 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Hi Ucucha, anything else? We seem to have plenty of reviewers, multiple supports, and no opposes. All comments here have been addressed. Are there any other actionable concerns? --Elonka 18:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
          • This article is still listed (a week later) at WT:FAC as needing a source spotcheck-- I'm working through that list today and will once again prod and poke and hope someone will find the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Reasons for failure" section seems to have only source, and every paragraph begins with "there have" or "there are" –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Sources added, and section re-worked. --Elonka 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There are too many direct quotes in this article. I know that sounds like the "too many notes" bit in the movie "Amadeus". However, direct quotes are for main points, or particularly original or particularly representative ones. Many times the quotes in this article seem like mere name-dropping, "Person x said simply, 'The attempt failed'" is one example. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a result of the disputes that the article has gone through. Often when there was disagreement about how to interpret what a particular historian said, the consensus was just to quote the historian verbatim. --Elonka 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Doing source spotcheck... SpinningSpark 23
30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hadji Ali

Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because there's presently not enough coverage of regurgitation among our FAs, much less an article on a professional regurgitator. I say "very little" as a hedge: It is possible that there have been others, but I really do think this is the first one. This oversight should not stand. I guess I should also tell you as an aside to the above merits, that this has had a peer review, is a good article and I think it meets the criteria.

Regarding content, two gaps you may note is that there is little on his personal life and little on his years in Europe and elsewhere before he came to the U.S. This is not for lack of trying. I have exhausted every source I could find using every variation of his name's spelling, misspelling, reversal of order, his stage names in both English and in other languages. etc.

This was mostly built from newspaper articles – hundreds I looked at using Newspaperarchive.com. Very few sources go beyond variations on the same two or three paragraph patter about what his vaudeville act consisted of. I've included every pertinent detail I came across and I traveled down every path to locate reliable sources I could think of, including (after the usual Google News archive and book suspects, and magazines with archives such as Time, Life & Variety) looking at German sources such as Die Zeit and Der Spiegel, Italian newspaper archives, expat asian newspapers, etc., as well as asking for help at the Russian Wikiproject (since he performed for the Tsar). Obviously, I am trying to gird against a comprehensiveness objection I foresee as a possibility, but I don't think this can be made significantly more comprehensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers and for books
  • FN 6: what's a font page?
  • FN 34: what kind of source is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • All fixed. I've also made all U.S. state listings more consistent by using their standard abbreviations. Thanks for looking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Z. Thanks for stopping by. I don't edit Wikiquote but please feel free to create the page yourself. Regarding the disambiguation I suppose a hatnote could be added to the article on the mosque but I'm not sure it's necessary. Hadji Ali (with the "d") is his common name and there are very few sources that have ever mistakenly spelled it without the "d" when referring to this individual. Regarding a disambiguation page, they are only addressed to ambiguity created by various existing titles that can cause confusion. Even if we add the mosque to the mix, we only have that and Hi Jolly to deal with so hatnotes would be the normal way to go. See generally WP:TWODABS. Regarding creating the suggested redirects, I have done so for the Arabic but I see no need for the others since I think it very unlikely anyone will be looking for this subject by searching for the transliteration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This is an impressive piece of work, given the way that it has had to be pieced together from lots of sources. The prose looks good apart from a couple of quibbles, and there are one or two other points. It is an enjoyable article and I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that a long list of his stage billings should appear in the first sentence of the lead. Firstly it makes for a distractingly long sentence and secondly I think (unless he was widely known by these names) it would be better kept for later in the lead, or more ideally, the main body.
  • He was widely know by these names, at least in hundreds of advertisements, though commenting on that directly would stray into OR territory--no source I've come across directly says that. I've taken them out of italics and folded them into the body.
  • Also, unless I am missing some strange part of the MoS (which is likely!) why are the names both italicised and contained in quotation marks?
  • See above.
  • "Although never a true headliner…": A little vague: maybe "Although never a true headline act", but it leaves the question of what a headline act is in this instance. To me, it suggests "topping the bill" at a theatre, but I suspect that was not the intention. Needs clearing up. Struck, but see below! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • A top headlining act is the sense, tweaked to say so.
  • Close repetition of "vaudeville": "…had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States. His vaudeville act was captured…"
  • Rewritten. Although "vaudeville" and "vaudevillian" are now nearby one another, I think the modified forms don't have the same repetitious feel. Better?
  • Not sure about this. After the change above, we now have three words with their root in vaudeville in the first two sentences! I think this is overkill, but I'm afraid I'm not sure of a better word that carries the correct meaning. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not too fond of "vaudeville...vaudevillian" but that's just my opinion, so struck. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I removed the first usage; "top headlining act" didn't need the vaudeville modifier.
  • Background: the opening is a little mixed up in my view. It talks about how he discovered his ability, when he explained how he discovered his ability, and only then describes what his "unusual ability" was. Would it be better to begin by describing the ability and then how he discovered it, or even to open with the event by which it was discovered. (Hope this makes sense…) But, given how vague it all is in his own words, maybe the current way is better. Hmmm. Not sure.
  • I have placed a lead-in sentence that makes it less in media res.
  • "A more dramatic version of these events was provided by Ali's Daughter, Almina Ali in an interview in England after his death": May be better with a comma after his daughter's name.
  • Done.
  • Actually, you hadn't, so I did it! Also realised that "Daughter" was capitalised, which I also changed.
  • Oh, this is one of those where I was working in multiple windows and never transferred the edits over. I remember decapitalizing daughter also!
  • "an ability that he continued to develop as he grew older": In the sense that he practised or that he became naturally more accomplished as he got older. The source seems to imply the former but is a little vague.
  • I have tweaked.
  • "who signed him to a contract for music hall performances": Slightly awkward "signed him to a contract"; would "signed him" be better, or change the subject of the sentence and have "Ali signed a contract".
  • I have worried at this but cannot figure out a better way to say it. "Signing someone to a contract" is a stock expression (see e.g., this).
  • OK. I still feel it is awkward but not enough to worry about. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Ali "remained more a sideshow curiosity than a true vaudeville headliner."" Although this has a ref, there should be in-text attribution as well.
  • Done.
  • The way it was phrased was awkward so I replaced it with the name of the author. If anyone comments on explaining who he is (I don't think that is an issue myself), it may be worth recasting the whole sentence. However, I like the link with Judy Garland. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "reportedly 60 to 100 glasses at a time": Reportedly does not sound reliable. Maybe "according to X" may be better.
  • Tweaked.
  • Minor close paraphrasing issue: "he spurted forth the water in a steady stream": Arguably a little too close to the source which says: "Then for nearly a minute he spurts forth the liquid in a steady stream from his lips" (Incidentally, the ref gives the date as December 12 when it was actually 21) I think "spurted forth" is a little too grand anyway.
  • Rewritten.
  • "It is thought that for the nut feat, … For the handkerchief stunt, it was speculated that…" Not too sure here; maybe say who thinks this and who speculated, otherwise it suggests editorial voice.
  • Rewritten with in-text attribution.
  • "At some performances, a panel or "jury" from the audience was invited on stage to verify as best they could, while in close proximity to Ali, that no trick mechanism was being employed: that he was actually swallowing the items in question and delivering them back through acts of regurgitation.": This strikes me as too wordy: maybe "At some performances, a panel or "jury" from the audience was invited on stage to verify as best they could, while in close proximity to Ali, that no trick mechanism was being employed: that he was actually swallowing the items in question and delivering them back through acts of regurgitation regurgitating them."
  • This has been tweaked, though I kept in "jury" because it's replicated in the lead and it gives the sense that they were there to determine legitimacy, not just to observe.
  • "Not all felt the same.": Not all what? Newspapers? (that is the last thing mentioned) The public? Theatre managers?
  • I think you missed how the subject "others" is connected to the immediately proceeding sentence, which reveals that it refers to audience members/the public. I have made it clearer by ending with a colon.
  • I think I may be missing something here. These are the two sentences concerned: "One newspaper reported that Ali's feats, essentially controlled vomiting, were performed in "a manner without the least bit of unpleasantness or anything bordering on repulsiveness."[27] Not all felt the same: at least one of Ali's engagements was cut short once the proprietor realized that the nature of the act "was killing their supper shows". The subject of the first sentence is "one newspaper" and the public aren't mentioned. I think this is easily solved by replacing "all" with "everyone" or "all the public". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Everyone" works fine for me and I have replaced.
  • Maybe give Houdini's full name and state who he was just in case someone doesn't know.
  • Done.
  • "The abilities of Ali, who was said to have "two stomachs"…": Who said so?
  • Removed. It felt misplaced.
  • "At one of his acts a number of doctors attended and rigorously examined him during the performance.": Surely not while he was performing? And maybe "thoroughly" rather than "rigourously"?
  • I have changed the one word but yes, during the act. I can only reflect what the source says and it does say it was during his performance: "Physicians who have doubted his feats, recently subjected him to a rigid and thorough examination while he was performing..."
  • The mind boggles slightly! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "They came away satisfied that their doubts that he was actually imbibing the material reported were unfounded, but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."" Again wordy, and the quote requires in-text attribution. Maybe "They were satisfied that he was actually imbibing the material, but according to X, remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."
  • I have pared down.
  • Still requires in text attribution. As it stands, it suggests these are the actual words of the doctors rather than a source. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm missing something. It says, in text, what newspaper it was reported in, the year of the article and and whose opinion it was. Can you explain further how this should be attributed better? The article is by Morris Fishbein, not just attributed to him therein.
    P.S. I just realized didn't make this clear because I failed to place him as the author of the article in the citation. Fixed now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we are talking about different parts of the text! The part you are talking about is the possible medical explanation of his tricks. The part I mean is "At one of his acts a number of doctors attended and thoroughly examined him during the performance. They came away satisfied that he was actually imbibing and regurgitating the material and objects as claimed, but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."" Which has ref 17. The unattributed part is "...but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."": it needs to be clear who wrote those words. It only needs to say "according to X newspaper". --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Facepalm3.svg Yes. Like two cursors passing in the night. I have now provided in-text attribution for this as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding comprehensiveness, it would be nice to know more about his life outside his act, such as his childhood, family, etc. For example, his daughter appears fully grown early on in the article and we never hear much more about her. As the nominator says, it is light on what he did in Europe. However, given that these details most likely do not exist, and that he was most notable for his charming stage act, I do not think it is a problem that the information is not in the article. The main points of significance all seem to be there.
  • Indeed. As I also said in the nomination, there is little on his personal life. I have found nothing on Almina's mother or anything more on her at all, whether he was married, where he resided. etc. Just nothing. He enjoyed some small fame but I think he was not quite famous enough for background details to have been sought.
  • However... Looking at the sources, some of the claims about what he did such as the tsar seem to come from either him or his daughter. Several things seem to be less than independent. Perhaps the article could make clear which "facts" come from the man himself. It is also interesting that no-one has ever repeated this act, which does beg the question was it even possible and not some elaborate hoax. It would be interesting to cover this, but I imagine nothing really exists except the comment given by David Blane and the contemporary doctors. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have made it clear that his appearance before the Tsar comes from his own recounting. Regarding it being an elaborate hoax, well it's neither here nor there, but I think that's quite impossible given the way he performed and the observation he allowed. Really, nothing he did is beyond belief (there are other regurgitators btw, even some coming to light now 1 2)—maybe only that he apparently suffered no ill effects from having kerosene in his gut many times per week, albeit for short periods of time.
  • No problems on these last two points; I was merely raising them and saying that I suspect not much can be done. Fair enough on the source of the claims. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comment: It's just about there. There are a couple of final points lurking above on prose and once these are addressed I will be happy to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC) There is one remaining issue which we are getting muddled about which I think needs clearing up, but I am happy to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks: I checked several of the newspaper sources and apart from one item noted above, no issues were found. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review Sarastro1.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:FAU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the copyedit! One minor reversion in the lead since I think it affected meaning and I have removed an Oxford comma for consistency since I don't use them. One other thing: I'm not so sure about the change from c. 1888-92 to the median ("c. 1890"). As you note, this is explained later, but I think the original is more precise and works better given the discrepancy described in the note.
  • The source doesn't say that he had Judy Garland proclaim him as her favorite vaudevillian, it just says that he was her favorite vaudevillian. This should be fixed in the lead and below the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You think there's a material difference? Proclaim means to make known. Barring ESP, how could the author ever state he was her favorite if she didn't state the same? Incidentally, having searched, I discovered that this detail comes from an interview Garland gave to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show taped and aired on June 24, 1968. I and trying to get access to the clip which appears to be available behind a membership only (not pay) wall. If I do I can expand.
    • I do. To have someone do something is to induce them to do it; the source doesn't say that he induced her to say it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. Never even occurred to me that's what you meant. Read it again, using having's definition of possessing; something "having" come too pass. Or to make it crystal clear, here the same use in a different context but using a similar sentence construction: Although never considered the most fascinating of physics questions, the cosmological constant problem has been a consistent subject of PhD theses for the past 100 years, even having drawn the attention of Einstein. Hmm. I'm not sure others would misinterpret what I meant the same way so I'll try to think of a change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have rewritten the two mentions to avoid any ambiguity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "vaudeville subdivision": probably the wrong word.
  • I have changed to "subgenre".
  • This isn't my area since it concerns sourcing, but why give the daughter's word equal weight in the first note? - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Here we have a guy about whom sources say where he was born and even his name is not sure and that he was born "around" "c." "ca" 1892, all of which sources seem to be feeding from the same trough in the manner they parrot each other. Meanwhile, close family members normally know each other's ages. If we were forced to list only one age for Ali by our best guess at accuracy from available sources, it's far more likely that Ali's daughter, his constant assistant and translator, knew her father's age when she stated to reporter upon his death in 1937 that "he was only forty-nine!" Fortunately, we do not need to make that decision and can detail the issue as I have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: very interesting, well-written article. Seeing the work Fuhghettaboutit did on this prompted me to track him down for help on another short quirky piece. I looked over the prose and only have some small suggestions, I could find very little to nitpick about.
  • Could the bit about Blaine be significant enough for the lead?
  • "Ali's act was captured in two films: the 1930 short, Strange as It Seems and Politiquerias (1931), the expanded Spanish language version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home." Maybe an "and" before "the"?
  • "Speaking about the democratic nature of the vaudeville performance circuit, Vaudeville's writer and executive producer, Greg Palmer said in reference to Ali, that the film..." Could you try to tighten this part a bit?
  • In the Background section you start three sentences in a row with "Ali", maybe rephrase a bit?
  • "Ali came to the United States with Almina in the mid-1920s where they performed at fairs" Maybe a comma after "mid-1920s"?
  • "in a continuous stream for a sustained period of time sometimes approaching one minute." Maybe a comma after "time"?
  • "with a small flame burning in close proximity." is this the WP:PLUSING construction? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking Mark, good stuff. I have fixed all but the last. It reads fine to me, plus -ing or not. I have tried to think of an alternative but have come up short. Do you have any suggestions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to just remove "burning"? "A prop was then produced, typically a model castle or house made of metal set on a table, with a small flame in close proximity." Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know, it feels like the flame, using that construction, is now some disembodied fire. Anyway, I *think* the point of the plus -ing(amagig) is that the "with" is the part that's seen as the problem. So if the "with" belongs, getting rid of the gerund is removal for removal's sake. Is this really noun plus -ing? Does it actually read poorly to you as is? Rules of thumb are useful but are we talking here about the way this sentence strikes us or just trying to adhere to a rule (which I'm not clear is actually applicable to this use of with).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have recast it, changing the detail slightly with a source that provided it was inside the prop.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for putting up with all my nitpicking :) I am impressed at how well done the article is, particularly considering its subject. Having reviewed the changes, I Support on 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, and 2b. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I may be getting ahead of things here, but if this is promoted it should be on the short list for April 1's TFA. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Image are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nyon Conference

Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is th emost thoroughly prepared of my articles to head into the process, which is just as well. Would be great to be in a position to feature it 75 years on, later this year. Has been Milhist A-class reviewed (here) and Dank's given it another look since. I can provide any of the journal articles on request. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've finally found a picture from the Conference with the possibility of a FUR. Also, I've added and used as supplementary sources articles from The Times and The Manchester Guardian, which should help on coverage but comes as a technical detriment to the copyedit. Apologies to Dank for the non-preferable order of those two things, but they are only minor additions in terms of prose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm away from home and don't have my Chamberlain references with me, but I'll do what I can and then doublecheck my Chamberlain bios in ten days. Purely stylistic, but why is Anthony Eden, the four times he is mentioned in the article always referred to by full name and he's linked three of them? Who attacked the German ships? Also, I'm afraid your reference to pirates may confuse the reader, what was really being dealt with was freebooters, no? And our article unrestricted submarine warfare doesn't mention Italy ... Just from a hasty reading, it strikes me you could use more context about European response to the Spanish Civil War ... Gotta catch a plane, more in a day or three.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've rearranged the first paragraph to more quickly define "piracy" and explain why the term is used. I dealt with the "Eden" problem. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added a sentence concerning "more context about European response to the Spanish Civil War" - namely pointing out Soviet intervention on the one hand, Italian and German on the other (the subtleties of the French response not suited to such a brief mention). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I copyedited this last week (it was a request at WP:FACG). These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • The Guardian didn't move to London until 1964
  • Be consistent in how editions are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected numbers 2 and 3, could you clarify which references you mean for #1? I've only found one to which this applies – "A Conditional Refusal: "Absolute Parity" Needed". Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall there having been two, but can't locate another, so I'll say just the one you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Done - well, I think you meant using single quotes instead of double - if so, that's done. Think it's just spotchecks and image review to do now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NBSP—I fixed some of them, please do the rest. --Z 04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: although I am an entrant in this year's Wikicup, I will not be entering this nomination. I may, if this nomination shows that significant development is necessary, enter this article's hypothetical second nomination. But I hope it does not come to that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article does not seem ready, presentation is confusing. I prepared specific comments for the first two sections, but it's present throughout. Suggest some work be done. Not certain it can be done during the course of this FAC.
Let me know of improvements, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
[A lot of comments archived to talk, may thanks to Wehwalt for his patience and attention to detail. I do so as to not put off further reviewers. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)]
I think that's all, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've read through your comments. If I don't reply soon, it will be because I accept your answer; I will only mention specific things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Support I have not checked sources or images; content with other things and checks with my own knowledge of Chamberlain's early foreign policy. I would get rid of the three red links, especially the one that includes the word "Admiral" as part of the name (good thing he went into the Navy, if that's really part of his name and a deed poll wasn't involved). Well done. No one can say I haven't put you through the wringer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The "Admiral" link was an error, which I've fixed. The other two are in my opinion sufficiently defensible now that that one has been fixed. 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

One comment taken from above, archived, then reposted just to reply to in the sake of completeness:

  • "Both countries would patrol the high seas and territorial waters of signatory countries." In the Mediterranean?"
I assume your question is "There were high seas in the Mediterranean?". If so, yes - the source is clear - and in other work I've read that territorial waters have been massively enlarged since then in terms of nautical miles from the coast.
No, I understand that. I mean, were non-Mediterranean territorial waters patrolled? Say Atlantic France near Spain?

It's good question, but one which I can answer on examination of the treaty itself: no, they weren't included. Spanish territorial waters weren't party to the agreement, because Spain wasn't, so I can only assume that no attacks happened on the high seas in the Atlantic (where operation was more difficult because of sea conditions, one might guess). Added "in the Mediterranean" as suggested. Thanks for clearing that up. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Most books rush past this in the hurry to get to Munich. Very interesting to hear more about it. If I have anything else, I'll take it to article talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll also keep this on my watchlist.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • At the size used, about half of the notations on the map are illegible. Would it be possible to increase the font size used for notations, or increase the size of the map?
  • File:British_delegation_at_the_Nyon_Conference.png: who holds copyright to this image? The Times, the photographer...?
  • File:BlankMap-Europe_no_boundaries.svg: on what source or data set is this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm doing a new version of the map off a different source. For #2, it doesn't mention an individual copyright on the page (no copyright notice of any kind). If there's a specific photographer-newspaper contract, it isn't noted. That's why I used fair-use and not attempt a corporate copyright approach. Should be fine per WP:NFCC number 10: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" (my emphasis), unless there's some FA-specific rule? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hm. There's no FAC-specific requirement above and beyond NFC, but I think you need to reconsider the copyright tag used for that image (and most of the non-free tags indicate that copyright info is required, so if it actually isn't those should be amended; that's not really in the purview of this review, though). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed. This one says "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed." thereby implying that the exact copyright holder may not have been identified. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Map replaced with a differently sourced map, with clearer provenance, and larger labels. Is that better? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support after the copyedits and tweaks. Still would like to know what the British ambassador/whatever was protesting... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Oppose for now' Comment - review incoming, as a heads up to the delegates. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Lead:
    • "The conference was convened in part because Italy had been carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, although the final conference agreement did not accuse Italy directly; instead, the attacks were referred to as "piracy" by an unidentified body. It was designed to strengthen non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War. Italy was not officially at war, nor did any submarine identify itself." I think this would read better with the last sentence shifted before the sentence beginning "It was designed..." so something like "The conference was convened in part because Italy had been carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, although the final conference agreement did not accuse Italy directly; instead, the attacks were referred to as "piracy" by an unidentified body. Italy was not officially at war, nor did any submarine identify itself. The conference was designed to strengthen non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War."
    • Why is submarine linked in the second paragraph when it's already used in the first paragraph? And really, do any readers not know what a submarine is? Same on why is Italy linked in the second paragraph when it's mentioned in the first paragraph?
  • Context:
    • "aimed at preventing a proxy war – with" I think you mean "aimed at preventing the proxy war – with" as you are directly referring to one specific proxy war.
      • you are clearly referring to a specific proxy war though - there is definitely one meant with this statement, because you directly then mention the specific belligerents in the following phrase. This one isn't a deal breaker - but it's just an odd phrasing considering the direct mention of specifics later in the sentence.
    • "An Anglo-Italian "Gentleman's Agreement" was signed on 2 January 1937, with each party respecting the rights of the other in the Mediterranean." I'm unclear on what this bit of information has to do with the preceding and succeeding sentences. It's disjointed and lacking context.
        • Perhaps "Previously, an Anglo-Italian "Gentleman's Agreement" was signed on 2 January 1937, with each party respecting the rights of the other in the Mediterranean." and then explain what problem this agreement was meant to solve.
    • "In May 1937, Neville Chamberlain succeeded Stanley Baldwin as Prime Minister, and adopted a new policy of dealing directly with Germany and Italy." Suggest linking Prime Minster to the correct national article and adding a bit of context like so: "In May 1937, Neville Chamberlain succeeded Stanley Baldwin as British Prime Minister, and adopted a new policy of dealing directly with Germany and Italy."
    • "favouring a significant control effort as the best solution" - jargon - I have NO idea what this means.
    • "As suspected by the other powers, Italy was behind some of these attacks." this implies that it is now known that Italy was behind the attacks but there was no proof at the time. Is this the case? If so, when did it become proven?
    • "...the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, known internationally as a campaign of piracy without reference to Italy." Huh? I am totally lost with that last phrase - it makes no sense in connection with the forgoing.
      • Okay, better but still a bit confusing ... "... the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, referred to in discussion as a campaign of piracy without mention of Italy." which discussions? Prior to the conference? at the conference?
    • "Whilst officially being at peace,[12] the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, known internationally as a campaign of piracy without reference to Italy.[11] These plans would be the basis for a Mediterranean meeting, suggested by French Foreign Minister Yvon Delbos.[11]" - really - no need to cite every sentence with the same exact citation.
    • "The British representative in Rome protested to the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs." protested what? the attack? And what did the Italians do in response?
      • Still not clear what he was protesting though?
Okay, I'm only two paragraphs into the first section - this is a lot of context missing and prose that's hard to decipher. Normally I'd oppose - but I see you did have a peer review. I'll oppose for now and put the rest of my comments on the talk page of the FAC - so as not to bog this down. I do think you deserve a full review but this needs some work before it's up to FA standards for non-specialists. The rest of this will be on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Lead changes made, with the submarine link moved but retained. The reader could well want more context on that. Will see to the rest shortly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"aimed at preventing a proxy war" ~ I'm afraid I don't see how "the" makes sense. "Proxy war" is a general term and does not refer to one in particular.
"Gentlemen's Agreement" ~ those three consecutive sentences contextualise the following paragraphs (as suggested in this FAC) and refer to Anglo-Italian relations. THe contextualising has to start somewhere - do you have some suggestions of how it could be made less "disjoint"? It has to come before the chronologically later change of PM.
Linked "British Prime Minister".
"significant control effort" ~ reworded;
"Italy was behind some of these attacks" ~ 1950s or so with the publication of Ciano's (Italian foreign minister) diaries, apparently. So after the war. It would be exceptional to mention the source where it is regarded as true; indeed, I reference it to where I got it and not Ciano's diaries, which I haven't seen. The British had their evidence at the time, presumably other people did. Do you suggest altering anything?
"without reference to Italy" ~ well, I've reworded it a bit. Does it need to be clearer, if so, could you articulate your difficulty? Is that it appears to contradict something in particular? We've been over the issue a few times before at ACR and FAC - it is counter-intuitive, but I am trying to state the facts without editorialising, which is challenging.
"Whilst officially being at peace" ~ the first clause is referenced to [12], and it's my standard practice to therefore reference the rest of the sentence with the appropriate reference because otherwise the reader might think that [12] referenced the whole sentence. You mention two consecutive sentences with the same end reference, are there any more examples without my point applying?
"The British representative in Rome" ~ added "but without response". The source says "but 'had been smoothly brushed aside'" quoting one of the people at the meeting's diary.
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In my mind, one "prevents a war between France and Germany", to use a simpler example, rather than "the war".
Anyway, (1) I've mentioned the aim of the Gentleman's agreement, at least in its simplest formulation; "which discussions" ~ all discussions, what changes do you suggest?; Added that the protest was at the attack - is this specific enough? I've noted the points you've put on this FAC's talk page, and will respond there. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Question: are any of those watching or passing by this review prepared to do a spotcheck? I can provide the PDFs, it should be straight forward. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks. "Barbarous" is a direct quote from the source and should be noted as such; other than that, spotchecks of 4 sources found no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reworded - normally throwing the thesaurus at something wouldn't help with CP, but I think it's OK for a single word. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Prose looks ok. A few repeat links I've fixed. Over-referencing is a problem. For example, in the para above Aftermath, 36, 36 in the same sentence! I see 32, 32, 32 above that. Lots of close successive repetitions of ref tags could be looked at with a view to trimming a few. Tony (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed a few repetitions. Were there any more you think are problematic? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured article because I feel I've written a well referenced and clear article that is detailed enough as to provide everything a reader could wish for, but is also written in a style that is accessible to the causal reader who does not know too much about Soviet History. There aren't a huge number of sources available on this subject, but I've taken as much as possible from the available sources, all of which are very high quality sources. The article is currently at GA, and since then has had also undergone a peer review. I'd love to hear other editors comments on the article. cya! Coolug (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • (Dealt with) Scope & Weighting question: why haven't you used Filtzer's Labor process theory in the context of wage reform? You accept that wage reform ramifies into the construction of the labor process, "The number of different wage rates and wage scales was drastically reduced." etc., is this going to be part of a broader set of articles around the Soviet Labour Process in the 1950s-1960s. Even if it is, Filtzer's conclusion about skilling, deskilling and reskilling via LPT seems like it would be relevant to the article. (Obviously I'm going to "buy into" this review a lot more, because I saw the title and got excited. Wage determination FAC? Soviet wage determination FAC? From the mid 1950s?) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm happy that someone is excited about this FAC :) To be perfectly frank I do not really know anything about Labour Process Theory and how it might tie into this article. I was not planning on writing a broader set of articles at this stage in time, this is just a standalone article about one event in Soviet history. If you could point me in the direction of any additional works that would be considered a Reliable Source I'd be more than happy to read through them and see if there is more that can be added to the article. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Academics get excited about wage rates because they provide the evidentiary data for large theoretical claims about Fordism and Taylorism and Labour process theory. In particular, Filtzer used the Soviet wage reform as part of an argument about Soviet labour process, and thus the political economic structure of Soviet society. It might pay to read the conclusion to Filtzer for this article. I'm going to try to see if I can't read the (potted) Google version today. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
See, for example, Filtzer p.229 and surrounding for why you need to read his conclusion for this article. Filtzer basically says here that shop floor wage bargaining incorporated skill components of socialist planning, due to the poor quality of management planning in Soviet Taylorism; and, that the only moments where this happened in the West was in areas where value didn't have to be "realised" in production. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I've had a read of the area in the book you suggest and added something. However, one issue with this FAC is that it's going to take a hell of a long time if I need to go off to university and get myself a degree in Economics before I can add anything in more detail. The Filtzer text 'Soviet Workers and de-Stalinization' is some pretty complex stuff and there's 300 blooming pages of it. Frankly, the reason I've tried to write this article as something that is accessible to the layman is because I'm only a step or two ahead of the layman myself. For example, I don't really understand what Labour Process Theory is beyond it being a very complicated way of explaining that people do "stuff" for various "reasons". I had a read of some things last night with a couple of PhD friends of mine (admittedly they are scientists not economists, but they are people who are used to reading complicated things all day at work so I thought they might be able to make an educated guess) and they were completely flummoxed by it too (although we were consuming large quantities of Papa November's home made gin which didn't really help...)
Anyway, I shall struggle on regardless and see what more I can add, however, I'm definitely drowning here rather than waving :) Coolug (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, give me a tick, I'll help you out here with this point (it can be relatively quick, Filtzer is the only theorist I can locate either). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! BTW, I would still love to find out what this blasted Labor Process Theory actually is, the wiki article on it is a terrible example of what is wrong with some many articles about complicated things on this project. The article tells the reader who developed LPT, what it's been used for recently, but not what LPT is! Coolug (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Tried to expand Labour process theory to better indicate what it is about. Much sociological theory is in this kind of poor state, particularly the serious academic socialist sociological theory. You can see why I got excited by this FAC? :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on (1bcde; 2abc; 3 (limited); 4): Content depth, breadth and correctness; source & cite quality; structure; neutrality & stability; media (appropriateness and captions only) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I am willing to spot check this FAC, but the copyeditors need to go through before me.
    • Publisher location for this press in the bibliography: Fontana
    • Correct the colon: "Soviet Growth : Routine"
    • Title caps for Russia: ""RUSSIA: End Five-Year Plan"" Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for this. I have made these copyedits. If I've made any mistakes please let me know. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comments by Jim There's not enough excitement in my life either. Very accessible, well written, but a few niggles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Because of the nature of Soviet industry, where materials were often in short supply and production would often be the result of "storming" practices, the ability to offer bonus payments had often been vital to the everyday running of Soviet industry, and therefore the reforms ultimately failed to create a more efficient system. — too "often"
  • their individual wage payments depended upon how much work they personally completed. — Do you need both?
  • stakhanovite — capitalised in its own article
  • however — Please check that every use is essential
  • great, great deal, greatly — greatly overused imho
  • Whilst the reform did succeed in removing some of the peculiarities of the Stalinist era, overall the reforms succeeded — two successful
  • Trade Union — why caps?
  • couldn't — unencyclopaedic ellipsis
Thanks for this, I have made some changes based upon your suggestions. As you can probably tell I am having a very exciting christmas indeed! Coolug (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
No further issues, changed to support above.
  • Media review File:Stamp of USSR 2341.jpg needs a description in English and File:Stakhanov.JPG needs {{Information}} filled out. —Andrewstalk 23:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    I've added an info box to Stakhanov.JPG and uploaded the full-res version from the source (4060×2690px after crop). I'm a little uncertain about the licensing for this one... it was almost certainly published anonymously in Russia prior to 1943-01-01, so it's OK as a PD-Russia-2008 (i.e. it's currently public domain in Russia). However, I'm not sure if it's PD in the US - for that to be the case, it either needs to have been simultaneously published in the US without a copyright notice (possible during the US-Soviet wartime collaboration?) or it must have been PD in Russia on 1996-01-01 (URAA date). Is it reasonable to assume we're OK? Papa November (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    Also improved the description for Stamp of USSR 2341.jpg. This one's almost certainly PD-URAA. Papa November (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Papa November! I have been sat here at work scratching my head at what I'm supposed to do with these for the past 15 minutes and was just about to give up and ask for help on here when I saw you'd already fixed it. Good work. Coolug (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, looks good now. —Andrewstalk 22:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from nominator - Hi, I thought I'd just state on here that whilst Fifelfoo did say he would be willing to spot check this FAC, it should be noted that he is not currently editing due to an unrelated conflict on wikipedia. I am certainly not suggesting that anyone be a scab and take up his tasks, but I am asking that if anyone is thinking of closing this FAC due to lack of interest they bear in mind that there certainly is interest, it's just the interest is not expressing his interest at this exact moment in time. I still welcome any comments from other editors. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Lead is unsatisfactory:

  • "were intended to move Soviet industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfillment of quotas that had characterised"—suggest two grammatical changes: "of overfulfilling quotas, which had ...". At least I think that's the intended meaning ... that it was the overfulfullment that had characterised, yes?
  • Personal pref.: "based on", not "based upon"; there's another "upon" shortly after. And you might consider "most" rather than "the majority of" (= 50%+, a bit fussy).
  • Comma again (do watch this issue: subset or not a subset? It's very easy to get the meaning wrong in English): "Workers' personal production quotas were also heavily manipulated by factory managers who were keen to protect workers' wages." It works grammatically, but you're referring to a subset of factory managers; if you want to say that all f ms were thus keen, you need a comma before "who". Just checking.
  • "incentivise"—could it be a simple, plain word, such as "motivate"? "Efficiently" -> "effectively".
  • I'm not understanding some of the lead. Why should standardised wages (not "wage practices", which doesn't make sense) motivate workers; I'd have thought the opposite. And I wonder why the reforms made workers less dependent on overtime or bonus payments? All a mystery to me. Why would these changes reduce pay? What is "storming" (in the lead, we need to know; otherwise use an easier word or phrase here). Where is the causal logic in the "Because ..., the ability to ...". The last clause, too, needs to be a separate sentence.

Sure, the lead is hard to write; but will I expect to see better writing in the body of the article when I get to it? Tony (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the start of the lead so that it might read a little easier. And I've changed the "storming" bit so readers who do not wish to read the rest of the article (or perhaps search for "storming" in the main body of the article and read the explanation) will not feel left out.
However, I don't think it's a good idea to change "incentivise" to something else, "incentivise" has a very clear meaning (and I don't think it's a particularly obscure word that people reading an article on Soviet economics will fail to understand) that is different to the meaning of "motivate". Also "efficiently" has a different meaning to "effectively". The point of the reform was to give workers an incentive that would not result in so much waste. If you read the rest of the article you will discover what this was. Therefore the use of the word "efficient".
As for why the wage reform did the things it did, that is what the rest of the article is about! Coolug (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Incentivise, incentivisation, are just so ugly. I would strike it out of any text except an advertising billboard or TV commercial, where cheapness of language is a device.

Efficiently as currently worded refers to this incentivising (that is, motivating—what exactly is wrong with a plain word?). I think you mean effectively; as you say, "The point of the reform was to give workers an incentive that would not result in so much waste."—right, so that workers would work more efficiently. But the incentives were intended to effectively achieve this. And we've just had inefficiencies three lines back, where it refers to Soviet industry, which is fine. So you effective motivate the workers to be more efficient in their production. If you persist with efficiently motivate, I hope it's clear from the article what inefficient motivation would be. Right now it looks like an unfortunate repetition, aside from being the suboptimal lexical choice per se.

Your response asserts that the reader needs to read the whole article to make sense of the lead: this is not the function of a lead. It opens into the article, but should not be impenetrable as it now is on a few counts. The piece work system would have encouraged workers to turn out pieces, but not necessarily to work hard. We all know the stories of goods that fell apart soon after purchase, the generally sloppy practices that placed numbers of outputted units above basic quality. The lead doesn't even go there, but it is central to the failure of the system, both before and after the wage reform that is the topic of the article. This is why I gag on the sentence: "The wage reforms sought to remove outdated wage practices and more efficiently incentivise Soviet workers by making their wages more standardised and less dependent upon overtime or bonus payments. However, industrial managers were loathe to go ahead with actions that would effectively reduce workers' wages, and often ignored the directives, continuing to pay workers high overtime rates." I can't see the logic, and thus it fails in a lead. Tony (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not an economist but as I understand it, "incentivise" has a very specific meaning in economics. It refers directly and explicitly to the introduction of an incentive into an economic system. "Motivate" doesn't quite work - it lacks the explicit economic context of "incentivise". I guess it would be better to be even more explicit, lose the verbal form and say something like "The wage reforms were intended to introduce a financial incentive..." Papa November (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, acted upon. Coolug (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am happy to accept constructive comments on this article. I can see that you have now read the entire article, so if you think the lead is missing something important then please put it in.
However, I am not happy to accept rude edit summaries. Just because you do not think my writing is up to scratch it does not mean it's ok to write things like "Time to update your writing" or other sarcastic comments. Please try to be civil. Coolug (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It's an extremely interesting topic and I'd like to see the article promoted at some stage. I'm not sure the details are sufficiently fleshed out at the moment. Tony (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my talk page. Now, regarding what the lead does not mention, you ask that the lead makes reference to "sloppy" practices and how they were central to the point of the reform. The problem is that saying this would unfortunately be original research. The sources I have used do not actually mention that the soviet economy was churning out a load of rubbish, just that the progressive piece rate system was inefficient. I suppose this may be because the sources I have used are a little on the highbrow side and so don't mention anything as 'obvious' as that. There are other sources elsewhere saying that soviet goods were badly made, but don't mention the wage reform and therefore to link the two might be original research too. I'm as frustrated as you that the article and it's lead fails to explain this, but until someone writes a high quality source saying that the wage reform had something to do with sloppy production I'm unable to do anything about it. Coolug (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Serious question, then: since everyone in the east and the west knew the quality of goods behind the iron curtain was pretty bad (don't mention the Trabie), and intuitively a system that imposes quantity quotas but little or no quality control is bound to lead to this outcome, why isn't more written about it in reliable sources? I can't believe western economists and the establishment in general had no interest in analysing the quality of goods, which was a major factor in the failure of that system (I didn't download it, but does the CIA source provide no leads?). Your ref list isn't all that big; I wonder whether there's more to discover. This article is important enough to expand and deepen with more evidence, since it ultimately involves an economic system that consumed (no pun) a huge proportion of the global population for many decades. Other articles, including, for example, that on East Germany (among many), could benefit from the leadership you show in this article. The treatment of the Soviet empire is not really very good on WP; and something tells me it's not good in the German or Russian WPs either. BTW, are there analogous articles in any other language WP? Tony (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm going to claim expert: Western ideologs seriously didn't care that much about the internals of payment structures in the Soviet Union. IR worked at a different level of theoretical engagement; and labour history hasn't caught up with the 1950s in the Soviet Union (the 1920s and 1930s resolve more serious academic issues). The ref list looks about reasonable for one component of a three pronged attack on the quality problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony, just to be clear, are you opposing this nomination because the writing is rubbish? because the sources don't say as much as we'd like them to say? Or for both of these reasons? Coolug (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments. Support on everything but comprehensiveness and well-researched-ness; also have not done a source check or image check. Prose is fine if not sparkling and everything else looks good. An interesting read.

  • The first sentence doesn't seem right: "Wage reform was a process that took place in the Soviet Union from 1956 through 1962". Clearly that's not what wage reform is, or was. This is a hard article to write a first sentence for, but per WP:LEADSENTENCE the title doesn't have to appear verbatim, so I think we could go with something like "From 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms in order to address ...." That's not ideal, but the current version seems quite wrong to me.
  • "where materials were frequently in short supply and production would be the result of rushed production" -- I don't understand the second half of this.
  • You have "for example" twice in the first paragraph of "Existing system".
  • "This method of calculating and paying wages ...": I think you're too far away from the definition of the method to refer to it in this way. I'd say something like "The piece-rate approach to wages", or " Stalinist-era wage policies", or something like that. Actually I think that whole sentence could be recast: perhaps "The piece-rate approach to wages, which had been introduced in the first Five-Year Plan and had changed very little since then, was in practice highly inefficient."
I've made all of the above changes as you suggest. Coolug (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "... could better incentivize workers ...": I accept that "incentivize" is a real word, but I think this is not quite precise. It sounds to me as though the workers had plenty of incentive already, but the managers of the factories did not. Or is this in fact what Bulganin said, regardless of whether it reflected reality? If in fact there was a problem with worker incentives then I don't understand it at this point in the article. And if we could change "incentivize" to "motivate" or "encourage" in at least one or two places I'd like that; it's one of those words that some readers find annoying.
I have no idea of the exact wording that Bulganin used, but the source (Fearn page 13) states that he said the idea was to "provide better incentives". I think it's important to accurately reflect the source here. Coolug (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Five-Year Plan stated several key changes that would be made to Soviet workers wages": could this be simplified to "The Five-Year Plan made several key changes to Soviet workers wages"? If it didn't make the changes, but instigated or proposed them, then we could use those verbs instead, but I think "that would be made" is verbose.
  • "overall the reforms succeeded more in simply creating new problems for Soviet workers": a bit clumsy; how about "overall the reforms created more new problems for Soviet workers"?
  • "to attract workers into roles that had lost much of their attraction" -- can we avoid the repetition of "attract"?
  • In the first paragraph of "Conclusions" you have "Filtzer stresses" and "Filtzer cited"; please make the tense consistent.
  • "Storming" isn't defined till the conclusion section; if the definition is important (and I think it is) it should come much earlier, in the background section.
  • "This had led to a situation where workers who could not count on a western style meritocracy would have to rely on the decisions of their managers who needed to be able to reward workers based on their own arbitrary decisions rather than sticking to a centrally directed system of wages": I don't follow this; can you explain?
  • "hegemonic culture of consumerism": does "hegemonic" add anything to the explanation here? I think it can be cut.
  • "Filtzer notes that Soviet workers were constantly forced into a position of exerting more skill than called for in plans or norms, a condition only seen to such an extent in the West where industries were insulated from market forces, and as such workers and managers in the Soviet Union had many reasons to collude over setting wages, norms and skill expectations, even after the wage reform": another sentence I really don't understand.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also made changes for all of these points now. I hope this makes the article a bit clearer. By the way, thanks for your helpful copyedits too! cya Coolug (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. I will reread tomorrow and I hope to be able to support, on prose at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've switched to support above. I copyedited a little more; please fix anything I broke. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support (primarily prose) Comments from Noleander

  • Note: I did the Peer Review of this article, and already submitted several suggestions for improvement at that time.
  • Explain: "The reform's clearest effect was in reducing the proportion of Soviet industrial labour that was paid by way of piece-rate, ....". Probably should explain the other payment method that increased. Hourly wages?
Added an extra sentence to this part. I hope this helps clear things up. Coolug (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Russian word: "a process known as "storming" was endemic ...". It would be great if the original russian word were supplied, since it is clearly an important idiom for this practice.
I've looked this up and stuck it in. If it's not formatted properly please do go ahead and amend it. I'm going to Kiev soon so I'll have to try and use this in a sentence :) Coolug (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why attribute? "Alec Nove wrote in 1966 ... that the lack of transparency ..". This attribution to Nove seems out of place. The assertion by Nove doesnt seem particularly controversial. Omit?
The earlier sentence reads "some academics believed" etc etc, which is followed by Nove writing about how these academics were missing the real reason that statistics were so rarely published. Because of this I think his name should be kept in, since his point goes against the more common perception. Coolug (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarify socialism: " The Soviet elite would not radically change the labour process by democratising it and introducing socialism,...". I thought the USSR was socialist? If so, how could socialism be introduced? Please re-cast sentence to clarify for readers that may fall victim to similar confusion.
I've written this in more understandable language. Coolug (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Current situation: It would be nice if the Conclusions section brought the reader up to date with a brief statement of how wages/payment evolved until the fall of the USSR. No need for a big treatise: but the article abruptly stops at 1962 ... what happened form 1962 to 1989? Did quotas remain common? Did the USSR experiment with hourly wages more? For example, see the article 1965 Soviet economic reform about a 1965 reform effort: would it be useful to readers to mention that in this article? Is the 1965 reform a logical follow-on to this article's reform?
Hey, I'd like to add something like this myself, however, there's not a huge amount of stuff out there in the world that deals with wages in the Soviet Union. I shall have a look to see if I have any sources knocking about, but I think it's doubtful I'll find anything. The 1965 Reform was basically a completely separate entity. In a nutshell it was about trying to get industrial enterprises to behave in a more 'market friendly' fashion. There were pay incentives included in the 65 reform, but they were aimed at industrial managers rather than the workers. Coolug (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Footnote format: FN 25 is "Central Intelligence Agency (1961), page 2"; yet when I look down in References, I do not see CIA as I scan down the bullets. When using shortened footnotes, I believe the FN must contain an identifier that corresponds to a left-most text in the associated Reference. I know the blue link takes me to the correct place, but that is not reliable. I suggest either move CIA to the left of the Reference (as the author); or put "An Evaluation of .." in the Footnote text.
Done this one. Coolug (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards Support; if these items are resolved.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for these helpful comments. I'll go through them as I get the chance and make some changes. cya Coolug (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening two sentences. Logic problem.

"From 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms. The reforms took place during the Khrushchev era and were intended to move Soviet industrial workers away from overfulfillment of quotas, a mindset that had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

Whoever last edited this would have had a feeling it's unsatisfactory, but not known why. The problem lies in the placement of "The reforms took place during the Khrushchev era" in a sentence that otherwise explains the intention of the reforms, not the historical timing. Better, unless you can think of something better, might be:

"During the Khrushchev era, from 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms intended to move industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas, which had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

You might prefer a split, because the sentence is now rather long—either way would be OK: "... from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas; this mindset had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

I know I'm firm in tone when reviewing, but I didn't expect the "rubbish" comment: "Tony, just to be clear, are you opposing this nomination because the writing is rubbish? because the sources don't say as much as we'd like them to say? Or for both of these reasons?" It's for both reasons. But as I've said, I think this is an important topic, and I want to see it featured. I haven't re-read it, and will try to get time. I just want to demonstrate here that the first thing I spot-checked, the opening, is faulty. Tony (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the opening sentence as you have suggested. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the greatest writer in the world, and alone I'm never going to write an article where the prose is absolutely perfect. If anyone out there thinks something could be worded better please do be bold and fix it. Noleander, I shall have a look at the remaining point's you've raised when I'm at home and in front of the books. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 1907 Tiflis bank robbery

Nominator(s): Remember (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a great article about a little known but very interesting incident. The article deals with a stagecoach robbery organized by Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin where bombs were thrown at a bank stagecoach in a crowded city square resulting in reportedly at least 250,000 rubles stolen (over $3 Million in current USD), forty people killed, and fifty people injured. The article also discusses how one of the robbers feigned insanity for over three years after being captured and eventually escaped from a mental institution. I think it is a fascinating historical topic that has not received much attention. I have never taken an article through the FA process (so please go easy on me), but Wehwalt and BorisG helped edit this article a lot so I believe it is in pretty good shape (plus it has already been through GA and Peer review). Anyways, it has been a goal of mine to get this up to FA status, and I hope I can eventually accomplish that goal. Remember (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Welcome to FAC! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • " Leonid Krasin initially quit politics after the split from Lenin in 1909, but rejoined the Bolsheviks after the revolution" - source?
I have added Nicolaevsky as a source for this - and amended the sentence in the process. - BorisG (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Stalin's original Georgian name was "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili", but at the time of the robbery he mostly went by his revolutionary nom de guerre "Koba." Stalin adopted a variety of nicknames and aliases in his life. Sometime after 1912, he began using the name Stalin, which in Russian means "of steel", as his nom de guerre" - source?
Added information and sources. Remember (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Check citations to Trotsky and Jones - both are problematic
I am not sure what is problematic about these citations. Could you please let me know more about why these citations are problematic and I will fix them. Remember (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 32: formatting
Fixed. Remember (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Revised. Remember (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent formatting for page ranges - for example, you have "pp. 236–37" but "pp. 246−247"
Fixed. Remember (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers.
I don't think I am missing any book publisher locations that can be found. I checked the citations for the books that do not have a book publisher location and they those locations don't show up in any internet search. If anyone knows where to find this information, let me know and I will add it. Remember (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support I had a lot to say at the various reviews this article has had, and got my hands dirty by rewriting paragraphs here and there. I've been waiting for Remember to, er, remember that he needed to bring this article to FAC. Well done all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding inflation, source quality: I believe I remember having noted something about inflation in the past in relation to this bank robbery? My recollection is that the inflation used in this article is sourced reliably to a secondary source and I'm satisfied with this—and I checked this. Source quality also looks good, see next users comments. I checked the use of PRIMARIES and am not concerned, they're all double cited or quotations in the context set by a secondary. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Not yet.
    • A certain lack of context; most summaries of the history of the Social Democrats do not skip merrily from 1903 to 1907 without ever mentioning the Revolution of 1905.
Agreed. Added. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I had in mind more than half-a-dozen words. This was done by a Party which had just been at open war with the Czarist Government, and still viewed it as radically illegitimate. Surely one of the sources describes their internal discussions and even the robbery in such terms? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This requires quite a bit if research. Indeed, this extraordinarily violent robbery was pivotal in creating a rift between those advocating violence and those who rejected such approach, expecially after the defeat of the 1905 revolution. If you have anything specific in mind in terms of context, go for it. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly does; it would require reading several standard accounts of the Russian SDs, and understanding them. That is the level of work FAs should have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read a lot in this field over the decades. And I know the context of this and have references. Indeed there was more by way of context in the article than there is now. But during GA review we were asked to shorten it as details may be ineteresting but not for this article. I can try to expand it again... - BorisG (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Over-reliance on a single source; Roman Brackman. Who is he? What is Psychology Press? Does it fact-check? Why is it publishing a history? Matters sourced to him vary from the extremely controversial to the well-known; the record of Stalin's ties to the Okhrana has been known at least since 1940, and is widely discussed. Reading reliable sources on Soviet history would have enabled our editors, and so the readers, to tell which is which.
      • Just been reading about Brackman here. Other pages of that website will no doubt give more information. There is also a page here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
        • In short, he's a polemicist. The Soviet Union earned his emnity; and he writes for an American fringe publication to express it. Academic secondary sources would be much preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Brackman is borderline. However, I emphatically disagree that the article is mostly based on one source. There are plenty of sources listed. Brackman just gives the most detailed and systematic account in English. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I see that Trotsky is cited twice (speaking of polemics). Did Trotsky say or imply euphemism? Not as far as I can see; and it should be made clear that his objection to Stalin's role is in part that it was inactive and cowardly, unlike Kamo. (I note Trotsky's point that the expropriators were not expelled from the Party; they resigned beforehand, to ensure denialability, and the question was whether to readmit them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This would be original research. I do not think we should judge Trotsky's motives. Sorry. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
PMAnderson, IMO, these days FAC has kind of a high bar for attributing states of mind, such as motives or emotions, in articles that are basically historical narrative. It's doable ... but the sources have to make it clear that the state of mind was both obvious and important, the sources have to be unusually trustworthy, and even then, we don't do it much. Do you set the bar somewhere else, and do you think these conditions are met in this case? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I had in mind. Indeed, it is the present text which implicitly attributes a state of mind to Trotsky, one that he is most unlikely to have had. We need to be aware of what Trotsky meant, even if we do not say what it was.
I do not understand what you mean. The article contains an exact quote from Trotsky. Please explain. Or even better, edit it yourself. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • As a point of detail, it would be nice to mention that Djugashvili has had a large variety of spellings in Western languages.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This would be appropriate for an article on Stalin, not here. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I would agree if the article were not using "Djugashvili", which I do not recall having seen elsewhere. Reassuring the reader that his memory is not going is a minor good; but why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - reviewed at the peer review stage, but the response there was delayed and I never returned to check what had been done. Will try and find the time over the next few days to do that, and read through the whole article again. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most images on this page may be deleted from commons as either "Author unknown - cannot establish PD-70" (post-1917 portraits of Kamo and Litvinov), or "Place and year of first publication unknown - cannot establish eligibility for PD-RusEmpire" (Lenin and Stalin's mugshot), or "Phoney author info" (portrait of Litvinov - McBride authored the book, not the photo), or even "No FOP in Georgia" (present-day photo - modern statue too prominent to qualify for de minimis defense). Consider moving images to wikipedia. NVO (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • sources Like some reviewers above, I sense an indiscriminate approach to sourcing. I haven't had a chance to examine your main sources (Sebag, Brackmann, Shub) at length, but certain statements credited to them ring the bell. Example: "One source, P. A. Pavlenko, claimed that Stalin ..." (ref 14 to Sebag). Very well. Pavlenko (ru:Павленко, Пётр Андреевич) was seven years old when it all happened. He was not a historian, but a writer for Stalin's propaganda machine. Dig deeper into the sources, and you will find that the statement was actually published by Edvard Radzinsky in his Stalin and it goes like "Pavlenko told my father that Stalin injured his arm in one of the exes [expropriations], he was nimble and brave. He was one of the men who attacked the stagecoach during the Tiflis money robbery." Period. (Russian: Павленко говорил отцу: "Сталин искалечил руку во время одного из эксов, он был ловок и храбр. Во время захвата денег в Тифлисе он был среди нападавших на экипаж".). Even if you take it a fact, Sebag distorted it by blending two statements together and inventing "bomb fragments". But it's not a fact, it's an anecdote retold by a propagandist. Go to Googlebooks, search "Pavlenko Stalin Kamo" - and compare Radzinsky's text (English imprint) with Sebag's interpretation. NVO (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifyability, not truth. There is no doubt that Sebag is a relaible source. He is an well known British historian and his Young Stalin is an award winning book. The problematic statement above is properly attributed as claimed by Pavlenko, implying that it is problematic.
WP:V is no excuse for reproducing "verifiable" errors. Certified errors. "Award winning" and "well known" authors, or their copywriters, or their translators turn out sloppy writing all the time. It happens. NVO (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Straight out errors, no. But we are not talking errors, we are talking claims reproduced in reliable sources. If qualified by the word 'claimed', I think this is fine. It almost admits that this is quite possibly untrue. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support after some possible improvements recommended above. When Remember was writing this article, he and Wehwalt suggested I may be interested. I helped Remember with some details and with Russian sources. This is the first time I am commenting on an FA review, so please excuse me if display ignorance about the process. I will provide some replies to comments above, but I have some difficulty with formatting. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Anyone else have thoughts on whether Brackman is overused? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I recall (admittedly, vaguely) that I myself initially had objections to this source. But then looking at a number of sources, I realised that Brackman did have the most detailed account of all in English, and possibly at all. A lot of details can be found in different sources, but altogether Brackman has the most systematic story. - BorisG (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just re-read the talk page and this is what I said when the article was in the final stages of preparation (December 2010): I think Brackman's book is not a serious source. I think it is ok to use it but we need to mention alternative claims. Brackman presents highly controlversial and disputed claims as facts. He also describes details that cannot possibly be known (like emotions of various people etc). He does not present any critical analysis of sources and evidence. This is more of a fictionalised biography than a serious historial study. Obviously, for WP, it is a reliable source, and thus can be used but need to be used with caution, and alternative views presented. Especially when talking about Stalin's involvement with Okrana (the crux of his book). I would like to present these when I have time. But this can be done in the mainspace. I think my concerns have since been addressed, more or less. - BorisG (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Continuing. "Once back in Tiflis": but he was in Tiflis in the previous paragraph; did he go elsewhere in the meantime? - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No. It was redundant. I have revised it. Remember (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 1907_Tiflis_bank_robbery#Attack needs to be rewritten; there's so much redundancy that it wouldn't be practical for me to make the changes. You can get rid of almost half of these words with no loss of meaning: "One of the horses harnessed to the bank stagecoach with the money was injured but still alive. The bleeding animal bolted from the scene pulling the stagecoach with it. Three of the robbers, Kupriashvili, Datiko Chibriashvili, and Kamo, chased after the runaway money-laden stagecoach. Kupriashvili threw a grenade at the escaping stagecoach, and the blast from the bomb blew off the horse's legs, killing the horse and stopping the stagecoach. The blast also threw Kupriashvili into the air, and he fell to the ground stunned. Kupriashvili later regained consciousness and managed to sneak out of the square before security forces arrived. After the stagecoach stopped, Datiko Chibriashvili went into the stagecoach to snatch the sacks of money while Kamo, firing his pistol as he rode his phaeton, raced to the stopped stagecoach. Once Kamo reached the stagecoach, Chibriashvili and another robber that arrived at the stagecoach helped throw the stolen money into Kamo's phaeton." - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Striking, I did this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "After the robbery, there were rumors that Stalin threw the first grenade": Not sure what this means. Were people saying right after the robbery that they saw him throw the grenade? Who said that? - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The source just says that "it was said that Stalin had thrown the first bomb from the roof of Prince Sumbatov's mansion". So I can't answer when the rumors stared. Not sure how this can be improved given the ambiguity of the source material. Remember (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, please see User:Dank/Copy2, "hinting". I removed that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Stalin left Baku along with 20,000 rubles in stolen money in July 1907." Stalin had the money, right? I changed "along with" to "with".
Correct.Remember (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Lenin had been hoping to help the man who had successfully executed the robbery": By paying for surgery, or some other way?
By just setting him up with a doctor, but I think this has already been resolved so it's a moot point now. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed a lot of text so far, but no references, so some of the references will be redundant. (I don't generally make calls on references.) Striking, I did this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "That autumn, Kamo traveled to Paris, to Belgium to buy arms and ammunition, and to Bulgaria to buy 200 detonators.": I'm checking to see if my wording is right; were all those trips in autumn?
Yes. That is correct. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Muktarov was suspended from Okhrana,": Usually you say "the Okhrana"; be consistent throughout.
Revised. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Krasin succeeded in changing serial numbers": He forged them, right? - Dank (push to talk) 05:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "none of the major organizers of the robbery": "none of the organizers of the robbery", right?
Correct. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Nevertheless, the notoriety of the robbery had a significant impact on internal politics within both the RSDLP and the Bolshevik faction.": This is a judgment call; I removed it because IMO this section doesn't need a topic sentence, that is, it's easy enough to understand one sentence at a time, and the other sentences state the same thing in a more precise and accurate way. A shorter topic sentence might be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "party members investigated Lenin and others concerning the incident. However these internal investigations were stalled by the Bolsheviks, which impaired the ability of the investigators to get anything accomplished": I don't follow; was Lenin investigated or not? Striking, I got this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "This left their social-democratic rivals, Georgian Mensheviks, without any significant opposition.": What is "this", the whole paragraph, or the previous sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been revised so the point is now moot. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I changed "This left" to "leaving"; is that right? - Dank (push to talk)
Yes. Remember (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I made a variety of small changes to improve the clarity and readbility of the article. It looks like all of the other issues discussed above are either resolved or still being discussed. If there are any other suggestions or comments regarding the article, please let me know. Remember (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think this can be considered reliable enough-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the use of Trotsky for a minor point should invalidate this article as a FA candidate. We simply cite that Trosky, who was a strong political opponent of Stalin, researched this issue and concluded that he did not take part in the actual robbery. But just to clarify for the reader the nature of Trosky and Stalin's relationship, I have revised the passage to make clear that Trosky was a political opponent of Stalin. Any other thoughts on this? Remember (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Trotsky doesn't seem to be a problem here. But one little note: at present when you click the link in the references, it doesn't jump to his entry in the bibliography like it should. Leonxlin (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. The User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script (which I strongly recommend anyone using Sfn/Harvnb references to install) shows that ref. 64 (Jones 2005) has the same problem. Ucucha (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Remember (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My problem is not with Trotsky. My problem is with the site. The introduction to the site states that "... Are you looking to join a union or a political party? While our work is about education, not party or union building, we are happy to give you information about these things through our sister site: Leftist Parties of the World. This site contains a very robust and thorough listing of unions and political parties near you. " Can the site be considered neutral enough? Are you sure that Trotsky has not been misrepresented or his writings not been tampered with?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. Boris added this link and the Trotsky reference, and I think he did so just so that people could have an online reference to the materials cited. But I will ask him to chime in. Remember (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting question. To be sure, this Trotsky's book was published widely by mainstream publishers. The site just made the text available online. I will check at other sites. - BorisG (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I have checked Russian edition here http://magister.msk.ru/library/trotsky/trotl030.htm http://magister.msk.ru is a general purpose internet library. I can confirm that the translation is very precise. Is this enough or we need to check with a published copy. I don't have one, and I think it would be an overkill. Marxists.org is a reputable online publisher of Marxist literature. It is not reliable as to opinions, but it is the main publisher of histortical Marxists. What do you think? - BorisG (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You can also see a quote from the book from here from google books [13]. So the quote is accurate, but I don't know if you want to change the publisher to the google book link. Let me know what you want to do. Remember (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should change the publisher to the one used by Google books but retain the internet link to the online edition as well. - BorisG (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I changed the citation to the Library of Congress citation number (instead of an ISBN) and used the google book links instead of the website. Let me know if this works for everyone or if we need to do further work on this. Remember (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

  • Overall, I find the prose quality very good. The narrative is engaging, yet professional. Good job.
Thanks. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And/or: "The robbery was planned and/or executed ..." - That should be plain "and". Unless I'm misreading the article: isnt it certain that the Bolsheviks both planned and executed it? Even if there is uncertainty (thus "and/or" is legitimate) it is too informal for an encyclopedia, IMO, and should be re-worded.
Revised. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why use "reportedly"? All detail about the attack originates, directly or indirectly, from eyewitnesses over 100 year ago - so all the facts should be equally reliable (or suspect). For instance: "Witnesses reported that bombs were thrown .... The blasts from the bombs were so strong that they reportedly knocked ..." I would eliminate both "reportedly"s.
I was hedging because I cannot be sure what happened, but I have revised all the use of reportedly based on your suggestion. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Verb: "Kamo's monument—authored by the sculptor Iakob Nikoladze—was later removed during Stalin's rule ...". The word "authored" doesn't seem right for a sculpture. Perhaps "crafted" or "designed" or "created".
revised. Remember (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead: The final two sentences of the lead seem rather unimportant: "Kamo, the leader of the group that executed the robbery, was originally buried in Pushkin Gardens, which is located near Yerevan, and a monument was erected in his honor next to his grave. The monument was later removed and his remains moved to another location." Perhaps they could be removed from the lead, and some other, more critical material be inserted?
I actually like this sentence here, but if others want me to remove it and add other information, I will do so. Remember (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Noleander that the entire last paragraph is not important enough to be included in the lead. I would prefer to expand slightly on the previous paragraph re immediate aftermath of the robbery. I will try to formulate it shortly. - BorisG (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Waiting for BorisG's revisions. Again, I like this paragraph because it is very ironic that the bank robbers have the square named after them, but I seem to be in the minority. Remember (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on images

I don't believe NVO's comment re: this article's images was addressed. Although all are present on Commons, I see two issues dealing with proof of license:

Everything else image-wise seems okay. María (yllosubmarine) 14:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with this issue. I found these images on Commons but I did not upload them so I don't know who the authors are and I don't know how to obtain this information. Any suggestions? Remember (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not an expert on images, so I've asked for some guidance at WT:FAC. Are there suitable substitute images available, just in case? Are these two images integral to the article itself? María (yllosubmarine) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to keep them if possible, but if we have to ditch them, so be it. Remember (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The second one looks like a newspaper, do you know where it came from?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No. Unfortunately, I don't know where either picture actually came from. I just grabbed them from commons so I don't know more than any of you all about the images. I think I am just going to cut the bombs picture because I am not even sure that these bombs are the same type that were used in the robbery so it may be misleading to have them in the article. As for the Kamo picture, I would like to keep it since Kamo is such a major figure in the robbery, but I would be happy to replace it if anyone can find another picture of Kamo to put in its place. Remember (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I will do some research while we are locked out by the management.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Since I have heard nothing on this and can't find the justification myself, I have removed the image from the article.

Comments some technical issues on a real quick drive by (apologies, time is short right now...):

  • Don't think "Post Office" is a proper noun.
  • Infobox - deaths were (according to archives) but injuries weren't?
  • "The bad press from..." not sure but I think this is a little colloquial for an encyclopaedic article.
  • Images could use alt text.
  • One dab link, "Caucasians".
  • Perhaps a style issue but lots of very small paragraphs in the Preparation section, at least one with just a single sentence.
    • I'll take this one: I've merged the one-sentence paragraph into the next section. I can't see how to break the other paragraphs any differently than they are now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Caption has Phaeton capitalised but prose doesn't.
  • "Georgy Plekhanov" our article calls him Georgi.
  • Ref 6, a single page so not pp.
  • I think the publisher of The New York Times is actually The New York Times Company.
  • Should think about adding "subscription needed" for refs behind a paywall.
  • SMH is published by Fairfax Media.
    • I'm not sure what you are referring to here so I don't know how to fix it. Could you please let me know what source you are referring to? Remember (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
He's talking about the Sydney Morning Herald; he may be proposing you add the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Revised.Remember (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Refs - some have a full stop, others don't, rationale?
    • I'm not sure what you are referring to here so I don't know how to fix it. Could you please describe the problem some more and I will try to fix it. Remember (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • LIVED IN LATIN QUARTER, per MOS I think we normally apply our own standards to these titles etc, so reduce the shoutiness!
  • I think Russian Review is actually The Russian Review.
  • Sebag Montifiore doesn't appear to need a hyphen.

Sorry I can't do more detail at the moment, perhaps if I'm lucky, I'll get a chance to re-visit the prose in more detail. Very interesting read though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On the subscription needed, the usual is to add (subscription needed) at the end of the cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but how do you fit it into the citation template? I tried putting it under the title, but it won't come out right. Is there a specific field where I should put this information? Remember (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Add it after the end of the template and before the </ref>--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Remember (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment- I think I have addressed all remaining issues with article. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be dealt with. Remember (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck of sources- I'm not seeing it, did I miss it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that this is something that I cannot do and that others will have to check out? If not, let me know what needs to be done. Remember (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes (it's listed at WT:FAC). We try to get at least one spotcheck for every nominator-- that sources are accurately represented and avoid too close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Spinningspark
  • The infobox should not have Kamo as both a participant and a suspect. Either he definitely participated or it was only suspected that he did. The need to make these kinds of judgements calls in filling them out is what makes infoboxes such a bad idea imo.
  • "RSDLP" or "the RSDLP". It should consistently be one or the other throughout, and inmo should be "the RSDLP".
  • "...caused a split within the Bolshevik leadership between Lenin, Bogdanov, and Krasin." Who split from who? It is not clear. Same commnent in the "Trials of Kemo" section.
    • Lenin split from Bogdanov and Krasin. I am not sure how to express this. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The background section should give background information on the nature of the state (imperial government) the RSDLP was trying to overthrow as well as the RSDLP themselves. At the moment a very lopsided picture is painted of them.
    • Good point. May do this if some concise description comes to mind. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "...had already planned a number of "expropriations" in different parts of Russia by the time of the 5th Congress" Previously it is stated that the Bolshevik Centre was formed during the 5th Congress. If so, it could not have planned anything in advance of the conference.
    • Nicolaevsky suggests that Bolshevik Centre had existed in some form prior to the Congress, but he has trouble finding any useful information about it. Thus it is better to speak of Bolshevik leadership rather than a specific body. Revised. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "...known by his earlier nickname Koba" Nickname is a poor description. This is more of a nom de guerre.
  • The allegation that Stalin was an Okhrana agent, at least at the time of the robbery, is debunked by multiple authors. Even with the modifier "allegation" this is still too unbalanced.
    • Not sure. Debunked is POV. This is a serious compilation of various sources on this issue [14]. I don't think there is anything conclusive about this. Wikipedia should not take sides in this controversy. 'Allegations' is fine, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with previous reviewers comments about "stagecoach". This probably stems from a poor translation. It should be changed unless it can be established that stagecoach with the usual English meaning was really meant.
  • Some copyediting is required before this can be promoted. There are multiple sentences spliced with "and" which are not really connected or that do not flow very well.
  • Is there any other source besides Montefiore for the 40 dead? All the other sources give the dead as three Cossacks and/or two bank workers. My suspicion is that the dead are being conflated with the figures for the wounded who may have later died.
  • "Lenin walked 3 miles (4.8 km)" Small cardinals should be spelled out, as "three miles"
  • Centre/Center. Either American or British spelling should be used consistently throughout.
  • "Soviet Customs office" half-capitalised. Probably should be "Soviet customs office".
  • SpinningSpark 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • On the basis of the above replies I am going to oppose, at least for now. I think it is essential for balance of the article that the background section discusses the Czarist state and the Bolsheviks relationship to it. This needs to be done before FA promotion, not simply marked down as a task for some future date. In my view this is rather more relevant than the relationship to the Mensheviks which is discussed at some length. On the question of Stalin working for the secret police, "alleged" simply will not do given the strength of opposition to this idea in some sources [15][16]. I am not in the least suggesting taking sides, but I am suggesting that leaving it as a weak "alleged" is POV in favour of the allegers if the strength of the opposers is not made clear. At the very least a case needs to be made for why the sources cited are to be considered more reliable than those that contradict and have been left out. SpinningSpark 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Initial spotcheck:

  • Checked #9, five uses: fine.
  • Google books references include a lot of highlighting/tracking bumpf, which should be removed;
  • Burford is a bit weak in so far as it doesn't cover all of the elements of each sentence, but another source, which I haven't checked is provided. (Further check warranted.)
  • "The Mensheviks would lead Georgia during its short-lived independence from 1918 to 1921" is not supported by #64;
    1. 3 has no page number, or even a range of pages. This would be helpful. It doesn't seem to touch on the "expropriation-as-a-euphemism" thing mentioned.
  • No concerns with Christian's one use.
    1. 40: first use is fine. Second is a bit iffy. The article says "swallow the evidence after the cashier called the police, but the police stopped her by grabbing her throat", but the NYT suggests it actually had details of her accomplices. Not quite the same thing. Also it's fairly closely worded, see if you can kill two birds with one stone. I wouldn't say close paraphrasing, and the article is phrase "The New York Times reported" which makes that more acceptable. Even so, worth another look at.

I think this is a start, if the rest of the issues are resolved (I haven't been following the FAC). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Russell T Davies

Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A third FAC in as many months for this article, after the previous two closed with minimal feedback. I've been working on this article for the past year or so and I believe that it's of a good enough quality to gain that all-elusive golden star. Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Bod's comments
    • Section: Children's Television Career, para 3. Without going into detail it would be good to mention why BBC Manchester was 'not allowed' to do drama. If it's a BBC Guideline just add "due to BBC guidelines" or something similarly brief. Otherwise it looks a bit mysterious.
    • Section: Adult Television career, para 2. Article says "He let his contract with Granada expire and pitched a new early-evening soap opera to Channel 4, RU, created by Bill Moffat, father of Press Gang co-creator Steven Moffat, and co-written by him and Paul Cornell." It leaves me wondering why Bill Moffat didn't pitch it since he created it? And when it says "co-written by him" is the 'him' Bill Moffat, Steven Moffat or R T Davies? I assume it's Davies but I think the sentence needs to be re-written for clarity.
    • Section: Adult Television career, para 5. Article says he almost died from an overdose. The context suggests it was a suicide attempt but the reader is left wondering. Is it known? If so, it should be made plain rather than vague. As it stands it is even open to conjecture that someone poisoned him since it doesn't say he administered the overdose.
    • Section: Queer As Folk, para 2 (excluding quote): article says "The eight forty-minute episodes emulated experiences from his social life and includes an episode where the minor character Phil Delaney (Jason Merrells) succumbs to his excesses and dies unnoticed by his social circle." I feel 'succumbs to his excesses' is vague. Given the context and what the article has informed us of thus far, I assume it's a drug overdose. But some people might wonder if "sexual excesses" are being referred to here. On the other hand, perhaps it's drink? We have no way of knowing for sure. So I'd be glad if it were just spelled out for us. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • In order:
      • It seems to be an internal thing, looking at Aldridge/Murray.
      • Moffat, Cornell, and Davies pitched it together with Press Gang producer Sandra Hastie.
      • As far as I can tell, it was accidental (he was with a friend, probably drank too much, and had to be hospitalised, with the existential crisis coming after. The drug isn't mentioned in Aldridge/Murray.
      • In the show, it's cocaine. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • All of these points have been clarified. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure the quotes that begin some of the subsections really add anything to the article. The ones from Queer as Folk and Doctor Who in particular are very long, and just consist of a random line of dialogue from the series which doesn't really tell us anything the article doesn't (namely, that the show has a frank approach to sexuality and that the main character is quite alien respectively). I couldn't find anything about this in the previous FACs or peer reviews, but if this has come up before then fair enough (As a sidenote, they're all referenced except for The Second Coming one, which is inconsistent). One other point: the image of the protest from Bob and Rose doesn't really resemble the real-life photo at all - certainly not enough to warrant a side-by-side comparison (which also makes the fair use rationale a bit dodgy). Would it be possible to get a clearer screen grab, with something more than a tangle of people and a tiny slice of a bus? Smurrayinchester 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Eh, you're probably right. When it was smaller, they would've added something, but they're just adding to the page size unnecessarily. On the Bob and Rose image: IIRC, there's a very similar shot a few seconds earlier which'll work better. I'll see if I can get a screengrab from the DVD... Sceptre (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Image replaced. Sceptre (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Beyond my earlier comments, the article looks great. Smurrayinchester 13:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment: I'm somewhat concerned how heavily RTD's life story rests on the Aldridge & Murray source. I'm not saying the article shouldn't do that, I merely pose the question. Is this acceptable? Do we have any guidelines on this matter? I asked the Foundation mailing list about it and didn't get many replies but one person said that one thing to ask is "would the article put someone off buying the original book?" It's impossible for me to really answer that without myself buying the book and making a judgement having read it. What do others think? By the way, I realise this will cause misery for the person(s) who has/have gone to great trouble to create/improve the article (and I think the article is excellent) so I'm genuinely sorry for that. But it's a valid concern, I think and I would really need this question to be considered before I can offer my support for promotion. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


  • Bod's review of article versus featured article criteria
    • Criteria 1a: well written (its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard)
      • Excellent - I found it to be so. I do have some interest in this subject so I'd find it more interesting than someone stumbling on it by accident but the article drew me in and I wasn't at any point cursing it for length or bored. I didn't notice any clangers in sentence construction or anything like that.
    • Criteria 1b: comprehensive (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context)
      • Excellent - I know a bit about RTD and didn't notice anything missing. It covers his non-Doctor Who work in detail, which is good to see.
    • Criteria 1c well-researched (it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate)
      • Comment - This brings us back to the Aldridge & Murray question as outlined above this review: ie, can one source ever be said to be a 'representative survey'?
    • Criteria 1d: neutral (it presents views fairly and without bias)
      • Good - It doesn't give us any criticisms of RTD's work, focusing on praise alone. I wouldn't block promotion on that score, though. Article provides criticism of the work as well as praise.
    • Criteria 1e: stable (it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process)
      • Excellent - Looks like Sceptre has been looking after the article for the last few months. No sign of any combat (I looked back as far as August).
    • Criteria 2: It follows the style guidelines
      • I think so: I'm not a Manual of Style expert but I'm happy with it.
    • Criteria 2a: a lead (a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections)
      • Excellent - covers all the ground briefly.
    • Criteria 2b: appropriate structure (a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents)
      • Excellent - his different shows make up most of the contents links, which seems a good way to let people navigate if they don't want to read the whole article.
    • Criteria 2c: consistent citations.
      • I think so - but I'm not really brilliant on our referencing styles. But I can say that all information is referenced.
    • Criteria 3: Media (It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
      • Someone else usually vets all FACs for image rights - but I'm happy with the images as illustrations of the subject.
    • Criteria 4: Length. (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail).
      • Excellent - I didn't notice any points where it went into too much detail but nor did I feel short-changed. Seemed very well-rounded to me.
    • '''OVERALL JUDGEMENT''' : I'm happy to support as a FA provided there is consensus amongst other reviewers that Aldridge & Murray being so extensively used is not in breach of any guidelines we have or a problem for FA status. I've read Sceptre's comments on Aldridge & Murray below but I would like to see more input on it from others. -- bodnotbod (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • NOTE TO SELF: In the mess of unnecessary bolding above, a support is buried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Aldridge/Murray itself uses a lot of sources dating all the way back to 1987, and the sources do become more frequent post-Queer as Folk. I could, in theory, use those sources instead of the book, but I'd still be using the book anyway as it's more detailed than those sources. It's the problem with fame coming gradually to most people: I dare say that, without the book, Revelations, for example, would've faded into obscurity. I would say that it (or any decent biography) would be considered a representative survey of the available sources, as it both uses most sources available between '87 and '08, and is one of the only sources I've found to cover his career in between Century Falls and Queer as Folk. I don't think it would put people off buying the book, though; there's a lot of detail in the book I considered incidental to a Wikipedia biography.
      • OK. I will say no more on it. I would be interested to hear other's views. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Re: criticism: I feel that the article does mention criticism where it's balanced: e.g. the Queer as Folk section mentions the backlash from a lot of people due to how it handled its subject matter (although, really, what did they expect from a Channel 4 show?). However, among actual critics and the general public, Davies has always been mediocre at worst; even "Love & Monsters", as the article points out, was only marginally worse-than-average, even though I personally think it's a terrible episode. There is the infamous "gay agenda" criticism, but it's never been levied by reliable sources, and both you and I know it's just homophobic ranting. Sceptre (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right. My comment was unfair and I have changed it. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and Comment: The subtitle "Sources" should be renamed to "Bibliography" and that of {{Reflist}} should be "Footnotes". And footnotes must come BEFORE the bibliography. Good article overall. --Z 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Per WP:LAYOUT, the use of "Bibliography" is discouraged as it is ambiguous. However, you're right about the general/specific order. Sceptre (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, two comments. Just a couple of niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The link for Classics is misleading. My understanding is that the subject is the study of Ancient Greek and/or Latin and the associate cultures, whereas what you link to is basically Eng Lit.
  • I've just fixed the link myself, please revert if I've misunderstood Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In Queer as Folk section, you use "portrayed" twice in one sentence
  • Second, done. First, I'll double check when I get upstairs in between Doctor Who and Corrie :) Sceptre (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey: it's ambiguous, but I'm assuming they are English lit teachers. Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see an image review and a source spotcheck on this article. Ucucha (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods
  • File:Bob_and_Rose_Section_28_protest.jpg: who holds copyright to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi: could you tell me which captions in particular should be edited? I could only think of the infobox caption.
    • I believe the copyright would be held by ITV, as the airing channel. I've edited the image's description to specify the producer and publisher. Sceptre (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments weighty tome, good work. A few technical comments:

  • Is there a reason why "notable awards" are in bold in the infobox?
  • "resulted in a " clarify it was his mother that had that issue, not him.
  • "English Literature" -> "English literature".
  • "an Oxbridge university" well that's either Oxford or Cambridge, so why not just say that?
  • We call "Why Don't You...?" just "Why Don't You?". Is there a reason for your use of the ellipsis?
  • "Why Don't You...?.[7]" double full stop warning.
  • Do you really mean to link Bill Moffat?
  • Anthony Cotton has no h in his Antony.
  • You've linked McGuffin then Easter-egg linked it in the next section, I wouldn't do that.
  • Zeta Jones is hyphenated.
  • "Bank Holiday" is just "bank holiday".
  • You link "dénouement" the second time you use it, not the first.
  • Tables don't meet MOS:DTT for accessibility.
  • Some refs end in a full stop, others don't, is there a reason for that?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Heya:
    • It's a straight transclusion of {{Awards}}.
    • Reworded.
    • Done (although I should point out it's probably the name of the course)
      • Well if the source backs it up then fine, but Eng. lit is just Eng. lit where I'm from! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't have the book on me to see if he was fine with either, so I'm going to agree and specified.
    • Removed the ellipsis. I initially used it as it was a contraction of the show's full name; it may have been formatted that way in Aldridge/Murray too.
    • I can find two instances where a question mark is followed by a period, but the question mark is part of the show's title. I'll happily change it if I can be sure it'd be grammatically correct to do so.
    • I didn't. I assumed that, as the creator of Press Gang, he would have his own article.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • It's actually the fourth. Linked on first instance.
    • Replaced {{y}} for {{yes}}, which I believe is the main point of contention.
      • Not exactly, you need to add to row and col scopes for screen readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • {{harvnb}} doesn't come with a period on the end. Seeing as it'd be about sixty or seventy citations to add full stops to, I'll do it when I wake up this afternoon; I've been up most of the night in any case. Sceptre (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: spotcheck of sources still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck of all online sources (50/182)

  1. 103) Article: "Ian Berriman of science fiction magazine SFX gave the book five stars and wrote that it was the only book necessary to gain a knowledge of the show's production and secrets."
    Source: "You can douse all the other books about new Who in lighter fuel and spark up your Zippo – this is all you need. It’s the only one that opens a door into the brain of the series’ showrunner." Not in the source.
  2. 130) Article: "His most prolific cliffhanger was in the script of "The Stolen Earth", which created an unprecedented amount of interest in the show."
    Source: "More than 10million viewers are expected for tonight's finale of the latest Dr Who series amid anguished debate over whether David Tennant's Time Lord will be killed off." Does not say unprecedented in this source, would constitute OR.
  3. 135) Article: "The world without the Doctor creates a dystopia which he uses to provide a commentary on Nazi-esque fascism."
    This sentence is cited twice, thus this may not be a problem, but the internet link is to a script of the show; if the other reference does not explicitly state that it is a commentary on fascism, it could constitute OR.
  4. 136) Article: "Davies generally tries to make his scripts "detailed, but quite succinct", and eschews the practice of long character and set descriptions; instead, he limits himself to only three adjectives to describe a character and two lines to describe a set to allow the dialogue to describe the story instead."
    Source: "Really quite detailed, but very succinct." Also, I think "the practice" is unnecessary and not really talked about, more talk about what he does.
  5. 139) Article: "Torchwood also tackles LGBT themes by subverting stereotypes and exploring the characters' sexualities"
    Source says nothing about stereotypes; closest it gets is "I want to knock down the barriers so we can't define which of the characters is gay."
  6. 142, 145, 147, 149, 153, 154 (all are links to BAFTA site) dead links

Recommend further source review of printed materials --ClayClayClay 08:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

    • Hey:
      • Changed.
      • Changed.
      • The line "That's what they called him last time" is a direct reference to the Holocaust (although that can be inferred without RSes—Rusty was never that good with allegory—the magazine does support the assertion).
      • Changed.
    • I'm going to have a closer look at the source to see exactly what he says; I believe there's some words in the interview to the effect that h*e wanted to prevent people from thinking "oh, this character is gay and he'll only sleep with men", to which I can't see any other interpretation other than he wanted to subvert stereotypes.
      • I'll fix that momentarily.
    • I'll pop back in an hour or so, which should give me time to do the rest. Sceptre (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. :) Sceptre (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Struck through my previous comments - all have been taken care of. I especially liked what you did with the AfterElton reference and expanding its coverage a bit. One question now, unrelated to spotchecking: did you mean to remove the Recognition section header? ClayClayClay 02:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Turning Point (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... its failed 3 nominations due to lack of support. I think it meets the criteria. I'll review for a review. You want me to review an article you got up, I'll do a deep review for a review of this one.--WillC 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments: I just went through and did some copy editing, feel free to revert any of my changes if you think they made things worse. The prose seemed ok to me (I'm not the best judge though). There were a couple sentences that I thought needed some more help:
  • "This followed later with Styles missing a pele kick on Sting, which allowed him to pin Styles with a small package to retain the championship."
  • "The number the participant was eliminated determined his ranking in getting a future TNA X Division Championship match, in storyline." Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • All comments have been fixed and your copyedit improved the article in my opinion.--WillC 14:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No one wishes to give comments I gather? I'm expecting this to be closed soon. Guess I'll have to renominate it again.--WillC 06:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am disinclined to close a FAC for lack of review so many times, so this one can sit here a bit longer until some kind person decides to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright, good. I don't want to have to nominate this a fifth time anyway. Anything I can do to get that review? I don't mind reviewing another article for one or something along those lines.--WillC 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Media review

—Andrewstalk 00:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

All fixed.--WillC 05:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Turning Point (2008).jpg still needs a bit of work. See WP:FUR for what should be included. —Andrewstalk 05:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not exactly sure what else to do. It had a different Fair use explanation, but another Media reviewer came through and changed it during the first or second review.--WillC 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess the poster is the primary visual image for the 2008 Turning Point? Say so. Describe why the non-free content it is needed in the article, and how it significantly enhances readers' understanding. —Andrewstalk 05:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I gave it a shot.--WillC 07:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Still not quite there (IMO). See File:Wonder World Tour poster.png for an example. —Andrewstalk 09:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I looked and took a few lines from its purpose of use if that is alright to help better the understanding of use.--WillC 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Great. —Andrewstalk 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on criterion 3 only. —Andrewstalk 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Please check my edits. The prose is a bit slack in places, have a careful read through to see if there is any redundancy or lack of clarity.
  • I'll look through, not sure if I'll see anything. I've looked it over so many times nothing pops anymore.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • first event under the name to take place in November. It was originally scheduled to take place in December, but TNA moved the event to November in late 2008 for an unknown reason — why is this notable enough for the lead?
  • I'd assume the date being changed somewhere around a month before it took place would be notable enough for the lead. Also considering, Turning Point was an annual December event since 2004. This being the one to break that and set a new consistency with future events.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • a 7 out of 10 — why "a"?
  • Makes it sound a bit better. "rated 7 out of 10" sounds odd compared to "rated a 7 out 10."--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • on-screen co-owner (twice) — I don't understand why he's only co-owner when he's on-screen. Needs clarifying or correcting.
  • Had to do with a storyline that started at the same time that would be pointless to explain in this article. Mick Foley was announced on the October 23 episode of Impact!" that he had bought half the shares of TNA from Jeff Jarrett, becoming part owner. It was pure storyline. I could change it to "storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley" or "co-owner of TNA Mick Foley, in storyline,..."--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hall, however, legitimately no-showed the event citing "food poisoning" as a result, leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse — two "legitimately", who decides legitimacy?
  • Removed the first one, its kind of redundant. Its due to reports that come out at the time. It was publicized at how angry Joe was viewing from his actions on the show. Since I have expanded Turning Point (2007) roughly.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Jarrett, however, recommended Abyss as Angle's opponent, who was standing behind Angle in the ring and was a casualty of Angle's the previous week — confusing, at one point I thought Angle was standing behind himself!
  • I agree, poorly written by myself. Redone--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Storm spat beer in Sabin's face, which led to Beer Money gaining the pinfall — the cause and effect isn't obvious to me
  • Worked on it a bit, tried to update it. Hopefully its fixed.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright I will handle these sometime tomorrow.--WillC 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy with the changes, and the points that you haven't accepted are individual style preferences. FWIW, one way of explaining material without disrupting the text is to use footnotes, as in this current FAC. It's particularly helpful when what might be obvious to an American fan is less clear to a Brit non-aficionado. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments they were greatly and I mean greatly appreciated. Made my day when I saw them. Been waiting so long for them and your support. WP:PW is all about explaining out to the uninformed reader. I will definitely take a look into the footnotes idea when I (massively) re-write Sacrifice (2008) for my next FAC nomination.--WillC 12:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - Based on prose only. Presuming prior FAC attempts validated the sources, images etc. --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Noleander :

  • Overall, the prose is workmanlike. I wouldn't call it scintillating, but on the other hand I'm hard-pressed to identify shortcomings.
    • Worked on it around 2 years ago. Was my best then. Wrote better since. Was hoping the FAC would help improve it. Not had that many reviews.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Prose: "The match came down to Lethal and Young, which Young won ... ". Seems like "which" is modifying the noun closest: Young. But I think it is intended to modify "match". Perhaps reword
    • Done--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Prose: " The match was announced as following lucha libre tag team rules, where a participant could ...". Use of "where" in that manner is a bit too informal for an encyclopedia. Re-word?
    • Done, switched to "in which".--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Term: "domestic buyrate" - what is that?
    • I do believe it means origin country buyrate. I rarely include buyrates as they are rare to find. I just placed in what the ref said.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Term: "The build to the encounter between .." - "Build up" is more conventional, but maybe "build" without the "up" is wrestling argot?
    • Tried to make it sound more formal or "production based", in order to get away from the wrestling aspect of storylines and make it more about the event. Like the Superbowl being about the event and telecast more than just football idea. How so much is brought into the overall process. Thats why I used "build" as a means of showing the way they promoted the event, than the event promoting the storylines which is how most events are written these days it seems.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Italics? DVD: "... as part of the "TNA Wrestling: Cross The Line Vol. 2" box set, ..." If that is a DVD title, maybe it should be italicized. Not sure about that.
    • Never been brought up before I think I checked Italics not long ago, never saw anything about it.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Spell check - I ran it through a spell checker, and it looks good.
    • I spell check everything after I finish an article to make sure.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Spot checks on sources: I looked at 3 of the sources, and they were consistent with the associated material. Was a more thorough spot check done in one of the prior FACs?
    • Yeah, I do believe 2 have been done.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward support: If the above items (from myself and Jimfbleak) are addressed, I would Support.
    • Alright, your choice on whether you wish or not. I do believe all comments for both have been addressed.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a spotcheck of this article's sources. Ucucha (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Spot check of a few random sources (out of 38 total footnotes) by Noleander:

  • FN 4:
Result: Validated
Article: "On the first day of 2008, TNA updated their official website to publicize the official dates for all of their PPV events to take place that year."
Source: [dated 1 Jan 2008] .. contains a list of event dates
  • FN 12:
Result: Validated.
Article: "Sting's and Styles' rivalry soon escalated to a point where storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley announced on the October 30 episode of TNA's television program TNA Impact! that the two would fight for the championship at Turning Point"
Source: "Mick Foley entered the Impact Zone and talked about the new remodeling that was done. Foley talks about voting and TNA in HD. He announced two big main events for Turning Point which include, Kevin Nash vs. Samoa Joe and Sting defending the TNA Heavyweight Championship against AJ Styles. "
  • FN 14:
Result: Partially validated. But "history of no-showing" not found in source.
Article: "Hall, however, missed the event citing "food poisoning", leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse; Hall has a history of no-showing events."
Source: "As the afternoon progressed and Hall wasn't answering his phone, a lot of concern grew within TNA that he was going to no-show. There was said to be hope as the PPV went live that he would eventually show up. However, Hall sent word that he had food poisoning and couldn't make it."
I expected this to come up. I could probably use a bio to source the extra part or just remove it. I was hoping it would fall under good faith or common sense, but that regarding wrestling. Its common sense in this world. Universal not really. So, its not that important, I might as well remove it. Its about the match, not Hall.--WillC 03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if there is an article about Hall, it belongs there. --Noleander (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, its been removed.--WillC 03:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 19:
Result: Validated.
Article: "Angered by Jarrett's refusal, Angle began assaulting several wrestlers in TNA to persuade Jarrett into accepting the challenge."
Source: "…Kurt Angle entered the Impact Zone and attacked David Penzer. ... Security and referees came out to stop the beating, but also wound up taking shots from Angle. Jeff Jarrett came out and told Angle to let it go. Angle said that he wanted a rematch .... Jarrett went nuts and went after Angle, but security held him back...." [much more detail in source]
  • FN 20:
Result: Validated
Article: "On the October 23 episode of Impact!, Angle challenged Jarrett again to a rematch, which Jarrett again refused."
Source: " Borash asked Jarrett if he will give Kurt Angle the rematch against him that he wants. Jarrett said he doesn't always get all he wants in life, but he'll get over it. He said Angle will get over never getting a rematch. He said he has business to take care of, so he had to leave."
  • FN 23:
Result: source not available.
Article: "The event featured employees other than the wrestlers involved in the matches. There were four overall commentators for the event; Mike Tenay and Don West provided English commentary, while Hector Guerrero and Willie Urbina served as the Spanish announce team."
  • FN 24:
Result: Validated, if "Gore" is a high-angled attack
Article: "… and came to a finish when Rhino pinned Bashir after a high-angled tackle."
Source: "Bashir settled in the ring into a chinlock at 6:00. Rhino came back at 8:00 with a spinebuster. Bashir got upset with the ref and spit at him. Rhino then surprised with him a lousy looking Gore for the win."
  • FN 38:
Result: Validated
Article: "Eric Young got his TNA X Division Championship match on the November 13 episode of Impact! against then-champion Sheik Abdul Bashir."
Source: "Mick says he believes in second chances and then says that Eric Young earned a shot at the X-Division Champion."

End of Noleander source spot check. --Noleander (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

  • See MOS#Images; avoid referring to images as being on the left or right.
    • Alright, removed only issue. However, I'm a bit confused how I'm going to be able to convey to a reader who Storm or Roode is in that picture?--WillC 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You can distinguish them by things like "wearing hat", for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The reliability of some sources was queried at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive3 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2; have those been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I do believed that was handled on the first review, NikkiMaria voted Neutral and left it up to future reviewers. Other than that, I believe all other issues have been solved or at least attempted to be solved by me to the full extent.--WillC 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The last review (archive 3) queried two sources, that appear unresolved at the end of that review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Same sources that were brought up in the first and second reviews. It appeared it was more of a refresh rather than an issue. She never replied even after contacting that I recall. The first one is owned by Discovery while the second covers minor information such as attendance and match times. That sites gets its information from books, magazines, tapes, etc.--WillC 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Turning Point (2008) was a" was it actually called "(2008)"? It doesn't look that way from the poster.
    • No, but its meant to differentiate between the events "Turning Point was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event..." makes it sound like it is the only event in the series.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe a US thing, but "under the Turning Point chronology " I would have thought it was "in" the chronology rather than "under" it....
    • Done--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Since you've just mentioned Canada, isn't it worth clarifying that " Phil Allely of The Sun " is a UK-based thing?
    • Well the first is because that is the name of the company, but for the sake of it, fixed.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No need to link rock music.
    • Fixed--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The promotional poster for the gathering was released some time prior through PPV providers featuring Mick Foley" -> "The promotional poster for the gathering, featuring Mick Foley, was released through PPV providers."
    • Done--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need the {{see also}} link to pro wrestling, that's already been linked to and isn't particularly specific to this section.
    • Part of the consensus at WP:PW.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • " leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse" if he had food poisoning, what made it legitimate to be "angered"?
    • I had a statement which explained this more, but it wasn't in the reference. It was believed by TNA this was an excuse and Joe believed it was as well. I felt the statement made that clear enough as is.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Joe and Nash's partnership seemed to come to a close after Nash disappeared from TNA television in mid-2008." -> "seemed to"? is that your opinion or is that a direct quote/ref?
    • Moreso, Common sense. He wasn't appearing on tv, so there could be no partnership between the two.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Check images have alt text.
    • Added--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • " (James Storm and Robert Roode; Pictured) " pictured no need for a capital P.
    • Fixed--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "was .5 above" ordinarily would expect 0.5 but perhaps this is a US thing.
    • Didn't see the point of the 0, there is always an invisible zero somewhere.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Table fails MOS:DTT, it's inaccessible to screen-readers and no real reason that the font size should be 85%.
    • First I've heard of this, I checked the link. It gave no information on what to change this too and I saw nothing on font size regulations. This is the same table that has been used for 4 years. I'm happy to change it, just don't know what to change it to.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
      • For starters, you'll need to add row and col scopes to allow screen readers to announce new rows/cols. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Alright, did first table, will do second if this is acceptable. In my opinion, it is a bit odd. Its kind of a reverse.--WillC 18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Spot on. It's designed to help screen readers so not sure why you'd think it was "odd" and a "reverse", but looking forward to you fixing up the next table. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Done, the old one just looked neater.--WillC 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought MOS said to avoid using # as a replacement for "number"?
    • Never heard of this before. Went and checked it says so, but that is for prose. Went ahead and changed it anyway.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "X Division rankings match eliminations" table, Eric Young isn't linked first time.
    • Went ahead and linked all names, since tables are exceptions to overlinking.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • We have not yet had reliability of sources cleared on this FAC-- I listed it at WT:FAC days ago as still needing a source check for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, first time I've heard of this. Its had several source checks in the past. None seem to be outstanding. All issues appear to have been met. I can explain source reliability if needed again. The Sun and Slam Sports should be obvious. Meanwhile, Pro Wrestling Torch is a leader in wrestling news, its pretty much number 2 next to Wrestling Observer/Figure Four. It has been running in several ways since the late 80s. Their information is determined with sources from inside the companies, through the wrestlers, road agents, etc, via interviews, inside tips, etc. WrestleView prints its information by relay from Wrestling Observer, TNA, or PWTorch. The main journalist Adam Martin has interviewed several within the industry and been interviewed by several magazines and radio shows due to his connection with wrestling. They publish stories that are backed up by various people, rather than speculate like other wrestling sites. TNA, Pro Wrestling History, and HowStuffWorks is all that is left. TNA is primary, HowStufWorks is own by Discovery so obvious, and Pro Wrestling History is minor covering attendance and match times which are not detrimentally important to the article. I could probably remove it if needed, but was used in Lockdown (2008) when it was passed.--WillC 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Reliability of sources
  1. There is nothing here to indicate reliability: http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/about.html Please review WP:V and WP:RS and explain what makes this source reliable, according to policy. — SandyGeorgia (16:51, January 24, 2012 ), — (continues after insertion below.)
    I'm already in the process of removing it to an extent. Its been a WP:PW thing to use it, I've disliked using it since I can't explain other than what I've been told so I've begun removing it with recent articles I've done such as Slammiversary (2005). I'm replacing the match times. The only thing it will be used for is attendance since the Impact! Zone is fed tourist from Universal Studios they always have the same number that its no longer posted by sites.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. There is nothing here that speaks to journalistic credentials or editorial oversight: http://www.wrestleview.com/info/staff.shtml Please explain what makes this a reliable source, according to policy.
  3. Here is one of many responses from WP:RSN about howstuffworks.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#HowStuffWorks.com Please address how that response relates to the text cited from this source in this article, specifically wrt the 1c requirement. Is it not possible to find a higher quality source to cover the text cited from this source? — SandyGeorgia (16:51, January 24, 2012 ), — (continues after insertion below.)
    How it relates, the source is meant to cover a breif idea of the topic of wrestling rather than covering the event. As said there it's "basically factual" and it "over simplifys things" which is exactly what its meant for, to simply the nature of wrestling. Besides it I only know to cite a book, but I know of no published material which explains wrestling reliably. None have been popular to come to mind which are considered good besides tons of bios. I could use Bret Hart's biography which I have so it would be possible. He explains wrestling in depth and would obviously be a credible source in the subject as he grew up in the world and his father was a promoter who trained wrestlers.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. I suspect there's a good chance that a case can be made that this source is reliable, but the case does need to be made, with respect to Wikipedia policy, not opinion: http://www.pwtorch.com/torchhistorypage.html Please make it.
    I'm going to cover this and WrestleView the best I can here. WP:PW has always had issues at explaining how sources are reliable, we've yet to convince anyone of a purely reliable source I know of besides published sources such as newspapers. As such it makes it difficult to use the self published idea. However, from what I know WrestleView should be considered reliable for the following. It is well established, as it has been around for over 12 years. They have an established staff that has gone through an application process. For a larger explanation see the one given by GaryColemanFan at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (2007)/archive2. That is pretty much all I know to say. Although, I have more info elsewhere. As I've seen several times other wrestling sites have mentioned Adam Martin, WrestleView, etc. However, they have not been proven so they are useless to mention. Just to make the argument though, referencing them would suggest WrestleView is seen as reliable, trustworthy, etc in the industry. Not sure if arguing that wrestlers have appeared on WrestleView's "radio network" would help justify, as I believe wrestlers would not be associating with an unreliable publication who can't get their facts straight. I've emailed the webmaster for information on their fact checking system and staff if it is anywhere on the website. I did discover a WrestleView history page, but its blank and supposed to be under renovation which has yet to be completed. Apparently it once existed. As for PWTorch, its a newsletter which has been running since 87. Wade Keller and James Caldwell have worked with the Wrestling Observer, ran by Dave Meltzer who has been interviewed and covered by Slam Sports, mentioned by wrestlers such as Bret Hart in his bio, featured in documentaries like Beyond the Mat, etc. If I can think of any other ways to prove the reliability of these sources I will. I'm looking for information on WrestleView.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a Dispatch that should help in your work: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. And here's a page from another Project that shows how to establish a self-published source as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright so I went through the article to see how important WrestleView is through it. Found a few that it could do without so they were removed. Also discovered a good amount of them aren't even by WrestleView themselves, they are repost from Wrestling Observer, PW Torch, and TNA which I believe would make them alright to use. The issue appears to be WrestleView rather than PW Torch. With the explanation given above on why WrestleView is creditable to use as well as now knowing that the information comes directly from known reliable sources, I believe the sourcing issue is solved now.--WillC 07:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I've done so much work on it in the past 4 months to make sure it meets the criteria this time-SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. The toolbox gives the wrong edit count; this is the article history. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • FN 7: can this be split? That's a huge page range for verification pursposes
    • It's all for the system requirements
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This? This?
    • They're notable-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I've never heard of any of them, and I spend even more time with video games than I do with Wikipedia (as if that were possible). That however, is a poor argument. A stronger argument is that none of those sites are built into the video game reviews template, and none have their own articles. It shouldn't be hard to find replacements from more notable sites, considering that this game was heavily, heavily covered. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, even if they are notable that doesn't matter - notability does not equal reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 23: formatting
  • BethBlog or Beth Blog? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Done, it was actually Bethesda Blog-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Image review - Nothing has changed since my last image review, so this is still good.
  • Comments A few things I'd change:
    • "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, with the remainder termed minor." - this statement, while correct as is, should specify that there is a difference between major and minor skills, or failing that, be removed from the lead. Consider "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, which improve quickly, with the remainder termed minor." or something else along those lines.
    • "praised for its impressive graphics at the time" in the lead - I would consider removing "at the time", as it's automatically implied. We don't dis on Halo 1 because Halo 3 had better graphics.
    • "Jauffre tells the player that the only way to close the gates permanently is to find someone of the royal bloodline to retake the throne and relight the Dragonfires in the Imperial City." - it needs to me mentioned that the Amulet of Kings is used to light the Dragonfires, thus implicitly informing readers unfamiliar with the game that the amulet is more than a MacGuffin.
    • Same section (generally) as the above quote, consider mentioning that Jauffre is the grand master of the Blades.
    • "Oblivion features dynamic weather and time, shifting between snow, rain, fog, and sunny and overcast skies, along with the darkening red sky near Oblivion portals." - the second half of the quote, after 'skies' is awkward, mostly because the way it is worded, it assumes that people would have already know about that feature.
    • "Wherever this was not possible, the screen displays a message stating "You cannot go that way, turn back". However, the team still built in viewable landscape several miles in." - the second half of the quote, starting with 'However' is awkwardly worded. Consider replacing "in" with "past the point in which the character can no longer proceed", or something less wordy than that but which conveys the same information.
    • "Soule had worked with Bethesda and Todd Howard back during the creation of Morrowind,..." - this sounds unprofessional. Consider removing the word "back"; I think that's all that's needed as the article has previously established that Morrowind came right before this game in the TES chronology.
    • "he soundtrack was generally positively received, with GSoundtracks awarding it 4/5 stars, calling it a "conventional but atmospheric fantasy score",[64] and Square Enix Music a 6/10, criticizing its "monotonous action tracks"." - Here we have a positive review and a mediocre review connected by an 'and'. I don't feel that structure works well. Consider using a 'however' or 'but' type connector (which will necessitate a bit of tweaking to at least the second sentence.
    • Most of the stuff in the "Further Reading" is either a) already entirely covered by the article, b) rendered incorrect by the article, or c) a boring stub written by someone know one's ever heard of about something no one really cares about. My recommendations: remove the 3rd, 7th, and 8th items on the list. The third is behind a freewall, and isn't worth getting an account for, and the 7th and 8th are kinda useless. Also, consider axing the whole section.
      • And done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That's it. In the future, please remember that the audience hasn't necessarily played the game you're writing about, you can't make leaps of inferrance that assume that they know the game. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Media comments: I think these issues need addressing

  • 5 non-free media is a lot to me (File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg seems like it offers least to the article).
  • I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use.
    • done-SCB '92 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • By resize, I meant reduce the size of the uploaded files, rather than the displayed size in the article (Personally, I rarely adjust the size in articles because the default works best). I think 460×345 is a little too big for fair use. If you don't have the software to do this, you can tag the image with {{Non-free reduce|type=screen}} for a bot to take care of it in a week or so. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
        • (edit conflict) Put them back to the size they were before please. There are numerous reasons to have them in the standard thumbnail size (primarily because at the smaller size, you can see so little that the images are essentially useless). If you happen to be talking about the dimensions of the images themselves, as the person that did the resizings, I can tell you that they are the right size; they're under the limit by 43,100 pixels. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Undone; so I guess guyinblack's comment "I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use" is contradicted by Sven Manguard?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaning toward support—I reviewed this article during the PR and I believe that most of my concerns were addressed. It seems to be in good shape overall, and it stands up fairly well to a direct comparison with the The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind article. However, there are a few elements of the latter that should perhaps be covered in the former. For example, the Morrowind article describes how skills are improved, whereas Oblivion does not. The primary editor may want to compare the two and see how the Oblivion article may be improved. Otherwise, I think this article is FA worthy. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the GameBanshee and GamesFirst articles are transcripts of an interview; I think I saw somewhere in Wikipedia (might be a GAR) where a YouTube video (unreliable source) was used as a reference and it was okay because it was a recording of an interview-SCB '92 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Article is pretty good, but I have a gripe with the reviews box in the Reception section. I assume someone mentioned this before in a previous nomination. It's a really big box. I support the usage of the template when used sparingly, when scores are only included when mentioned in the text, etc. but this box is really wide. For people with smaller screens than your typical 21", it's gonna take up half the article width (which it does for me; even though I have a large screen, I shrink the article width to a readable size). I assume that the three system scores for GameSpot are on one line so that the box isn't too long, but if the Awards were removed, then it would be a more manageable size. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • So just to be clear, do you want the reviews box changed to a different template, eg the VG Reviews one?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't remove the awards, all of the award winning articles I've seen have had the lists of awards. You can, however, add the collapse functionality (where the word "[hide]" appears) to the template, which I see as a good compromise between retaining the information and making the article as readable as possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • SCB- switching to {{Video game reviews}} would provide the hide function that Sven is talking about. (Guyinblack25 talk 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC))
          • done-SCB '92 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, looks much better, in both small- and large-width browsers. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw GameBanshee being used twice as a reference in the BioShock article, which is an FA; why shouldn't this article use it as a reference?-SCB '92 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the best argument to use a reference. Standards were different, doesn't look like much of a source check was done, etc. The interview does look really useful, though. And if it's owned by UGO, then that's a plus... Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
So do you think GameBanshee should be kept as a source, along with GamesFirst, as the articles are exclusive interviews with Bethesda Softworks' producer Gavin Carter; and also, do you currently support or oppose the article to become an FA-SCB '92 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable source to use, I guess, but WP:RS is not really my field, especially here at FAC. And you can't really pressure me to vote one way or the other; I'll do so if and when I do a thorough review. Others will do so when they feel like they're satisfied with their assessment of the article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: So I think the references to GameBanshee, Game Chronicles and GamesFirst should stay because they are exclusive interviews with Gavin Carter; there's an argument about the audio sample—though I think it's easier to remove it altogether—and there's also an argument about the size of the uploaded images; I'm also trying to find a source to replace TweakGuides.com-SCB '92 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - contingent on no more file related changes being made. My prose concerns have been addressed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Comments - reading through now and will make straightforward changes as I go. Will jot queries below as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
...was released in September 2007 for Windows PCs, the Xbox 360, and the PlayStation 3, PCs is plural yet next two are singular. Best to keep all singular (unless I am missing something?)
...The game had shipped 1.7 million copies by April 2006, and sold over three million copies by January 2007 _ I think I'd change the "three" to a "3" to conform with previous number.

Overall, in pretty good shape prose and comprehensiveness-wise. Very nearly over the line. Not seeing any deal-breakers prose-wise though have a seanking suspicion some more massaging of prose would be good. I'll scour it again to see if I can see anything else actionable and will support if I don't Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support A good read. I especially enjoyed the development section and the balanced views in the reception section. I made a few edits but other than that I think the article meets the Featured Article criteria. Tango16 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I'll wait to support/oppose, as I'm still reading though the article. In the meantime, here are issues that stood out to me. There are some prose issues that I think are problematic.

  • Infobox
    • I recommend alphabetizing the platforms.
    • There seems to be a lot of detail in here for something that is suppose to summarize. I think the following info should be removed.
      • First person and third person views (The documentation at Template:Infobox video game states that such info is not intended to be here).
      • DVD-DL adds little here and is better explained in the development section. The layman is largely ignorant to the difference between single and dual layer DVDs.
  • Lead
    • Some sentences look almost copy and pasted from content in the article. I recommend using more of a summary style while mixing in appropriate synonyms.
    • The sentences is awkward: "A PlayStation 3 (PS3) release was shipped..." I would switch out "release" with "version" or something similar. "Release" and "shipped" sound redundant. Also, I don't believe "was" is needed.
    • The fourth sentence in the second paragraph is long and the comma usage can create confusion. I recommend either splitting it up or mixing in different punctuation like parenthesis or a semicolon.
    • The second to last sentence of the fourth paragraph has a similar problem.
    • I don't think the layman will understand what "fully voiced dialog" means. Perhaps a different wording?
  • Gameplay
    • This section (mostly the second paragraph) seems to go into more detail than is necessary and borders on game guide content. I suggest trimming and summarizing more.
    • This section switches between "players" and "player". I think that one should be used for consistency's sake. Also, I see "their" used with the singular "player", which I believe is frowned upon. Don't know for certain though.
    • What does "they" refer to in this sentence "Each time the player improves their major skills by a total of ten points, they level up", the player or the skills?
  • Plot
    • There were a few instances of "their" used as singular pronoun. See above points.
  • Development
    • I think the first paragraph would flow better if the third and fourth sentence started the paragraph.

I'll post more comments once I get further through the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC))

Here are more comments. I've also made some copy edits to fix some minor issues that stood out to me.
  • Game world
    • I would explain the user interface some in the screenshot.
    • I think that this section requires some technical knowledge to full understand it, and I think some context and rewording would benefit the layman. Some examples are below; more are in the article though.
      • This phrase may need some context: "a shift of graphical focus from water to flora".
      • I'd wikilink Lich and Skeleton (undead).
      • Maybe wikilink view distance to Draw distance.
      • This phrase doesn't make sense: "Wilderness quests ... were added to fill surplus space." Perhaps "Wilderness that players can perform quests in"?
  • Additional content
    • The last paragraph get repetitive with all the release dates. I recommend write some of the sentences with different structures or see if you can summarize/consolidate the information.
  • Reception
    • The review scores inconsistently specify which platform version was reviewed. I recommend using {{Video game multiple console reviews}} to make this more clear.
      I'd rather not, because a couple of the publications used (PC Gamer, Official Xbox Magazine) makes it obvious what platform they are giving scores two, and other publications have given the same score for all the platforms (1UP.com gave all A's, GameSpy gave all 4/5 stars), and it's rather annoying to change the template a second time, especially with the fact that the other template doesn't have an awards section;p GameSpot is really the only one at fault here for inconsistency, excluding the aggregators, so I could replace it with another publication-SCB '92 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      The template documentation doesn't specify that it can handle awards, but it uses the exact same ones the main template does. See Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time#Reception. IGN has different scores as well. Between that, GameSpot, and the aggregators, I think the information warrants a format that will present it better. I also think that the extra width will prevent the cell bloating in the awards section. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
      Ok, I changed it-SCB '92 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
      But now, the review score and publication of PC Gamer US doesn't display; I'm pretty sure I encoded it correctly (PCGUS_PC)-SCB '92 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
      You did. The template was missing the necessary code to process the parameter though. Someone must have added it to the documentation but not the template. I added it to the template and it is working now. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
    • This section relies a lot on full quotes. I personally prefer more summary style.
  • Further reading
    • Is there a reason why the font size is smaller here? I've seen it regular size before and assumed that was the standard formatting.
The article making good progress, but I think further copy editing is needed. I'll check back in later to review the sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC))
Addressed most of the issues, though you have already addressed some of the issues yourself that you listed-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I did some copy editing, but anything I listed above in the second round I did not do like the multiple console review template and rewrites to the "Game world" section. I hope to post comments about the references later today. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC))
Reference comments
  • Inconsistency
    • Magazines like GamesTM and PC Gamer need the publisher listed.
    • Some publishers are wikilinked but others are not. I would remove all but the first instance to avoid overlinking
    • GameSpot UK is still GameSpot. Not a big deal though.
    • "videogamer.com" should be "VideoGamer.com"
    • Staff is used a few times when there is no author listed. It should be in every instance or unused.
      • Changed to unused-SCB '92 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • Game Banshee
    • Game Chronicles
    • Game First!
      • Like I wrote back in 20 November 2011: "I think the references to GameBanshee, Game Chronicles and GamesFirst should stay because they are exclusive interviews with Gavin Carter"; even though they're possibly unreliable sources, couldn't this be an exception?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The VG project no longer considers MobyGames reliable. If another source cannot be found, then the content should be removed.
The article has really improved. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC))
Comments by DarthBotto
  • Infobox
    • Everything seems to be in order; I especially like that this portion of the page doesn't link the Bethesda article twice. It might just be my personal prerogative and inclination, but I would rather not resort to the Development section for the technical aspects, as I prefer to see everything in a uniformed template. But, that might just be my aesthetic choice, as I was opposed to the Infobox Film template that saw to remove the sequels and prequels.
  • Lead
    • I tweaked the introductory sentence, because there was an awkward adjective involved, but other than that, the writing should suffice for a Feature Article.
    • However, I detest the fact that there are no references involved in the lead, which takes away from my belief in the integrity of the page, as it's not tied down completely right there.
      • It is optional to use citations in the lead, and most of the time unnecessary in video game articles, as it summarises the main body of the article, and is mostly used if sentences are not mentioned in the main body of the article, and is better not to have citations in the lead overall (see the lead in the Perfect Dark article)-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Gameplay
    • "Character development is a primary element of Oblivion." - This sentence seems to be hanging there and detracts from the quality of the page.
    • Having every element in parentheses seems redundant and may insult the reader.
    • Look to replace the "can's" with "may's"; it improves the sentence flow.
  • Plot
    • "Oblivion is set after the events of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, though it is not a direct sequel to it or any other game." - How, exactly?
    • Other than that, this is the smoothest section of the article.
  • Development
    • I believe there should be concentration upon making the sentences flow in a cohesive manner, because they seem to be floating, if you will.
    • Game world
      • This section works perfectly for a Featured Article; it gets to the point, includes a decent accompanying image, and is substantial.
    • Additional content
      • Same story as the last one; it works very well.
  • Audio
    • Can this lead be expanded with another paragraph, possibly?
    • Soundtrack
      • This seems fine, but I think an image of the album cover to accompany the track info would do well here.
  • Reception
    • Much like the system requirements and the soundtrack cover, I can only suggest an aesthetic change; Could the star rating be implemented, or is that even applicable in this case?
      • I put in the star rating for GameSpy-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Rating change
    • This part seems in order.
Verdict
Support - I've concluded that this article is just about ready. However, I would like my suggestions taken into account and see this article looked at for improvement, as it still is not perfect yet. DarthBotto talk•cont 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a spotcheck of this article's sources. Ucucha (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it use {{plainlist}} instead of those <br /> separated lists in the infobox? --Locos epraix 03:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

  • Five uses of the word "release" in as many sentences in the second paragraph of the lead-- please attempt more variety in the prose, to be more engaging.
  • ... efforts to thwart a fanatical cult know as "The Mythic Dawn" that plans to open the gates to a realm called Oblivion. Why the quotes on "The Mythic Dawn", and the inconsistency in the subsequent "Oblivion". One in quotes, one not.
  • "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, which improve quickly, with the remainder termed minor." I do not know what this means-- skills always improve quickly, for every player? I betcha they wouldn't for me :)
  • Sentence in the lead:

    In order to achieve its goals of designing "cutting-edge graphics" and creating a more believable environment, Bethesda used of an improved Havok physics engine, high dynamic range lighting, procedural content generation tools that allowed developers to quickly create detailed terrains, and the Radiant A.I. system, which allows non-player characters (NPCs) to make choices and engage in behaviors more complex than in past titles.

    1.  ?? To achieve cutting-edge graphics and a believable environment ?? (redundant prose)
    2. Bethesda used of an ?? Grammatical error in the lead after months at FAC?
    3. that allowed, which allows ... change in tense?

Article needs a more indepth look at prose. Also, there is collapsed text in several sections, and punctuation review on image captions is needed (see WP:MOS#Captions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed your issues-SCB '92 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support - Oh no, this nom made it all the way to the bottom of the page before I got to reviewing it! You should go ask some of the people who commented but didn't support/oppose to come back and !vote. Anyways-

  • In the lead - "thwart a fanatical cult know as"
    • "known" as, how could I not notice that?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you really need a paragraph break after the first two sentences in the lead?
  • Is the official system reqs box really necessary? It's not used in other video game FAs/GAs. This type of thing is what SandyGeorgia is referring to with "collapsed text". The other collapsed text is the album tracklist, but I think that is too long to be left uncollapsed.
  • You don't need a period on the caption for the screenshot in "game world". There's no verb in the sentence.
  • I moved the album infobox up a bit to prevent whitespace at the end of the section on wide monitors.
  • Music- it's "Square Enix Music Online", not Square Enix Music.
    • added "Online"-SCB '92 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "and apply cunning in combat (through the use of a bow or in the way of a sneak attack)" - awkward, maybe "and apply cunning in combat (through the use of a bow or with a sneak attack)"?
  • "The game features improved artificial intelligence" - improved from what? (previous titles in the series)
  • "Content in the dungeons was more densely packed" - than what? and depending on the answer, possibly should be present tense (is)
  • Everything you say about the AI system is true, but I notice there's nothing about how they initially were hyping it up to be much more robust, but ended up cutting down the complexity as they couldn't get it to balance/be fun- ignore this if this was cut sometime during the past 5 FACs or if you couldn't find any sources on this.
    • is this really necessary?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not seeing as many problems in the body as Sandy found in the lead, so clear this up and I'll come back and support. Let's not have this go to a sixth FAC, hmm? --PresN 05:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, changed to Support. The AI thing isn't necessary, it was never a big deal, just wondering is all. --PresN 05:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: spotcheck of sources still pending, and there are numerous unresolved queries about reliability of sources in Nikkimaria's first post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I got rid of the sources of Gaming Nexus, TweakGuides and GSoundtracks; Firing Squad is reliable, discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness; the Square Enix Music source used is a review from a staff member of the site, which is considered reliable accroding to Guyinblack; for Game Chronicles, the "contact us" page shows that it is also a magazine, it states that "Over two million people visit Game Chronicles each month, making it one of the top independent gaming websites in the world, and one of the most trusted sources of PC and video game information on the Internet." it also states "We are 100% independent, and our media coverage is not influenced by advertising or corporate sponsorship", the source used is a transcript of an interview with the executive producer of Oblivion, Todd Howard; the GamesFirst! source used is also a transcript of an interview with Gavin Carter, a producer for Bethesda, and in their "About" pagehere, they state that "GamesFirst! is a longstanding independent online videogame magazine"; GameBanshee is owned by UGO Networks, a reliable source; the rest of the sources used in the article, mainly IGN, GameSpot and GameSpy, are reliable-SCB '92 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=473979798"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages